From amedinagomez at gmail.com Mon Aug 5 08:55:22 2013 From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=F3mez?=) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 07:55:22 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] IGF Bali In-Reply-To: References: <51FAE664.10104@cdt.org> Message-ID: Very Good News. Antonio Medina Gòmez Asociación Colombiana de Usuarios de Internet 2013/8/5 Donny B.U. > please use google translate :) > > -dbu- > > > On Monday, August 5, 2013, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > >> Just got this news from a friend that its now official that IGF Bali will >> be organized as planned. >> >> >> http://m.kominfo.go.id/berita/detail/4095/Siaran+Pers+No.+61-PIH-KOMINFO-8-2013+tentang+Indonesia+Bersama+Komunitas+Internet+Multi-Stakeholder+Global+Siap+Menjadi+Tuan+Rumah+IGF+2013+-+Bali >> >> Congratulations everyone, who have been working very hard behind the >> scenes to make it happen. >> >> More power to you all, >> >> Best wishes and regards >> Shahzad >> >> > > -- > e: dbu at donnybu.com | t: @donnybu | f: donnybu | w: donnybu.com | p: > +62818930932 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Aug 23 19:11:18 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2013 11:11:18 +1200 Subject: [bestbits] Important new joint submission to CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 23/08/2013, at 7:16 PM, genekimmelman at gmail.com wrote: > I hope we will reconsider use of the word tyrannical to describe any regime or action. If our goal is to make a strong statement and express some kind of parallelism between vastly different countries, it may be more effective to use a less provocative word. > Maybe something that conveys disrespect for human rights principles? Thanks for this feedback. Would it be OK if we just delete the second "tyrannical" leaving it as follows: "And whilst the UN is characterised by some as being a haven for tyrranical regimes, the United States itself is widely criticised as having infringed global human rights norms through its global surveillance practices, and for its pursuit of whistleblowers such as Edward Snowden for exposing such practices." -- 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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From genekimmelman at gmail.com Sat Aug 24 02:34:49 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2013 08:34:49 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Important new joint submission to CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation Message-ID: That's fine by me,  but also willing to describe tyrannical regimes simply as regimes that have no respect for human rights principles.  -------- Original message -------- From: Jeremy Malcolm Date: To: genekimmelman at gmail.com Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Important new joint submission to CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation On 23/08/2013, at 7:16 PM, genekimmelman at gmail.com wrote: I hope we will reconsider use of the word tyrannical to describe any regime or action.  If our goal is to make a strong statement and express some kind of parallelism between vastly different countries,  it may be more effective to use a less provocative word.  Maybe something that conveys disrespect for human rights principles?  Thanks for this feedback.  Would it be OK if we just delete the second "tyrannical" leaving it as follows: "And whilst the UN is characterised by some as being a haven for tyrranical regimes, the United States itself is widely criticised as having infringed global human rights norms through its global surveillance practices, and for its pursuit of whistleblowers such as Edward Snowden for exposing such practices." --  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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Aug 24 04:33:10 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2013 14:03:10 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Important new joint submission to CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52186FC6.4030006@itforchange.net> On Saturday 24 August 2013 12:04 PM, genekimmelman at gmail.com wrote: > That's fine by me, but also willing to describe tyrannical regimes > simply as regimes that have no respect for human rights principles. also, instead of calling the UN as haven for such regime, better to say being prone to be influenced by..... or 'the membership includes....' > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Jeremy Malcolm > Date: > To: genekimmelman at gmail.com > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Important new joint submission to CSTD Working > Group on Enhanced Cooperation > > > On 23/08/2013, at 7:16 PM, genekimmelman at gmail.com > wrote: > >> I hope we will reconsider use of the word tyrannical to describe any >> regime or action. If our goal is to make a strong statement and >> express some kind of parallelism between vastly different countries, >> it may be more effective to use a less provocative word. >> Maybe something that conveys disrespect for human rights principles? > > Thanks for this feedback. Would it be OK if we just delete the second > "tyrannical" leaving it as follows: > > "And whilst the UN is characterised by some as being a haven for > tyrranical regimes, the United States itself is widely criticised as > having infringed global human rights norms through its global > surveillance practices, and for its pursuit of whistleblowers such as > Edward Snowden for exposing such practices." > > -- > > *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 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge > hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From genekimmelman at gmail.com Sat Aug 24 04:45:08 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2013 10:45:08 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Important new joint submission to CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation Message-ID: I like Parminder's suggestion -------- Original message -------- From: parminder Date: To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Important new joint submission to CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation On Saturday 24 August 2013 12:04 PM, genekimmelman at gmail.com wrote: That's fine by me,  but also willing to describe tyrannical regimes simply as regimes that have no respect for human rights principles. also, instead of calling the UN as haven for such regime,  better to say being prone to be influenced by..... or 'the membership includes....' -------- Original message -------- From: Jeremy Malcolm Date: To: genekimmelman at gmail.com Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Important new joint submission to CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation On 23/08/2013, at 7:16 PM, genekimmelman at gmail.com wrote: I hope we will reconsider use of the word tyrannical to describe any regime or action.  If our goal is to make a strong statement and express some kind of parallelism between vastly different countries, it may be more effective to use a less provocative word.  Maybe something that conveys disrespect for human rights principles?  Thanks for this feedback.  Would it be OK if we just delete the second "tyrannical" leaving it as follows: "And whilst the UN is characterised by some as being a haven for tyrranical regimes, the United States itself is widely criticised as having infringed global human rights norms through its global surveillance practices, and for its pursuit of whistleblowers such as Edward Snowden for exposing such practices." --  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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Sat Aug 24 05:22:25 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2013 21:22:25 +1200 Subject: [bestbits] Important new joint submission to CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9B3385F9-DCC1-44C2-82D5-3C7E8E7D809B@ciroap.org> On 24/08/2013, at 8:45 PM, genekimmelman at gmail.com wrote: >> >> also, instead of calling the UN as haven for such regime, better to say being prone to be influenced by..... or 'the membership includes....' >> > I like Parminder's suggestion This defeats the intent behind it though, which is not to say that the UN is a haven for tyrannical regimes, but that it is inevitably characterised as one by those who raise alarm bells whenever it is suggested that a UN body might take a role in Internet governance. Since some of those raising the alarm bells are also those practising their own human rights abuses, the original language sought to underline the irony of this. This parallel is now weakened, but I don't think we need to weaken it further by removing the already qualified statement that the UN is characterised "by some" as a have for tyrannical regimes, because this is part and parcel of the "UN takeover of the Internet" meme that we are offering a more nuanced alternative to. -- 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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From genekimmelman at gmail.com Sat Aug 24 05:28:16 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2013 11:28:16 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Important new joint submission to CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation Message-ID: <2dx48vqkxahgbrs7mtf47jcd.1377336496532@email.android.com> Yes I now see your point so if you prefer reference ti some that's fine -------- Original message -------- From: Jeremy Malcolm Date: To: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Bits" Subject: Re: [bestbits] Important new joint submission to CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation On 24/08/2013, at 8:45 PM, genekimmelman at gmail.com wrote: also, instead of calling the UN as haven for such regime,  better to say being prone to be influenced by..... or 'the membership includes....' I like Parminder's suggestion This defeats the intent behind it though, which is not to say that the UN is a haven for tyrannical regimes, but that it is inevitably characterised as one by those who raise alarm bells whenever it is suggested that a UN body might take a role in Internet governance.  Since some of those raising the alarm bells are also those practising their own human rights abuses, the original language sought to underline the irony of this.  This parallel is now weakened, but I don't think we need to weaken it further by removing the already qualified statement that the UN is characterised "by some" as a have for tyrannical regimes, because this is part and parcel of the "UN takeover of the Internet" meme that we are offering a more nuanced alternative to. --  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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jefsey at jefsey.com Sat Aug 24 09:46:00 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2013 15:46:00 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Important new joint submission to CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <9B3385F9-DCC1-44C2-82D5-3C7E8E7D809B@ciroap.org> References: <9B3385F9-DCC1-44C2-82D5-3C7E8E7D809B@ciroap.org> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jefsey at jefsey.com Sat Aug 24 20:47:46 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 02:47:46 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Important new joint submission to CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <20130820003728.8CDAC3F429D@a2knetwork.org> References: <52119C17.4040809@ciroap.org> <5211A2A5.3070301@itforchange.net> <20130820003728.8CDAC3F429D@a2knetwork.org> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Aug 25 02:38:32 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 12:08:32 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Latin America Condemns US Espionage at United Nations Security Council In-Reply-To: <026a01cea150$2b50bc10$81f23430$@gmail.com> References: <026a01cea150$2b50bc10$81f23430$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5219A668.1050709@itforchange.net> See in particular seeking of global standards for Internet regulation, and global means for prevention and sanctions regarding the the kind of things the NSA has been doing.... parminder *http://www.globalresearch.ca/latin-america-condemns-us-espionage-at-united-nations-security-council/5346120 Global Research August 17, 2013* Latin America Condemns US Espionage at United Nations Security Council *The foreign ministers of Brazil, Venezuela, Uruguay, Bolivia and Ecuador fiercely condemned the United States plan for worldwide espionage, which posed a lethal threat to the democratically elected governments of these Latin American nations and jeopardized their survival. By Carla Stea* / "The United States appears to be destined by Providence to plague America with misery in the name of liberty."/ Simon Bolivar Throughout the day, on August 6, President Cristina Fernandez Kirchner of Argentina chaired a historic United Nations Security Council meeting that revealed a seismic shift in geopolitical consciousness and incipient strength. The agenda of Security Council meeting 7015 was: /"Cooperation Between the United Nations and Regional and Sub-regional Organizations in Maintaining International Peace and Security."/ The prelude to this meeting was held, the prior day, August 5, at a press stakeout given by Elias Jaua Milano, Foreign Minister of Venezuela, Hector Timerman, Foreign Minister of Argentina, Antonio de Aguiar Patriota, Foreign Minister of Brazil, Luis Almagro, Foreign Minister of Uruguay and David Choquehuanca Cespedes, Foreign Minister of Bolivia. They spoke on behalf of Mercosur, the Southern Common Market, following their meeting with United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. Their remarks focused on the expression of outrage contained in the "Annex to the note verbale dated 22 July from the Permanent Mission of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General, which stated: "Decision rejecting the acts of espionage conducted by the United States in the countries of the region." "The President of the Argentine Republic, the President of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, the President of the Federative Republic of Brazil, the President of the Eastern Republic of Uruguay and the President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, having met in Montevideo, Eastern Republic of Uruguay, on 12 July, 2013, within the framework of the presidential summit of the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR), Condemning the acts of espionage carried out by intelligence agencies of the United States of America, which affect all countries in the region, Strongly rejecting the interception of telecommunications and the acts of espionage carried out in our countries, which constitute a violation of the human rights, the right to privacy and the right to information of our citizens, and which also constitute unacceptable behavior that violates our sovereignty and is detrimental to the normal conduct of relations among nations, Considering the advisability of promoting a coordinated approach to this issue at the regional level, Decide to: Work together to guarantee the cybersecurity of the States members to MERCOSUR, which is essential to defending the sovereignty of our countries, Demand that those responsible immediately cease these activities and provide an explanation of the motives for and consequences of such activities, Stress that the prevention of crime and the suppression of transnational crimes, including terrorism, must be carried out in line with the rule of law and in strict observance of international law. Promote the adoption by the relevant multilateral institutions of standards for the regulation of the Internet which place a particular emphasis on cybersecurity issues, with a view to fostering the adoption of standards that guarantee the adequate protection of communications, in particular to safeguard the sovereignty of States and the privacy of individuals, Express our full solidarity with all countries, within and outside our region that have been victims of such actions, Promote the joint efforts of the Ministers for Foreign Affairs to inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations of these incidents and request prevention and sanction mechanisms on the issue at the multilateral level Instruct the delegations of the Member States participating in the upcoming session of the United Nations General Assembly to jointly present a formal proposal to that end, Request the Argentine Republic to submit this matter to the Security Council for consideration, Agree to establish a working group to coordinate efforts, together with the South American Defence Council and the South American Infrastructure and Planning Council, aimed at carrying out activities that will render our telecommunications more secure and reduce our dependence on foreign technology." The morning session of the August 6 Security Council meeting consisted primarily of technical diplomatic presentations. Following Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's statement, Cuban Foreign Minister Rodriguez Parrella opened the meeting, as President of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC): "The history of Latin American and the Caribbean has changed. Two hundred years after our independence, the ideas of 'a Nation of Republics,' and of 'Our America' envisaged by Bolivar and Marti, respectively, are taking shape. Thus, our Heads of State and Government decided in the Caracas Declaration that 'in accordance with the original mandate of our liberators, CELAC must move forward in the process of political, economic, social and cultural integration -- based on a wise equilibrium between the unity and diversity of our peoples ...Upon founding CELAC, our Heads of State and Government reiterated our commitment to the building of a more just, equitable and harmonious international order based on respect for international law and the Charter of the United Nations. ...They reaffirmed our commitment to the defense of sovereignty and the right of any state to establish its own political system, free from threats, aggression and unilateral coercive measures, and in an environment of peace, stability, justice, democracy and respect for human rights. CELAC reiterates that there can be no lasting peace without development and the eradication of poverty, hunger and inequality ... CELAC has adopted a unanimous position with regard to some far-reaching topics on the international agenda, such as, for example, Argentina's legitimate claim in the dispute concerning the sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands, and -- today on the anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima -- on so-called nuclear disarmament." The representatives of other regional organizations, and the members of the Security Council delivered their statements throughout the morning session of the meeting When the Security Council resumed for the afternoon session, in a courageous and brilliant tour de force, the Argentine Presidency of the Security Council availed itself of the opportunity to publicly denounce espionage in the service of the resurgence of neo-liberal capitalist imperialism. In an unusual gesture of solidarity and support (considering that Heads of State chairing Security Council meetings seldom remain beyond a perfunctory appearance at the morning session), President Cristina Fernandez Kirchner, Foreign Minister Hector Timerman and Ambassador Maria Cristina Perceval were present throughout the afternoon, as the succession of dazzling speeches, delivered by the Latin American Foreign Ministers of Brazil, Uruguay, Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador illuminated the global menace threatened by the United States National Security Agency programs of surveillance of phone records, e-mails, web-browsing, those very programs disclosed by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. The foreign ministers of Brazil , Venezuela , Uruguay , Bolivia and Ecuador fiercely condemned the United States plan for worldwide espionage, which posed a lethal threat to the democratically elected governments of these Latin American nations and jeopardized their survival. It is not surprising that this expression of alarm was voiced by Latin America, from Argentina through Uruguay, Bolivia, Ecuador, Brazil, Venezuela -- in other words from the Southernmost tip of the huge southern continent to the Caribbean, for this continent, viewed imperialistically as the "backyard" of the United States, was for many tragic decades, crushed by military dictatorships inflicting state terror with impunity, following the blueprint of destabilization and overthrow, by the CIA and multinational corporate controlled entities, of their own democratically elected leaders. The tragic destruction of Latin America's democratically elected governments included President Arbenz in Guatemala, 1954; President Goulart in Brazil, 1964; President Juan Bosch in the Dominican Republic, 1965; President Torres in Bolivia, 1971; President Allende in Chile, 1973, and more recently the destabilizations of the democratically elected governments of Honduras and Paraguay (this is not a complete list) This more than half-century violation of the will of the people of Latin America, engineered by agencies of "the Colossus of the North" was a shattering trauma seared deeply into the consciousness of these leaders, whose recent triumph over fascist military dictatorships which were installed and supported by the United States, is a testament to their moral and intellectual strength and their passion for dignity and control over their own destinies. The Latin American governments speaking at the August 6 Security Council are like the canary in the coal mine: intensely alert and sensitive to imminent or potential threats of repetition of that horrific period they had endured and so recently overcome, these governments denounced widespread evidence of perilous subversive activity, the lethal consequences of which are predictable and terrifying. The August 6, 2013 afternoon session of the UN Security Council began with Mr. Antonio de Aguiar Patriota, Foreign Minister of Brazil, who stated, in English: "You, Madam President made my task easier by referring to the interception of communications and acts of espionage. Such practices violate sovereignty, harm relations between nations and constitute a violation of human rights, in particular the right to privacy and the right of our citizens to information. In that respect, you have complied with the decision of the States parties of the Common Market of the South (MERCOSUR) who met in Montevideo last month. Yesterday, the Foreign Minister of MERCOSUR conveyed to the Secretary-General the position of Argentina , Bolivia , Brazil , Uruguay and Venezuela with respect to and in compliance with, that decision. The matter will also be placed before various United Nations bodies, in accordance with the decision and the document circulated under the symbol A/67/946. This is a very serious issue with a profound impact on the international system. Brazil is coordinating with countries that share similar concerns for the benefit of an international order that respects human rights and the sovereignty of states. I welcome the timely statement made on 12 July by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms. Navi Pillay: 'surveillance programmes without adequate safeguards to protect the right to privacy actually risk impacting negatively on the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.' Pillay also mentioned Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Articles 17 and 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which established, respectively, that 'No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence,' and that 'Everyone has the right to protection of the law against such interference or attacks.' Brazil also associates itself with the repeated appeals by Ms. Pillay in various forums that efforts to combat terrorism must necessarily respect human rights and humanitarian law. Her position was incorporated into the decision of the Heads of State of MERCOSUR as well as the Presidential Statement (S/PRST/2013/12) adopted by the Council this morning... Mention should be made of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)... .a defense alliance that does not seem to frame its activities clearly under Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations and has made use of concepts and strategies that raise problematic and sensitive issues in terms of the articulation between the regional level and the United Nations system. We are concerned that, historically, leaders of NATO and member countries have considered that the organization does not necessarily require explicit authorization from the Security Council to resort to coercion. We are also concerned that NATO has loosely interpreted mandates for action aimed at promoting international peace and security authorized by the Security Council. As Brazil has maintained, including through the Brazilian concept of 'responsibility while protecting,' (S/2011/701, annex), the Security Council should avail itself of the institutional means of monitoring the adequate fulfillment of its mandates. We are concerned, as well that NATO has been searching to establish partnerships out of its area, far beyond the North Atlantic, including in regions of peace, democracy and social inclusion, and that rule out the presence of weapons of mass destruction in their territories. It would be extremely grave for the future of the articulation between regional and global efforts at promoting peace, as prescribed by the United Nations, if groups of countries started to unilaterally define their sphere of action beyond the territory of their own members." Next, Mr. David Choquehuanca Cespedes, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia spoke: "Preserving peace is not and will not be the result of the existence of international policemen, but rather as a result of the promotion of social justice, equity, complementarity, solidarity and respect between states......I should like to express our rejection and condemnation of the practice of espionage on the part of the United States. I should also like to express the grief and indignation of my people and my Government over the act of aggression experienced by President Evo Morales Ayma, which has been described by the international community as offensive, humiliating, discriminatory, colonialistic, unfriendly and a violation of human rights and international standards. Given the grave nature of these facts, we ask the United Nations to clarify these events and to take measures to guarantee human rights and international law so that no one will have to suffer such violations again." Next, His Excellency, Mr. Elias Jaua Milano, Minister of the People's Power for Foreign Affairs of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and Pro-Tempore President of the Common Market of the South (MERCOSUR) stated: "Today we join in the pleasure of the Bolivian people on its national holiday, and recall the commemoration of the 200 years of the triumphant entry of the liberator Simon Bolivar after having carried out a successful campaign that began in December of 1812 in New Grenada. We must always remember that, when united, we South Americans will achieve independence, equality and democracy for our peoples....Peace cannot be achieved in the world without social justice and without eradicating once and for all hunger, poverty, illiteracy, malnutrition and the wide technological divides, in other words, without guaranteeing to all the resources necessary for their full development in equal conditions....The instruments, declarations, decisions and resolutions of MERCOSUR have sought democracy and peace in the region, including by preventing coups and other attempts to frustrate the democratic will of our peoples, promoted by fascistic movements represented by political and economic leaders that are found particularly in media corporations. These movements attack democratic governments and peoples that have chosen the path of independence, social inclusion and the grass-roots democratization of our societies..... The timely and firm action of MERCOSUR along with other regional and subregional organizations, managed to stop attempted coups in Paraguay in 1996 and 1999, thereby guaranteeing democratic order. Similarly, in 2006 and 2007 MERCOSUR condemned and took action to prevent attempts to divide Bolivia as a way of weakening the democratic government of President Evo Morales. Likewise, the Foreign Ministers of the countries members of MERCOSUR condemned the attempted coup against President Rafael Correa in Ecuador on 30 September 2010, joining with other regional blocs to issue a joint warning to the world and prevent that crime from taking place. Although it could not be prevented, MERCOSUR acted decisively in the parliamentary coup against President Fernando Lugo of Paraguay in June, 2012. On that occasion the foreign ministers of MERCOSUR and UNASUR traveled to Asuncion with the intention of starting a dialogue and preventing the interruption of the constitutional order. That was not achieved, and the bloc had to temporarily suspend the Republic of Paraguay until its political, institutional and democratic situation was normalized through the holding of elections. More recently, MERCOSUR has been able to circumvent those situations with peaceful and democratic mechanisms, without economic blocades, military intervention, indiscriminate bombing or armed intervention of any kind. We believe that the only way to defeat violence is with greater democracy and peaceful means. Mercosur has also participated in issues that affect international peace and security, such as the coup in Honduras against President Zelaya... Unfortunately in recent times we have been concerned to see that some countries have continued to assert their political, military and economic power and distorted the very essence of cooperation between the United Nations and regional and subregional organizations. They have gone so far as to use the Security Council as a platform to encourage armed interventions against sovereign states and peoples with a view to promoting the poorly named regime change, in contravention of all principles of International Law... as Foreign Minister of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and as Pro-Tempore President of MERCOSUR I take this opportunity to reiterate our firm condemnation of the insult to the office of the President of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, President Evo Morales, when some European Governments did not permit the overflight or landing of the aircraft transporting him. That was not only a hostile, unfounded, discriminatory and arbitrary action, but also a flagrant violation of the precepts of international law." "Similarly, we reject the actions of global espionage carried out by the government of the United States , which undermine the sovereignty of States and which we have become familiar with through the revelations of the former security contractor, Edward Snowden. Given the seriousness of these reports of computer espionage on a global scale, recognized by the Secretary-General of the International Telecommunication Union himself, the United Nations must initiate a broad multilateral discussion that would make it possible to design agreements to safeguard the sovereignty and security of States in the light of such illegal practices. MERCOSUR has begun action to promote a discussion on this matter so that we can open an appropriate investigation within the United Nations and punish and condemn this violation of international law." "We reiterate our condemnation of actions that could undermine the power of States to fully implement the right of humanitarian asylum. In this respect, we reject any attempt to pressure, harass or criminalize a state or third party over the sovereign decision of any nation to grant asylum, which is enshrined in all international conventions. Likewise, we express our solidarity with the Governments of Bolivia and Nicaragua , which, like Venezuela , have offered asylum to Mr. Snowden, as expressed by the Heads of State of MERCOSUR in the decision concerning the universal recognition of the right of political asylum, issued in Montevideo on 12 July. These three matters were discussed yesterday with the Secretary-General of the United Nations" In her remarkable work, entitled "The Shock Doctrine, The Rise of Disaster Capitalism," (published in 2007) journalist Naomi Klein states, page 573: "Though clearly drawing on a long militant history, Latin America 's contemporary movements are not direct replicas of their predecessors. Of all the differences, the most striking is an acute awareness of the need for protection from the shocks of the past -- the coups, the foreign shock therapists, the U.S. trained torturers, as well as the debt shocks and currency collapses of the eighties and nineties. Latin America 's mass movements, which have powered the wave of election victories for left-wing candidates, are learning how to build shock absorbers into their organizing models. ... Latin America's new leaders are also taking bold measures to block any future U.S. backed coups that could attempt to undermine their democratic victories. The governments of Venezuela, Costa Rica, Argentina and Uruguay have all announced they will no longer send students to the School of Americas, the infamous police and military training center in Fort Benning, Georgia, where so many of the continent's notorious killers learned the latest I "counterterrorism" (torture) techniques, then promptly directed them against farmers in El Salvador and auto workers in Argentina....If the U.S. military does not have bases or training programs, its power to inflict shocks will be greatly eroded... Latin America's most significant protection from future shocks (and therefore the shock doctrine) flows from the continent's emerging independence from Washington's financial institutions, the result of greater integration among regional governments. The Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA) is the continent's retort to the Free Trade Area of the Americas , the now buried corporatist dream of a free-trade zone from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego.... Thanks to high oil prices, Venezuela has emerged as a major lender to other developing countries, allowing them to do an end run around Washington, and even Argentina, Washington's former 'model pupil' has been part of the trend. In his 2007 State of the Union Address (the late) President Nestor Kirchner said that the country's foreign creditors had told him, 'You must have an agreement with the International Fund to be able to pay the debt. We say to them, 'Sirs, we are sovereign. We want to pay the debt, but no way in hell are we going to make an agreement again with the IMF.' As a result the IMF, supremely powerful in the eighties, is no longer a force on the continent. In 2005 Latin America made up 80 percent of the IMF's total lending portfolio, in 2007 the continent represented just 1 percent -- a sea change in only two years. 'There is life after the IMF,' Kirchner declared, 'and it is a good life.'" Having resisted foreign (and domestic) military control, and foreign (and neoliberal) economic control, the new peril confronting Latin America's independent governments emanates from the United States' National Security Agency's electronic surveillance programs, an insidious new cyber-age method of total social control of the most private and intimate spaces of their lives -- and identities, their minds, destroying their capacity to forge networks of solidarity and obtain the information crucial to their understanding and critical thinking, without which they are vulnerable to being reduced to the condition of the "zombies" (so popular in Hollywood's movie narrative), rendering them confused, docile, easily herded, subjugated, ultimately exploited and enslaved. This surveillance is tantamount to imposing total individual and societal control, which is a stealthy form of isolation, a form of psychological and intellectual solitary confinement, one of the cruelest forms of torture, which ultimately leads to the disintegration of the human personality, within an invisible prison. This condition is described by the American Civil Liberties Union, and quoted in Charles Savage's August 8 report to The New York Times: "Hints of the surveillance appeared in a set of rules, leaked by Mr. Snowden, for how the NSA may carry out the 2008 FISA law. One paragraph mentions that the agency 'seeks to acquire communications about the target that are not to or from the target.' The pages were posted online by the newspaper The Guardian on June 20, but the telltale paragraph, the only rule marked 'Top Secret' amid 18 pages of restrictions, went largely overlooked amid other disclosures....While the paragraph hinting at the surveillance has attracted little attention, the American Civil Liberties Union did take note of the 'about the target' language in a June 21 post analyzing the larger set of rules, arguing that the language could be interpreted as allowing 'bulk collection of international communications, including those of Americans'....Jameel Jaffer, a senior lawyer at the ACLU said Wednesday that such 'dragnet surveillance will be poisonous to the freedoms of inquiry and association' because people who know that their communications will be searched will change their behavior. 'They'll hesitate before visiting controversial web sites, discussing controversial topics or investigating politically sensitive questions. Individually, these hesitations might appear to be inconsequential, but the accumulation of them over time will change citizens' relationship to one another and to the government.'" The infrastructure for de facto fascist police state and military control is being established under the guise of counterterrorism, (as, earlier, similar fascist states were established under the guise of fighting communism) a phenomena Latin America recognizes and knows from horrific historic experience. And their historic memory of this has not yet been expunged: indeed, many of the leaders of Latin America today were earlier imprisoned and tortured only a few decades ago under such fascist police and military states (established ostensibly in the name of anti-communism), including Chile's former, and possibly future President Michelle Bachelet, Brazil's President Dilma Roussef, Argentina's late President Nestor Kirchner, and the world famous father of Argentina's Foreign Minister Hector Timerman, the late Jacobo Timerman, imprisoned and tortured for two years during the Argentine military dictatorship's "dirty war." No doubt, Uruguay 's President Jose Mujica well remembers those horrors, and Chile 's former President Ricardo Lago spent considerable time in prison during the Pinochet dictatorship. Patino Aroca, Foreign Minister of Ecuador, next delivered, at the August 6 Security Council meeting, one of the great speeches in United Nations history. "During the recent summit of the Common Market of the South (MERCOSUR) that took place on 12 July in Montevideo, the States convened resolved to 'request Argentina to submit the matter of the massive espionage case uncovered by Edward Snowden for consideration by the Security Council.' They also resolved to 'demand that those responsible for those actions immediately cease therefrom and provide explanations of their motivations and their consequences.' In similar terms, the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America spoke at the last Guayaquil summit which was held just five days ago, when it was decided to 'warn the international community about the seriousness of these actions, which imply a threat to the security and peaceful coexistence among our States"... "Just a few weeks ago the world saw a sequence of events more akin to a Cold War spy novel than to modern times. On 5 June, leaks began to appear in publications in major global media outlets, leaks that were mixed with almost deathly intent and unspooled as a reality show before global public opinion. The leaks came from a former 29-year-old American analyst who sought to escape deportation to his country, where he would be tried for those leaks. After a journey that began in Hong Kong and was supposed to end in Latin America, today, it seems to have stopped, but it may not have completely run its course, despite the granting of asylum by Russia ." "During those few days in June we saw the size and the discretional nature of a massive surveillance apparatus that suddenly brought all the inhabitants of the planet closer than ever to an Orwellian nightmare. Although at first it appeared to be a simple matter of wiretapping, it was later discovered that there was discretionary monitoring of e-mails. While it seemed initially that the apparatus was being used in operations against organized crime, later we learned that it was also being used to gain advantage in trade negotiations with other countries. If we once thought that they were simply looking at unaffected States, we now know that everyone --- absolutely everyone, debtors and creditors, friends and enemies, South and North -- is considered a usual suspect by the authorities of the United States of America . Now we know that our communications are permanently monitored by them." "No one knows yet if Mr. Snowden will once again manage to leak information that he claims to possess. Of course, it seems that he will not do it when he is in Russia . In any case, the wounds opened by those events should be assessed within the main multilateral forums. They deserve to be so because not only do they reflect an unacceptable imbalance in the global governance system, which in no case would help to build a climate of trust and cooperation between countries, and, in the final analysis, a climate of peace among nations. They deserve to be assessed because we have also moved dangerously close to the limits set out by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights." "The imbalances to which I refer are clear -- the United States, like any other countries, has the need to deal with demands related to its national security, it goes without saying, but those legitimate demands must be dealt with in a way that does not affect the rights of individuals or indeed the sovereignty of other nations. That is to say, limits must be set. However, we are now faced with the fact that any limits there may have been have vanished. The national security of the United States has been placed above all universal moral values." "Such a drive has meant that the principles of equality and non-interference in the affairs of States, established in the Westphalia peace agreement, have now vanished into thin air. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been violated. The rights to the privacy of correspondence -- article 12 -- and to freedom of expression and opinion -- article 19 -- the rights of all citizens of the world, including United States citizens, have been trampled in the name of a greater goal, that is, national security -- or rather, for the sake of the profits of the national security industry." "What are the limits, really? Has the time not come for the Council to take up this question again and discuss it? In the end, does this not pose a threat to global peace? What mutual trust could possibly exist among nations under such circumstances? We believe that the time has come for the United Nations to face up to this matter responsibly." "As we have seen with the disappearance of such limits, this situation threatens to build walls between our countries. If it has not done so already, it could also affect international cooperation against organized crime; strangely enough, there is even the possibility that trade negotiations could be disrupted. Paradoxically, even the very national security of the United States will suffer from the increase in global mistrust generated by massive espionage." "The events to which I have referred have also revealed other very disturbing realities. To start off with, it has re-ignited the debate on the right of asylum, which all human beings have, as enshrined in international law, as well as the ability of any sovereign state to grant it. This is a right that is granted to avoid fear of political persecution; its legitimacy can only be determined by the country granting it. Let us also remember its peaceful and humanitarian nature, which cannot in any case be described as unfriendly towards any other State, as established in General Assembly resolution 2312 (XXII) on territorial asylum. I should also quote Ms. Navi Pillay, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, on the case at hand: 'Snowden's case has shown the need to protect persons disclosing information on matters that have implications for human rights, as well as the importance of ensuring respect for the right to privacy.'" "Leaders who should be giving explanations and facing up to the debate on the limits of what we are discussing, have instead launched a crusade against the right to asylum -- a full-on diplomatic offensive against countries that have taken to the global stage to show interest in such an important case. States in the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA) have been under pressure, simply because they are considering a request for asylum. All those countries have signed the 1954 Caracas Convention on Territorial Asylum, which is perhaps one of the most important instruments of the Inter-American human rights system." "The day the United States signs that treaty -- even the day it ratifies the San Jose pact, one of the foundations of the Inter-American system of human rights -- we will be closer to seeing that country adhere to the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties, and it will become a part of a group of equal nations, committed to complying with international law." "Instead of joining this group, we find ourselves with a country that prefers to lunge forwards and blame the messenger in order to cloud the message. The final result was that a group of countries decided to endanger the life of the President of the Plurinational State of Bolivia , forcing him and his entourage to make an emergency landing in violation of international norms governing respectful relations among nations." "It is not the revelation of the offence that threatens the climate of understanding among nations, it is the offence itself. In a fragile world where armed conflicts are barely affected by international pressure, such actions do not help generate trust but tension." "I would like to conclude with two comments." "First, the Government of Ecuador fully supports the request of the Bolivian Government that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights conduct an exhaustive investigation into the unjustifiable treatment suffered by President Evo Morales Ayma during his trip from Moscow to La Paz." "Secondly, massive global, discretionary and unlimited surveillance must stop. It is for the Security Council to urgently make that demand of one of its permanent members, since, theoretically, it is up to this body to maintain peace on our planet. That, too, is the demand of Latin America , a zone of peace that, through organizations such as MERCOSUR and ALBA, has demanded an end to those practices. It is also required by the spirit of coexistence, which inspired the drafting of the Charter of the United Nations. It is also the appeal of billions of people in the world who understand that any action that aims to ensure the security of a country has its limits, which are the human rights of everyone on the planet." The representative of the United States, Mr. DeLaurentis replied: "Let me address an issue unrelated to our debate that was raised earlier today, namely, the United States efforts to prevent terrorism and the recent disclosure of classified information about techniques we use to do that. All Governments do things that are secret: it is a fact of modern governing and a necessity in the light of the threats all our citizens face. Our counter-Terrorism policy is ultimately about saving people's lives, which is why the United States works with other countries to protect our citizens and those of other nations from many threats. All nations should be concerned about the damage these disclosures can cause to our ability to collectively defend against those threats." Contradicting this assertion, a senior United States intelligence official said, regarding the 'about the target' surveillance that it "was difficult to point to any particular terrorist plot that would have been carried out if the surveillance had not taken place." He said it was one tool among many used to assemble a 'mosaic' of information in such investigations. "The surveillance was used for other types of foreign-intelligence collection, not just terrorism investigations," the official said. This admission that this surveillance is not limited to preventing terrorism is the most damning indictment of the secrecy of the program. The American people, whose taxes pay for these programs, have an inalienable right to know what are the "other" uses to which these surveillance programs are being put, in their name. Powerfully refuting any contention that these surveillance activities are for the purpose of preventing terrorism is the testimony of United States Senator, Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, Chairman of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, who said he had been shown a classified list of "terrorist events" detected through surveillance, and it did not show that 'dozens or even several terrorist plots' had been thwarted by the domestic program. "If this program if not effective, it has to end. So far I'm not convinced by what I've seen," Senator Leahy said, denouncing ' the massive privacy implications' of keeping records of every American's domestic calls. What really is the purpose of this NSA program of global surveillance? Failing to significantly thwart terrorist activity, it must have an ultimate purpose. The possibilities are terrifying. The hysterical, desperate and deadly determination to arrest Snowden suggests that he may have uncovered something further, something so illegal that the authors of such crimes will not hesitate to endanger the very lives they claim to be protecting, in order to prevent exposure. The frantic orchestration of the actions endangering the life of the President of Bolivia makes this conclusion unavoidable. The August 6 Security Council meeting under the Presidency of Argentina re-enforced the credibility of the United Nations. The Government of Argentina and her courageous sister nations of Latin America have thrown down the gauntlet on behalf of the majority of the citizens of this planet. */Carla Stea i/*/s Global Research's accredited correspondent at the United Nations headquarters, New York./ -- --- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mshears at cdt.org Sun Aug 25 07:44:31 2013 From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 12:44:31 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: Important new joint submission to CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <6C79E61E-0649-44C3-8C2E-8C2CC6C82F58@ciroap.org> References: <52119C17.4040809@ciroap.org> <6C79E61E-0649-44C3-8C2E-8C2CC6C82F58@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <5219EE1F.5050202@cdt.org> Hi Jeremy, all Great job of combining diverse perspectives. A couple of thoughts for your consideration. I like the overall submission but believe that for the BestBits response to be as effective as possible it needs to be concise as possible. I am concerned that it is overly long in parts. In particular, the response to *question 8* is very long and seems contradictory in places. For example, the submission generally notes that the binary view of "we need some UN-associated structure" versus the "everything is just fine the way it is" has been talked to exhaustion and is not reflective of the needs of all stakeholders nor the public interest. I think we all recognize that existing structures do not adequately address our overall concerns. However, for Q8 the paragraph that starts with the "In such fields of public policy..." seems to suggest that there will inevitably be some association with the UN:"Therefore, if the mechanism that we begin through the CSTD Working Group does lead towards a new framework or process, we accept the likelihood that such framework or process would likely have to be at least loosely linked with the UN." This seems to contradict other points in the text and I am not sure that we have discussed whether or not we accept that this is the case. My preference would be for this para to be removed (particularly as the first sentence in the para also seems to suggest that the only way forward is a structure that is UN based or built from scratch.) I do not think we should be limiting the possible mechanisms that may come out of this process, rather we should be ensuring how we want to process to be undertaken. In this regard, perhaps we could also emphasize in Q 8 that w/r/t _mechanisms_ for achieving enhanced cooperation: 1) all stakeholders need to be fully involved (as equals) in any process that could lead to new frameworks, mechanisms or structures for discussing international public policy issues in the future (this is not a given), 2) that whatever the result(s) of that process all stakeholders should be involved in the discussion of international public policy issues as per paras 68 and 71 TA (nor is this a given), and 3) that we should not prescribe or pre-determine any particular model (except that it must be consistent with the above, transparent, open, etc.) for the result of that process - the model may differ based on the issue being discussed, for example, or we may develop entirely new proposed models (perhaps something for us to think about going forward) or it could be some morphed version of the IGF, or a combination of efforts, etc. I also believe that*question 11* needs a rethink. The response paints a very negative view of multi-stakeholderism and reads more like an editorial than a consultation response. We could start by noting that the question itself is poorly phrased as we do not accept that the roles of stakeholders are limited to the definitions of the Tunis Agreement per comments in response to question 5. As to what barriers remain, there are many: 1) basic divergence of views as to what enhanced cooperation means; 2) inability to agree how international public policy issues should be addressed and in what fora; 3) inability to agree which international public policy issues should be the focus of enhanced cooperation and which are adequately addressed already/elsewhere; 4) lack of support (particularly among governments) for full stakeholder involvement in the process towards enhanced cooperation let alone enhanced cooperation itself, etc., etc. And how are these challenges overcome? One very modest approach might be to suggest identifying/agreeing 2 to 3 discrete international public policy issues areas that are not at all adequately addressed and of general concern to all stakeholders. If we can find some points of common interest we can then perhaps discuss how, when and where such points should be discussed. This is just one very simplistic way forward - it would be good to be able to suggest others. Another might be to restate the excellent "way forward" suggestion in the second para of the response to question 8 where it says: /This should lead into an intermediate phase of more formalised transparency and reporting and collaboration among all institutions or processes dealing with Internet governance. The IGF (with its mandate to "promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes") could be the home for this role. // //// /I think the more concise we can be and the more recommendations we can make the better. Thanks. Matthew -- Matthew Shears Director and Representative Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) mshears at cdt.org +44 (0) 771 247 2987 Skype: mshears On 23/08/2013 00:55, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > A reminder that any remaining comments on this draft submission are > due over the weekend, so that can post it to the Best BIts site and > begin collecting endorsements in time to submit it to the CSTD on 31 > August. > > I would like to reiterate the importance of us delivering a strong > joint civil society submission to this questionnaire. Other groups > such as ICC-BASIS are supporting the status quo, and even putting > forward the idea > that > things like the (much-criticised by civil society) APEC Cross-Border > Privacy Regulation system is a good example of enhanced cooperation in > practice! So it is very important for us to put forward a strong > submission that points out the shortcomings of the status quo, and > advances a public interest perspective on this topic. > > Thanks. > > On 19/08/2013, at 4:16 PM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: > >> All Best Bits participants are now invited to finalise a joint >> submission to the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, which >> we are to submit by the end of August. This will be a very important >> submission in its own right, and also a key preparatory document to >> three upcoming Best Bits meetings - our APrIGF workshop in Seoul >> , Day 1 of our Best Bits >> meeting in Bali , and one of our >> two workshops at the global IGF >> . >> >> Its importance is that it addresses a question, unresolved for the >> last eight years, about how global Internet governance (in the broad >> sense that goes beyond technical issues) should evolve in response to >> states claims of sovereignty over public policy issues relating to >> the Internet. I wrote a background paper >> >> about this general question (and slides >> ) >> for our WSIS+10 workshop in Paris. Post-PRISM, the question has only >> assumed greater importance. >> >> For the past few weeks, a civil society-only Best Bits working group >> (which also includes, though >> not in an official capacity, civil society members of the CSTD >> working group) has been working hard on this, to hone in on the core >> issues and to state them clearly and fairly, taking into account the >> wide divergence in views that exists even within civil society. The >> result of our work is open for your comment for one week, at which >> time we will close for endorsements: >> >> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/ec >> >> The current text is also pasted below. We aim for this submission to >> be as broadly inclusive of the views of Best Bits participants as >> possible, so after reading and considering the existing text >> carefully, if you have any changes to suggest, please speak up. If >> the changes are minor, you can just make them on the Etherpad. If >> major, we would ask that you raise them on the list first. The more >> groups that can endorse the submission, the more influence it will have. >> >> Just to reiterate, we are not taking endorsements yet. This will >> occur after one week of final comments from this list. (There is no >> point in taking endorsements when there might still be changes to the >> text.) For the same reason, we ask that you don't forward the draft >> text widely yet. If you want to bring other groups into the >> discussion that is welcome, but (for now) the best way to do so would >> be to ask them to join the Best Bits list. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joy at apc.org Mon Aug 5 17:40:33 2013 From: joy at apc.org (joy) Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2013 09:40:33 +1200 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [APC Forum] APC statement on Bradley Manning: Guilty verdict a new low for US human rights In-Reply-To: <76F4FF1B-6E02-49A3-B073-76DEBC53B18E@apc.org> References: <76F4FF1B-6E02-49A3-B073-76DEBC53B18E@apc.org> Message-ID: <52001BD1.1000409@apc.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Sharing FYI - apologies for any cross postings Kind regards Joy Liddicoat - -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [APC Forum] APC statement on Bradley Manning: Guilty verdict a new low for US human rights Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 16:45:20 -0400 From: Analia Lavin Reply-To: A general information sharing space for the APC Community. To: A general information sharing space for the APC Community. , apc.council at lists.apc.org [Apologies for cross-posting; please distribute widely] [Spanish below] APC statement on Bradley Manning: Guilty verdict a new low for US human rights http://www.laneta.apc.org/APC_ManningStatement.pdf NEW YORK, August 5 2013 - APC, as a network that has endeavoured to use information technology for justice for the last 23 years stands in solidarity with Bradley Manning, a whistleblower who has been convicted in a military court on Espionage Act violations after leaking intelligence information on the Iraq War, where he worked in information systems as an intelligence analyst.The US government's refusal to acknowledge that Bradley Manning is a legitimate whistleblower is evidence that whilethe US positions itself as a global defender of fundamental rights and freedoms, it is acting to limit them in its own backyard. APC believes that the ability to use the internet to make governments more accountable and transparent at global and national levels should be promoted and protected. Without whistleblowers such as Bradley Manning, the public cannot effectively fight against corruption, rights violations and the abuse of power by governments, armed forces and corporations. “That Bradley Manning is facing up to 136 years of jail is a gross violation of human rights and seems clearly aimed at intimidating other potential whistleblowers,” said Anriette Esterhuysen, APC Executive Director. While it has been considered a relief that he was acquitted of the most severe charge, “aiding the enemy,” which could have put him on a death row, Manning remains a political prisoner. Meanwhile, his leaked proof of torture and other serious human rights violations have been ignored by the United States government. Other developments, such as the charges of espionage filed against Edward Snowden and intentions of prosecution of Julian Assange by the US government, shows that prosecution of whistleblowers by the current US administration is unprecedented and as domestic and foreign policy must be reconsidered1. Criminalisation of whistleblowing compromises investigative journalism and violates international human rights standards of freedom of expression. Manning and other whistleblowers who disclose information on matters that have implications for human rights and other issues of public interest should be protected from legal prosecution. The APC Internet Rights Charter clearly states that: • The internet must be protected from all attempts to silence critical voices and to censor social and political content or debate. • Organisations, communities and individuals should be free to use the internet to organise and engage in protest. • All information, including scientific and social research, that is produced with the support of public funds should be freely available to all. • National and local government, and publicly-funded international organisations, must ensure transparency and accountability by placing publicly relevant information that they produce and manage in the public domain. APC, with other civil society organisations, believes that the US and other States are failing to ensure that laws and regulations related to communications surveillance adhere to international human rights and adequately protect the rights to privacy and freedom of expression, and invites individuals and organisations to endorse the International principles on the application of human rights to communications surveillance (https://en.necessaryandproportionate.org) APC, as part of the BestBits coalition, has also endorsed a documenting on the United States government targeting non-U.S. persons, and invites other organisations to join the call (http://bestbits.net/pclob/) More information: • Bradley Manning Acquitted of 'Aiding the Enemy', by Amnesty international • http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/press-releases/bradley-manning-acquitted-of-aiding-the-enemy • Human Rights Watch Statement on Bradley Manning • http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/07/30/human-rights-watch-statement-bradley-manning • Bradley Manning: Victim of state oppression, by Article 19 • http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/37185/en/bradley-manning:-victim-of-state-oppression Declaración de APC sobre Bradley Manning: veredicto de culpabilidad, una nueva baja para los derechos humanos en Estados Unidos http://www.laneta.apc.org/APC_ManningStatement_ESpdf APC, una red que lucha por el uso de las tecnologías de información para la justicia desde hace 23 años, expresa su solidaridad con Bradley Manning, un informante condenado por un tribunal militar por violaciones a la Ley de espionaje luego de filtrar información de inteligencia sobre la guerra de Irak, donde trabajó en sistemas de información como analista de inteligencia. La negativa del gobierno de Estados Unidos a reconocer que Bradley Manning es un informante legítimo pone de manifiesto que mientras Estados Unidos se muestra como país defensor de los derechos y libertades fundamentales en el mundo, les pone límites en su propia casa. APC cree que la capacidad de usar internet para obligar a los gobiernos a ser más responsables y transparentes tanto en el nivel global como nacional debe ser promovida y protegida. Sin informantes como Bradley Manning, el público no podría luchar efectivamente contra la corrupción, las violaciones de derechos y los abusos de poder cometidos por gobiernos, fuerzas armadas y las grandes empresas. “Que Bradley Manning pueda enfrentar hasta 136 años de cárcel es una grave violación de derechos humanos que parece claramente dirigida a intimidar a otros/as potenciales informantes”, dijo Anriette Esterhuysen, directora ejecutiva de APC. Aunque se considere un alivio que haya sido absuelto de la acusación más grave de “colaborar con el enemigo”, que podría haberlo condenado a muerte, Manning sigue siendo un preso político. Mientras tanto, las pruebas de tortura y otras graves violaciones a los derechos humanos que Manning filtró permanecen ignoradas por el gobierno de Estados Unidos. Incidentes recientes, como la acusación de espionaje contra Edward Snowden y las intenciones del gobierno de Estados Unidos de juzgar a Julian Assange, muestran que la cantidad de procesos judiciales contra informantes abiertos por la actual administración de Estados Unidos no tiene precedentes y, como política interior y exterior, se hace necesaria una revisión. La criminalización de este tipo de actividades compromete al periodismo de investigación y viola las normas internacionales de derechos humanos referidas a la libertad de expresión. Manning y otros/as informantes que revelen información sobre asuntos que impliquen a los derechos humanos y otras cuestiones de interés público deben estar protegidos/as de persecución judicial. La Carta de APC sobre derechos en internet señala claramente que: • Internet debe estar protegida contra todo intento de silenciar las voces críticas y de censurar contenidos o debates sociales y políticos. • Las organizaciones, comunidades e individuos deben tener libertad para usar internet con el propósito de organizar manifestaciones y participar en ellas. • Toda la información que se produce con el apoyo de fondos públicos, incluso las investigaciones científicas y sociales, deben ser accesibles en forma gratuita para todos y todas. • Los gobiernos nacionales y locales, así como las organizaciones internacionales públicas, deben garantizar la transparencia y la responsabilidad poniendo a disposición la información relevante para la opinión pública. APC, junto con otras organizaciones de la sociedad civil, cree que Estados Unidos, al igual que otros estados, no están cumpliendo con su compromiso de garantizar que las leyes y regulaciones relacionadas con la vigilancia de las comunicaciones observen los acuerdos sobre derechos humanos internacionales y protejan adecuadamente los derechos a la privacidad y la libertad de expresión, e invita a individuos y organizaciones a suscribir los Principios internacionales sobre la aplicación de los derechos humanos a la vigilancia de las comunicaciones (https://es.necessaryandproportionate.org/text) APC, como parte de la coalición BestBits, también suscribe al documento sobre casos en que el gobierno de Estados Unidos tiene como objetivo a personas de otra nacionalidad e invita a otras organizaciones a unirse al llamado (http://bestbits.net/pclob/) Más información: • Bradley Manning absuelto de 'colaborar con el enemigo', por Amnesty international (en inglés) • http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/press-releases/bradley-manning-acquitted-of-aiding-the-enemy • Comunicado de Human Rights Watch sobre Bradley Manning (en inglés) • http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/07/30/human-rights-watch-statement-bradley-manning • Bradley Manning: Víctima de la opresión del estado, por Article 19 • http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/37185/es/bradley-manning:-v%EF%BF%BD%EF%BF%BDctima-de-la-opresi%EF%BF%BD%EF%BF%BDn-del-estado ======================================= APC Forum is a meeting place for the APC community - people and institutions who are or have been involved in collaboration with APC, and share the APC vision - a world in which all people have easy, equal and affordable access to the creative potential of information and communication technologies (ICTs) to improve their lives and create more democratic and egalitarian societies. _______________________________________________ apc.forum mailing list apc.forum at lists.apc.org http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/apc.forum -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSABvRAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqoPQH+gPClQ5pu5ZomRsLJBrYJiGa yx1bsUzRyYBSNAxCS3xdfvZn37+qnpptLYKiOWtLs6bAYkhpW73pj7oZq5Jl7Kdk YzhHa4Fc1QUqN813uIG1LokkkTD47n5Vq88WwqIyxV7DcjrZ/SMVpAqhw5pXki2V d51duQUssXWPlcvGKYz7h6fWfzKB6LrtfWwLjHe8+FRS9fA6bGY8XhEnU759gF2g 0Yk9yX6Es+UM2TISsMqXlzFN8Qr3AYDF7okHpGQuPK8wW1CdZWnhaGtga9WUent0 eLdN4MccGLmR2qMFjZJ2HuNg6KV2IINK+AtIg7Fd/e7Iv8tsF0CEgusZg7qV93I= =FH5C -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew at gp-digital.org Sun Aug 25 08:38:28 2013 From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 13:38:28 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] RE: IGF plus Message-ID: Hi everyone I'm collecting material and ideas for the debate on internet governance that is coming up. One of the option that has surfaced at previous meetings is that of an IGF plus - an IGF with powers to make Recommendations or Declarations - soft law in effect. I'm interested in whether anyone has written a paper on this or has an material relevant to the idea and how it would work in a multi-stakeholder environment (I'm assuming that, however constructed, any recommendations/declarations would require consensus among participants). Anything out there I'm not aware of? One model I'm interested in (in terms of mandate) is the World Health Organisation (WHO) which acts as a coordinating body for global health policy which is then implemented by national and international health agencies. The WHO primarily makes recommendations and has no power to directly intervene in national health systems but is widely respected. It monitors threats to public health and has its own projects and programmes. But the WHO is governmental and frequently gets caught up in international geo-politics although there are now calls for it to become multi-stakeholder and involve philanthropic foundations, businesses, public/private partnerships and civil society. Any thoughts at this stage are most welcome. And I guess a lot of you have seen this piece from the Financial Times re the surveillance issue and a proposal from the IETF Key architects of the internet have started to fight back against US and UK snooping programmes by drawing up an ambitious plan to defend traffic over the world wide web against mass surveillance. The Internet Engineering Task Force, a body that develops internet standards, has proposed a system in which all communication between websites and browsers would be shielded by encryption. In practical terms that would be akin to extending the sort of secure communications that banks and retailers like Amazon use to protect their customers across the world wide web. While the plan is at an early stage, it has the potential to transform a large part of the internet and make it more difficult for governments, companies and criminals to eavesdrop on people as they browse the web. At present, only a fraction of all websites - typically those that handle financial information - encrypt data when communicating with web browsers. "There has been a complete change in how people perceive the world" since whistleblower Edward Snowden disclosed the extent of US surveillance programmes earlier this summer, said Mike Belshe, a software engineer and IETF member who helped develop Google web browser Chrome. "Not having encryption on the web today is a matter of life and death," he said. The IETF push for greater use of encryption comes alongside calls from top internet and privacy groups for fundamental reforms of the laws governing the web. In a letter to the FT published this weekend, top groups including web founder Tim Berners Lee's World Wide Web Foundation call for a "reform of the status quo" online. "Online privacy is being eroded at a breakneck speed by blanket surveillance, and unless steps to reform are taken immediately, the notion of free and secure online communications will be relegated to the annals of history," they write. "Blanket government surveillance by default, with laws enforced in secret, will always be unacceptable." The IETF, which operates through the "rough consensus" of its members, has been instrumental in shaping the technical infrastructure of the web since it was founded in 1986. While the body cannot force the adoption of its standards, it is highly influential and its membership includes employees of the world's biggest internet companies including Google, Microsoft and Apple. But at its conference in Berlin this month, IETF members reached "nearly unanimous consensus" on the need to build encryption into the heart of the web, said Mark Nottingham, a developer who chairs the IETF working group on HTTP, a data access protocol that underpins the web. "There are a lot of people who want this to happen," he said. Mr Nottingham cautioned that it was "very early days" and said the proposal would need to undergo extensive discussion within the broad web community before it could be implemented. Exactly how the plan would work has yet to be decided. But at present the idea is to mandate the use of Transport Layer Security (TLS), a cryptographic protocol, in the next version of HTTP, which is planned for 2014. It would then be up to companies behind web browsers and web servers to put the new standards into practice. Google and Twitter are among several big companies that have long called for more encryption of web traffic. Chrome, Google's popular web browser, already allows people to encrypt their activity when browsing any of the company's websites. However, security experts said that while TLS encryption would make surveillance more difficult, it was far from foolproof. "If you're looking for a silver bullet to make people's personal traffic impossible to break, this won't be it," said Sam Curry, chief technologist at RSA, a computer security company. Hackers, especially those with substantial computing power, would find ways to crack the encryption or get around it by exploiting other vulnerabilities in the network, he said. Nonetheless, he added: "Anything that improves trust in the digital world is a noble aim." Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jefsey at jefsey.com Sun Aug 25 10:29:15 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 16:29:15 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] RE: IGF plus Message-ID: (At 14:38 25/08/2013, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: >Hi everyone > >I'm collecting material and ideas for the debate on internet >governance that is coming up. One of the option that has surfaced >at previous meetings is that of an IGF plus – an IGF with powers to >make Recommendations or Declarations – soft law in effect. I'm >interested in whether anyone has written a paper on this or has an >material relevant to the idea and how it would work in a >multi-stakeholder environment (I'm assuming that, however >constructed, any recommendations/declarations would require >consensus among participants). Anything out there I'm not aware of? Please have look at the contribution I just sent this morning. Actually, everyone has powers to make recommendations and declarations. The point is to know if they are pertinent, coherent, accepted, trusted, precautionary and usefull. Consensus does not make an error true. >One model I'm interested in (in terms of mandate) is the World >Health Organisation (WHO) which acts as a coordinating body for >global health policy which is then implemented by national and >international health agencies. The WHO primarily makes >recommendations and has no power to directly intervene in national >health systems but is widely respected. It monitors threats to >public health and has its own projects and programmes. But the WHO >is governmental and frequently gets caught up in international >geo-politics although there are now calls for it to become >multi-stakeholder and involve philanthropic foundations, businesses, >public/private partnerships and civil society. The Internet had a WHO equivalent: the IAB. The IAB has relinquished that mission through RFC 6852 in chosing to foster better markets adequation rather than to strive for a common "better internet". This is a loyal move, but it leaves the digital world without compass and with two different north poles (market [OpenStand: http://open-stand.org] or people [WSIS: a people centered information society]). The situation leans toward more or less interoperable forks within the multi-stakeholder network. They might be technically led by ITU, OpenStand and grassroots emergences. For basic interoperability reasons, it is likely that the forks be in strata, layers or plans rather than protocols. Proposing to enforce IPSec (an long existing built-in possibility) is a kind of such fork. Another one was the root file, another one is DNSSEC. This vertical balkanization is only introducing more NAT like complications. Hopefully it will not create too-much problem to the Open-PRISM FLOSS project. jfc From anja at internetdemocracy.in Sun Aug 25 16:04:22 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 01:34:22 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Public Consultation on the ITU 2016-2019 Strategy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And the closing date for this important consultation is... 6 September. Which gives an audience that was not forewarned about two weeks to get in its submissions regarding the next five-year plan of a global organisation. Anja On 23 August 2013 21:47, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > Apologies for cross posting > > N > > === > > > Dear Sir/Madam, > > We want to bring to your notice an important open consultation that we are > carrying out - Public Consultation on the ITU 2016-2019 Strategy > > The Council of our Member States launched the development of a new ITU > Strategic Plan for 2016-2019, which will be approved at the ITU > Plenipotentiary Conference in October 2014. > > In preparing the Secretary General's contribution to this work of the > Council, we are asking for your inputs to the debate. > > You can tell us what you expect from ITU in the future, where we should > direct our efforts to best serve everyone, including you; and which > challenges we should be prepared to meet. > > We invite you to participate in this Public Consultation and we are > looking forward to your opinions. > > You can share your views and ideas at the interactive platform > www.itu.int/PublicConsultations > or submit your written contributions by email to strategy at itu.int strategy at itu.int>. > > Please feel free to forward this information to your contacts. > > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Aug 25 23:36:29 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 10:36:29 +0700 Subject: [bestbits] RE: IGF plus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <009001cea20d$7ab83450$70289cf0$@gmail.com> Hi Andrew, I think before we start thinking about an IGF+ we need to be thinking about getting some kind of "formalization" (democratization etc.) in the MS processes that are at the core of the IGF etc. Until experiences like mine with the selection process for the ECWG are worked through and some determination is made as to what constitutes a "stakeholder" group and under what sort of governance/transparency/accountability structures those operate within I think it is seriously premature to be thinking about an IGF that is capable of working through to Soft Law or whatever. This isn't to say that we should be working in that direction but just to say that if the fundamentals aren't taken care of, everything that follows is suspect. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Andrew Puddephatt Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2013 7:38 PM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [bestbits] RE: IGF plus Hi everyone I'm collecting material and ideas for the debate on internet governance that is coming up. One of the option that has surfaced at previous meetings is that of an IGF plus - an IGF with powers to make Recommendations or Declarations - soft law in effect. I'm interested in whether anyone has written a paper on this or has an material relevant to the idea and how it would work in a multi-stakeholder environment (I'm assuming that, however constructed, any recommendations/declarations would require consensus among participants). Anything out there I'm not aware of? One model I'm interested in (in terms of mandate) is the World Health Organisation (WHO) which acts as a coordinating body for global health policy which is then implemented by national and international health agencies. The WHO primarily makes recommendations and has no power to directly intervene in national health systems but is widely respected. It monitors threats to public health and has its own projects and programmes. But the WHO is governmental and frequently gets caught up in international geo-politics although there are now calls for it to become multi-stakeholder and involve philanthropic foundations, businesses, public/private partnerships and civil society. Any thoughts at this stage are most welcome. And I guess a lot of you have seen this piece from the Financial Times re the surveillance issue and a proposal from the IETF Key architects of the internet have started to fight back against US and UK snooping programmes by drawing up an ambitious plan to defend traffic over the world wide web against mass surveillance. The Internet Engineering Task Force, a body that develops internet standards, has proposed a system in which all communication between websites and browsers would be shielded by encryption. In practical terms that would be akin to extending the sort of secure communications that banks and retailers like Amazon use to protect their customers across the world wide web. While the plan is at an early stage, it has the potential to transform a large part of the internet and make it more difficult for governments, companies and criminals to eavesdrop on people as they browse the web. At present, only a fraction of all websites - typically those that handle financial information - encrypt data when communicating with web browsers. "There has been a complete change in how people perceive the world" since whistleblower Edward Snowden disclosed the extent of US surveillance programmes earlier this summer, said Mike Belshe, a software engineer and IETF member who helped develop Google web browser Chrome. "Not having encryption on the web today is a matter of life and death," he said. The IETF push for greater use of encryption comes alongside calls from top internet and privacy groups for fundamental reforms of the laws governing the web. In a letter to the FT published this weekend, top groups including web founder Tim Berners Lee's World Wide Web Foundation call for a "reform of the status quo" online. "Online privacy is being eroded at a breakneck speed by blanket surveillance, and unless steps to reform are taken immediately, the notion of free and secure online communications will be relegated to the annals of history," they write. "Blanket government surveillance by default, with laws enforced in secret, will always be unacceptable." The IETF, which operates through the "rough consensus" of its members, has been instrumental in shaping the technical infrastructure of the web since it was founded in 1986. While the body cannot force the adoption of its standards, it is highly influential and its membership includes employees of the world's biggest internet companies including Google, Microsoft and Apple. But at its conference in Berlin this month, IETF members reached "nearly unanimous consensus" on the need to build encryption into the heart of the web, said Mark Nottingham, a developer who chairs the IETF working group on HTTP, a data access protocol that underpins the web. "There are a lot of people who want this to happen," he said. Mr Nottingham cautioned that it was "very early days" and said the proposal would need to undergo extensive discussion within the broad web community before it could be implemented. Exactly how the plan would work has yet to be decided. But at present the idea is to mandate the use of Transport Layer Security (TLS), a cryptographic protocol, in the next version of HTTP, which is planned for 2014. It would then be up to companies behind web browsers and web servers to put the new standards into practice. Google and Twitter are among several big companies that have long called for more encryption of web traffic. Chrome, Google's popular web browser, already allows people to encrypt their activity when browsing any of the company's websites. However, security experts said that while TLS encryption would make surveillance more difficult, it was far from foolproof. "If you're looking for a silver bullet to make people's personal traffic impossible to break, this won't be it," said Sam Curry, chief technologist at RSA, a computer security company. Hackers, especially those with substantial computing power, would find ways to crack the encryption or get around it by exploiting other vulnerabilities in the network, he said. Nonetheless, he added: "Anything that improves trust in the digital world is a noble aim." Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Aug 26 01:51:01 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 17:51:01 +1200 Subject: [bestbits] Important new joint submission to CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <5219EE1F.5050202@cdt.org> References: <52119C17.4040809@ciroap.org> <6C79E61E-0649-44C3-8C2E-8C2CC6C82F58@ciroap.org> <5219EE1F.5050202@cdt.org> Message-ID: <8F196421-CE4F-4B4D-AF04-451ACCBBE7C5@ciroap.org> On 25/08/2013, at 11:44 PM, matthew shears wrote: > Hi Jeremy, all > > Great job of combining diverse perspectives. A couple of thoughts for your consideration. I like the overall submission but believe that for the BestBits response to be as effective as possible it needs to be concise as possible. I am concerned that it is overly long in parts. Thanks for the feedback. It puts me in a tough position since the text was meant to be closed off minutes after you sent your email, and I'm currently travelling with limited Internet access (I only just read this email, and am replying from an airport), so I'm not going to be able to engage in another round of amendments. Since question 8 was the most contentious, I am really loathe to open it up again. For question 11, I see your point and will ask the person who drafted that part if he's willing to omit any of it (rather than redrafting it, which at this late stage, is not too feasible). If he won't take out any of question 11, then we're going to have to take a hard decision and my suggestion will be that we close the submission as-is, and people who can't agree to it in its present form can fork it. But we need to make that decision within about the next 12 hours. It's already close of business Monday where I am. Let's take this off list and see if we can resolve it by removing any text. If not, we'll close about twelve hours from now. -- 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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk Mon Aug 26 05:13:25 2013 From: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk (Marianne Franklin) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 11:13:25 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Important new joint submission to CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <521B1C35.808@gold.ac.uk> Dear all I would prefer that the whole phrase is rewritten; tyrannical is an emotive word. It has no place in this sort of advocacy. The UN is not the only place where tyrants take cover. And it is not a B&W matter either between bad governments and good guy others. Nuance is in this respect an important ethical stance to take and closer to the reality. best MF On 24/08/2013 01:11, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 23/08/2013, at 7:16 PM, genekimmelman at gmail.com > wrote: > >> I hope we will reconsider use of the word tyrannical to describe any >> regime or action. If our goal is to make a strong statement and >> express some kind of parallelism between vastly different countries, >> it may be more effective to use a less provocative word. >> Maybe something that conveys disrespect for human rights principles? > > Thanks for this feedback. Would it be OK if we just delete the second > "tyrannical" leaving it as follows: > > "And whilst the UN is characterised by some as being a haven for > tyrranical regimes, the United States itself is widely criticised as > having infringed global human rights norms through its global > surveillance practices, and for its pursuit of whistleblowers such as > Edward Snowden for exposing such practices." > > -- > > *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 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge > hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > -- Dr Marianne Franklin Reader Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) Goldsmiths, University of London Dept. of Media & Communications New Cross, London SE14 6NW Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 @GloComm https://twitter.com/GloComm http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/ https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/ www.internetrightsandprinciples.org @netrights -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mshears at cdt.org Mon Aug 26 06:54:17 2013 From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 11:54:17 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Public Consultation on the ITU 2016-2019 Strategy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <521B33D9.9000204@cdt.org> I agree. I was wondering if anyone had any insights into this process. As far as I can see only 6 comments have been made. I also don't see any questions or other points that the ITU may be seeking responses on. It seems particularly unstructured and poorly communicated despite it being (potentially) very important. Thanks. Matthew On 25/08/2013 21:04, Anja Kovacs wrote: > And the closing date for this important consultation is... 6 > September. Which gives an audience that was not forewarned about two > weeks to get in its submissions regarding the next five-year plan of a > global organisation. > > Anja > > On 23 August 2013 21:47, Nnenna Nwakanma > wrote: > > Apologies for cross posting > > N > > === > > > Dear Sir/Madam, > > We want to bring to your notice an important open consultation > that we are carrying out - Public Consultation on the ITU > 2016-2019 Strategy > > The Council of our Member States launched the development of a new > ITU Strategic Plan for 2016-2019, which will be approved at the > ITU Plenipotentiary Conference in October 2014. > > In preparing the Secretary General's contribution to this work of > the Council, we are asking for your inputs to the debate. > > You can tell us what you expect from ITU in the future, where we > should direct our efforts to best serve everyone, including you; > and which challenges we should be prepared to meet. > > We invite you to participate in this Public Consultation and we > are looking forward to your opinions. > > You can share your views and ideas at the interactive platform > www.itu.int/PublicConsultations > > or submit your written contributions by email to strategy at itu.int > >. > > Please feel free to forward this information to your contacts. > > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in -- Matthew Shears Director and Representative Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) mshears at cdt.org +44 (0) 771 247 2987 Skype: mshears -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Mon Aug 26 11:14:56 2013 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 11:14:56 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Call for sign on CWG-Internet statement2 (Was Call for comments/signatures: Draft Statement on Rejection of Proposal to Open CWG- Internet) Message-ID: Dear all, Please find the revised statement on the ITU Council's rejection of proposals to open participation in the Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet): http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet-2/ The text takes into account edits in the pad ( https://pad.riseup.net/p/CWG-Internet) as of Monday, 19 August. Thanks to all who contributed to the editing process. Please indicate whether you would like to endorse this statement by end of day *2 September*. In terms of outreach on the statement, Nnenna suggested targeting specific Council members. I think is a good idea and I'm interested in hearing others' thoughts on this. I've pasted the list of members of the ITU Council below. Source: http://www.itu.int/en/council/Pages/members.aspx Council Membership (2010-2014) - *Region A (Americas)*: 9 seats Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, Cuba, Mexico, Paraguay, United States, Venezuela - *Region B (Western Europe)*: 8 seats France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey - *Region C (Eastern Europe and Northern Asia)*: 5 seats Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation - *Region D (Africa)*: 13 seats Algeria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Mali, Morocco, Nigeria, Senegal, Rwanda, South Africa, Tunisia - *Region E (Asia and Australasia)*: 13 seats Australia, Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea (Republic of), Kuwait, Malaysia, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, United Arab Emirates Best, Deborah On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 5:51 AM, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > I have done a few edits. > However, I do recall that during WCIT in Dubai, > There was a face-to-face meeting with Hamadoun Touré on the openness > issue. So that "effort" has been on. > I also recall that HT did say that countries were playing double > standards: speaking "openness" in public spaces and kicking against > openness in council. > > Should we also specifically target some council members? Like send the > letter to HT and also send copies to key council members? > > Just a thought > > N > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Tapani Tarvainen < > tapani.tarvainen at effi.org> wrote: > >> Ditto for Effi. >> >> -- >> Tapani Tarvainen >> >> On Aug 12 18:20, Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org) wrote: >> >> > Dear Joana and all >> > >> > I like this and am pretty sure APC will support, but I will run it by >> > members and staff. >> > >> > I am not entirely sure this last paragraph is necessary. I think to some >> > extent it detracts from the main message in the letter which is about >> > opening the CWG. >> > >> > "We also take this opportunity to renew our call for the ITU to continue >> > to coordinate itseffortswith that of relevant /multistakeholder/Internet >> > governance bodies, taking advantage of those bodies’ expertise and not >> > attempting to duplicate their functions. These bodies include those >> > devoted to technical issues (such as ICANN, the IETF and the RIRs) and >> > those dealing primarily with non-technical issues (such as the Internet >> > Governance Forum)." >> > >> > Anriette >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On 12/08/2013 17:12, Joana Varon wrote: >> > > Dear people, >> > > >> > > As you may know, the ITU Council has rejected proposals to open >> > > participation in the Council Working Group on International >> > > Internet-Related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet). >> > > >> > > That happened in disregard of our previous >> > > request, >> > > of contributions from some Member States >> > > < >> http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S13-CL-C-0069!!MSW-E.pdf> >> > > and >> > > of a statement from the Secretary General at the closing session of >> WTPF, >> > > where we called for adopting an IEG model of participation within >> other >> > > meetings of the organization. >> > > >> > > The CWG-Internet is a particularly relevant WG, as the Brazilian >> proposal >> > > on the role of States shall be discussed. Also a very important topic >> in a >> > > context where "Snowden conjecture" seams to be causing reactions for a >> > > State centric internet governance (at least that's my perception). >> > > >> > > Therefore, Deborah, Matthew, Gene, Carolina and I have drafted a >> response >> > > to submit to ITU. Please, find it bellow, just like the link for the >> > > editable pad: >> > > >> > > https://pad.riseup.net/p/CWG-Internet >> > > >> > > Your comments are more then welcome. *The plan is to leave it open >> until >> > > next Monday, 19th.* Hope you find it useful. >> > > >> > > All the best >> > > >> > > Joana >> > > >> > > >> > >> > -- >> > ------------------------------------------------------ >> > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> > executive director, association for progressive communications >> > www.apc.org >> > po box 29755, melville 2109 >> > south africa >> > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> > >> > > -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew at gp-digital.org Mon Aug 26 18:10:59 2013 From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 23:10:59 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] RE: IGF plus In-Reply-To: <009001cea20d$7ab83450$70289cf0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: I agree – and this goes to the heart of how we make MS processes work. What's your suggestion about how we tackle this? Best Bits, for me, was an attempt to tackle it by trying to ensure broad geographic representation and greater transparency but maybe you have better ideas? Andrew Puddephatt, Director Global Partners Digital Development House, 56-64 Leonard St, EC2A 4LT, UK Office 44 (0)207 549 0350 Mobile: +44 (0)771 339 9597 andrew at gp-digital.org www.global-partners.co.uk From: michael gurstein > Date: Monday, 26 August 2013 04:36 To: andrew Puddephatt >, "" > Subject: RE: [bestbits] RE: IGF plus Hi Andrew, I think before we start thinking about an IGF+ we need to be thinking about getting some kind of "formalization" (democratization etc.) in the MS processes that are at the core of the IGF etc. Until experiences like mine with the selection process for the ECWG are worked through and some determination is made as to what constitutes a "stakeholder" group and under what sort of governance/transparency/accountability structures those operate within I think it is seriously premature to be thinking about an IGF that is capable of working through to Soft Law or whatever. This isn't to say that we should be working in that direction but just to say that if the fundamentals aren't taken care of, everything that follows is suspect. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Andrew Puddephatt Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2013 7:38 PM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [bestbits] RE: IGF plus Hi everyone I’m collecting material and ideas for the debate on internet governance that is coming up. One of the option that has surfaced at previous meetings is that of an IGF plus – an IGF with powers to make Recommendations or Declarations – soft law in effect. I’m interested in whether anyone has written a paper on this or has an material relevant to the idea and how it would work in a multi-stakeholder environment (I’m assuming that, however constructed, any recommendations/declarations would require consensus among participants). Anything out there I’m not aware of? One model I’m interested in (in terms of mandate) is the World Health Organisation (WHO) which acts as a coordinating body for global health policy which is then implemented by national and international health agencies. The WHO primarily makes recommendations and has no power to directly intervene in national health systems but is widely respected. It monitors threats to public health and has its own projects and programmes. But the WHO is governmental and frequently gets caught up in international geo-politics although there are now calls for it to become multi-stakeholder and involve philanthropic foundations, businesses, public/private partnerships and civil society. Any thoughts at this stage are most welcome. And I guess a lot of you have seen this piece from the Financial Times re the surveillance issue and a proposal from the IETF Key architects of the internet have started to fight back against US and UK snooping programmes by drawing up an ambitious plan to defend traffic over the world wide web against mass surveillance. The Internet Engineering Task Force, a body that develops internet standards, has proposed a system in which all communication between websites and browsers would be shielded by encryption. In practical terms that would be akin to extending the sort of secure communications that banks and retailers like Amazon use to protect their customers across the world wide web. While the plan is at an early stage, it has the potential to transform a large part of the internet and make it more difficult for governments, companies and criminals to eavesdrop on people as they browse the web. At present, only a fraction of all websites – typically those that handle financial information – encrypt data when communicating with web browsers. “There has been a complete change in how people perceive the world” since whistleblower Edward Snowden disclosed the extent of US surveillance programmes earlier this summer, said Mike Belshe, a software engineer and IETF member who helped develop Google web browser Chrome. “Not having encryption on the web today is a matter of life and death,” he said. The IETF push for greater use of encryption comes alongside calls from top internet and privacy groups for fundamental reforms of the laws governing the web. In a letter to the FT published this weekend, top groups including web founder Tim Berners Lee’s World Wide Web Foundation call for a “reform of the status quo” online. “Online privacy is being eroded at a breakneck speed by blanket surveillance, and unless steps to reform are taken immediately, the notion of free and secure online communications will be relegated to the annals of history,” they write. “Blanket government surveillance by default, with laws enforced in secret, will always be unacceptable.” The IETF, which operates through the “rough consensus” of its members, has been instrumental in shaping the technical infrastructure of the web since it was founded in 1986. While the body cannot force the adoption of its standards, it is highly influential and its membership includes employees of the world’s biggest internet companies including Google, Microsoft and Apple. But at its conference in Berlin this month, IETF members reached “nearly unanimous consensus” on the need to build encryption into the heart of the web, said Mark Nottingham, a developer who chairs the IETF working group on HTTP, a data access protocol that underpins the web. “There are a lot of people who want this to happen,” he said. Mr Nottingham cautioned that it was “very early days” and said the proposal would need to undergo extensive discussion within the broad web community before it could be implemented. Exactly how the plan would work has yet to be decided. But at present the idea is to mandate the use of Transport Layer Security (TLS), a cryptographic protocol, in the next version of HTTP, which is planned for 2014. It would then be up to companies behind web browsers and web servers to put the new standards into practice. Google and Twitter are among several big companies that have long called for more encryption of web traffic. Chrome, Google’s popular web browser, already allows people to encrypt their activity when browsing any of the company’s websites. However, security experts said that while TLS encryption would make surveillance more difficult, it was far from foolproof. “If you’re looking for a silver bullet to make people’s personal traffic impossible to break, this won’t be it,” said Sam Curry, chief technologist at RSA, a computer security company. Hackers, especially those with substantial computing power, would find ways to crack the encryption or get around it by exploiting other vulnerabilities in the network, he said. Nonetheless, he added: “Anything that improves trust in the digital world is a noble aim.” Andrew Puddephatt| GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Aug 26 05:56:26 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 21:56:26 +1200 Subject: [bestbits] IGF plus In-Reply-To: <009001cea20d$7ab83450$70289cf0$@gmail.com> References: <009001cea20d$7ab83450$70289cf0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 26/08/2013, at 3:36 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > I think before we start thinking about an IGF+ we need to be thinking about getting some kind of "formalization" (democratization etc.) in the MS processes that are at the core of the IGF etc. Until experiences like mine with the selection process for the ECWG are worked through and some determination is made as to what constitutes a "stakeholder" group and under what sort of governance/transparency/accountability structures those operate within I think it is seriously premature to be thinking about an IGF that is capable of working through to Soft Law or whatever. This isn't to say that we should be working in that direction but just to say that if the fundamentals aren't taken care of, everything that follows is suspect. I agree with everything bar the prefatory "before we start thinking about an IGF+" - as indeed as soon as we start to think about an IGF+, we are led inevitably to the reinforcement and formalisation of the IGF's governance/transparency/accountability structures. We have collectively begun to explore the IGF+ with the "IGF multistakeholder opinions" statement that many of us signed at http://bestbits.net/igf-opinions/. So that's a good starting point. I continue to stand by the slightly more elaborate "Multistakeholder Internet Policy Council" proposal that I developed for the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. See the thread "Comparison of five current civil society options" in the EC list for more on this (21 July and following, or I can repost here). For more detail still (largely consistent with the above, though with some differences in nomenclature), there's the paper "Appraising the Success of the Internet Governance Forum" that I wrote for the Internet Governance Project some (five!) years ago now, which is available from both http://igfwatch.org and http://www.internetgovernance.org. -- 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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shahzad at bytesforall.pk Wed Aug 7 01:05:34 2013 From: shahzad at bytesforall.pk (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 10:05:34 +0500 Subject: [bestbits] Facebook's secret censorship deal with the Pakistan government In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Folks, While we are still compiling some more information to be shared with GNI and Facebook, Simon Davies (Privacy Surgeon) shared this piece with us. He writes "It¹s time for companies to become champions of rights instead of government stooges". http://www.privacysurgeon.org/blog/incision/its-time-for-companies-to-become -champions-of-rights-instead-of-government-stooges/ Thought it will be of interest to you. Best wishes and regards Shahzad From: David Sullivan Date: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 2:27 AM To: Subject: Re: [bestbits] Facebook's secret censorship deal with the Pakistan government Hi all, Just want to make sure that the Best Bits Network receives GNI's response to the Bytes for All open letter, which we've posted on our website and is available here: http://globalnetworkinitiative.org/news/gni-responds-bytes-all-pakistan All the best, David -- David Sullivan Policy and Communications Director Global Network Initiative Office: +1 202 741 5048 Mobile: +1 646 595 5373 PGP: 0x60D244AA @David_MSullivan GNI has moved, please note our new address: 1200 18th St. NW, Suite 602 Washington, DC 20036 On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 3:48 AM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > Bytes for All, Pakistan has just sent an Open Letter to Ms. Susan Morgan, > Executive Director, Global Network Initiative (GNI) seeking her kind help and > support to investigate the Facebook's secret censorship deal with the Pakistan > government authorities. The letter is officially copied to Best Bits Network > and attached with this email. > > The letter is also accessible at the following link: > > http://content.bytesforall.pk/node/107 > > > We are extremely grateful for your continued help, guidance and kind support > on this. > > Best wishes and regards > > Shahzad Ahmad > Bytes for All, Pakistan > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Aug 26 19:03:50 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 11:03:50 +1200 Subject: [bestbits] Important new joint submission to CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <521B1C35.808@gold.ac.uk> References: <521B1C35.808@gold.ac.uk> Message-ID: <016C5E01-5763-4DF9-9609-CB5ACC1AFC65@ciroap.org> On 26/08/2013, at 9:13 PM, Marianne Franklin wrote: > I would prefer that the whole phrase is rewritten; tyrannical is an emotive word. It has no place in this sort of advocacy. With the humblest apologies, we are no longer in a position to be able to rewrite text, or we will miss the window for this submission. The deadline for closing this statement was yesterday, and the phrase in question was open for discussion on this list for a week. I'm struggling about what to do with the text that Matthew objected to last night, and have asked the steering committee for advice. But in any case, that that text will either go in or out, inevitably displeasing one person or another - rather than being rewritten. There will surely be some who can't live with the submission in its final form, so I'll be suggesting that they "fork" the submission and submit their own modified version. There will be no other way of pleasing everyone, unfortunately. I had thought we had allocated enough time to nut out these issues, with more than a month allocated for drafting (admittedly only a week on the main Best Bits list, and the balance on the EC list), but it seems these difficulties only ever come up at the very last minute. -- 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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Aug 26 21:42:01 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 08:42:01 +0700 Subject: [bestbits] IGF plus In-Reply-To: References: <009001cea20d$7ab83450$70289cf0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <000601cea2c6$a79e8050$f6db80f0$@gmail.com> My apologies if I'm going over ground that has already been sewn and harvested (I've been dealing with other matters for the last 3 months or so) but the issue of MSism really needs to start with a basic legitimacy of the constituting of the various stakeholder elements. how these interact to my mind (as covered in the items you point to below) is I think, a secondary issue. The current status appears to be something like all actual "stakeholders" are welcome (until they aren't), everyone can be a stakeholder(until they can't--for reasons of cost, voice, status, knowledge, skill etc.), "legitimate" stakeholder groups can simply, by showing up, obtain legitimacy without having to subscribe to any type of formal internal process (transparent, accountable etc.?) for the determination of the nature of the "stake" that they are "holding"/pursuing and so on, "legitimate stakeholders" q.v. are welcome but there are no effective means to facilitate participation of other (new, non-existing stakeholders (or to legitimize non-currently legitimized stakeholders. etc.etc. In my blogpost of some time ago, I talked about MSism vs. democracy and I don't see that we/anyone has made any progress in this area in the interim. I'm ready to agree that there are significant limitations with the use of representative democracy in the IG area but I am concerned that we may be too ready to jump on the MS bandwagon without having a very clear idea of what it means not only to us but to any of the other MS parties. And to respond to Andrew's question, I think the place to start is at the beginning--by insisting on/initiating some basic discussions on what is meant by MSism in the various forums where it is being invoked and working towards some sort of formalization (even if it is the formalization of the informal) in these processes at least to the extent of making them visible and thus subject to discussion and clarification. I'm thinking that the various workshops addressing this at the IGF will begin the process but I think we i.e. BB/CS has the responsibility/opportunity to be thinking of where this might go post IGF as for example into a declaration on what we mean by MSism and how we recognize MS processes which we believe are legitimate from a CS perspective. BTW, to be clear, I'm raising this not to attempt to fork other discussions but rather to suggest that unless there is clarity and agreement on these fundamentals it is hard to accept the legitimacy of anything that follows from these i.e. MS processes. M From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 4:56 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: 'Andrew Puddephatt'; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] IGF plus On 26/08/2013, at 3:36 PM, michael gurstein wrote: I think before we start thinking about an IGF+ we need to be thinking about getting some kind of "formalization" (democratization etc.) in the MS processes that are at the core of the IGF etc. Until experiences like mine with the selection process for the ECWG are worked through and some determination is made as to what constitutes a "stakeholder" group and under what sort of governance/transparency/accountability structures those operate within I think it is seriously premature to be thinking about an IGF that is capable of working through to Soft Law or whatever. This isn't to say that we should be working in that direction but just to say that if the fundamentals aren't taken care of, everything that follows is suspect. I agree with everything bar the prefatory "before we start thinking about an IGF+" - as indeed as soon as we start to think about an IGF+, we are led inevitably to the reinforcement and formalisation of the IGF's governance/transparency/accountability structures. We have collectively begun to explore the IGF+ with the "IGF multistakeholder opinions" statement that many of us signed at http://bestbits.net/igf-opinions/. So that's a good starting point. I continue to stand by the slightly more elaborate "Multistakeholder Internet Policy Council" proposal that I developed for the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. See the thread "Comparison of five current civil society options" in the EC list for more on this (21 July and following, or I can repost here). For more detail still (largely consistent with the above, though with some differences in nomenclature), there's the paper "Appraising the Success of the Internet Governance Forum" that I wrote for the Internet Governance Project some (five!) years ago now, which is available from both http://igfwatch.org and http://www.internetgovernance.org. -- 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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Aug 26 21:43:31 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 11:43:31 +1000 Subject: [bestbits] Re: Important new joint submission to CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <6C79E61E-0649-44C3-8C2E-8C2CC6C82F58@ciroap.org> References: <52119C17.4040809@ciroap.org> <6C79E61E-0649-44C3-8C2E-8C2CC6C82F58@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <65A17C82-7308-44A9-9605-6C76361A5296@ciroap.org> On 23/08/2013, at 11:55 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > A reminder that any remaining comments on this draft submission are due over the weekend, so that can post it to the Best BIts site and begin collecting endorsements in time to submit it to the CSTD on 31 August. > > I would like to reiterate the importance of us delivering a strong joint civil society submission to this questionnaire. Other groups such as ICC-BASIS are supporting the status quo, and even putting forward the idea that things like the (much-criticised by civil society) APEC Cross-Border Privacy Regulation system is a good example of enhanced cooperation in practice! So it is very important for us to put forward a strong submission that points out the shortcomings of the status quo, and advances a public interest perspective on this topic. Many thanks for those who offered further comments, and I'm sorry that there has been no entirely satisfactory way to deal with the late comments that Matthew offered. Some of the text that he found objectionable could not be withdrawn from the statement consensually, so in the end I have just had to include some late amendments without the time to discuss them, and they are minor because it was necessary that they would be changes that nobody else would likely object to significantly: In paragraph 8, adding the bold text "Through a process fully involving all stakeholders, this may require the eventual establishment of a new framework or mechanism, particularly in the case of emerging and orphaned issues that have no other global home." Also in paragraph 8, adding the bold text "Therefore, if the mechanism that we begin through the CSTD Working Group does lead towards a new framework or process, we accept the likelihood that for now such framework or process would likely have to be at least loosely linked with the UN." In paragraph 11, adding the bold text "and in the Westphalian ideal conception of democracy, this would fall to elected governments". Also in paragraph 11, adding the bold text "On one conception, real multi-stakeholderism offers to formalize government consultation with its constituencies, as governments formulate policy." Also in paragraph 11, adding the bold text "On another conception (or in the longer term), multi-stakeholderism promises a more significant rebalancing of power between states and other networks of individuals." Concluding paragraph 11, adding "On either conception [delete: Thus] civil society..." Realising that this won't satisfy either of those on each side of this disagreement, I apologise to both of them. There is a lot of good content in Matthew's text that could easily go into a supplementary CDT submission. Nevertheless with time pressing, it is not possible to reopen discussion so I've now put the final text up on the website for endorsement: http://bestbits.net/ec With this tough process behind us, can I now just reiterate one final time, that it is very important for you to endorse this submission if you are able to do so (or to write your own submission if you are unable to). This is possibly the best opportunity that we have had since the Working Group on Internet Governance in 2004 to offer our input into the evolution of global Internet governance arrangements. The PRISM scandal highlighted that current Internet governance arrangements do absolutely nothing to protect the human rights of Internet users, for example by giving civil society a voice in the development of global frameworks of principle that could hold governments or corporations that infringe those rights to account on the global stage. Without detracting from what needs to be done at the domestic level also, our engagement in the current discussions on the enhanced cooperation process is imperative if we are to turn this global process to our advantage, rather than allowing it to be hijacked by the the International Chamber of Commerce and the Internet Society in favour of maintaining the status quo. (Remember that it was the status quo that delivered us PRISM, and tried or is trying to deliver us SOPA/PIPA, ACTA and the TPP.) A number of those who contributed to this joint submission, along with stakeholder representatives from the private sector and technical community, will be discussing these issues further next week at the Best Bits workshop of the Asia-Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum, which we will also endeavour to have webcast. More details will follow next week. In the meantime, I encourage you once more to endorse the joint submission to the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation if you are able to do so. -- 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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Aug 27 03:59:21 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 16:59:21 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Nominees to High Level meeting in Bali on "Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles" In-Reply-To: References: <5209F29D.2050406@ciroap.org> <20130813183514.0d8c8b97@quill> <6ACCFAD3-3FB9-416B-99FB-4772DDB4E71F@ciroap.org> <20130813184448.5983a1be@quill> <520AF6D8.50709@ciroap.org> <520B02E2.6050205@itforchange.net> <520B9B69.9080204@apc.org> <093676F2-05AD-409D-BA87-B3776BD70A7B@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: Hi Anja, Apologies, I missed this email. On Aug 16, 2013, at 11:30 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > I agree with Adam that as long as processes aren't clear, the HLM and its outcomes should be kept more clearly separate from the HLM. > > As to Adam's question of why people want to attend: in my case this was simply driven by the topic, "cyber ethics principles". Freedom of expression has been a major focus of the Internet Democracy Project, which I work with, over the past two years, and discussions like these have the potential to lead to very negative repercussions on free speech online. Being in the room makes it easier to know what is going on in governments' minds, and to adequately respond if necessary. > I didn't mean to question the value of some civil society experts attending, just trying to say it shouldn't become a priority. I doubt the Bali HLM will differ much from what happened in Baku (the only interesting thing was Hamadoun Touré again having a go at Larry Strickling) You are absolutely right, you and other interested experts should be in the room for all the reasons you mention. Unless there's some change and any declaration that comes out of the meeting starts making substantive recommendations, or discussion becomes a serious dialog rather than mainly a series of statements, I think governments should be just left to their meeting. A pre-meeting not IGF. No more status in the IGF than bestbits, giganet or whatever the private sector or ISOC might organize for themselves. If the HLM works as a means of encouraging more governments to stay on for the IGF then that's a good thing, not multi-stakeholder without them. Best, Adam > Best, > Anja > > > > On 14 August 2013 21:43, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi Anriette, > > Thanks for asking those questions and more. > > Comments below. > > On Aug 14, 2013, at 11:59 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > > Dear Adam > > > > I am sorry... I missed this question about the Baku declaration. > > > > Good question.. but.. counter question... if we want the IGF to become > > more outcome oriented.. don't we want ALL outcomes from IGF-linked > > processes to be reflected.. or should that apply only to events that are > > formally part of the main IGF? > > > > > I think we'd quite soon face the same situation as we kind of see now with open forums when they become quasi-workshops. What I mean is, we are trying to create a fair and transparent process for the IGF adhering to various principles, side events would perhaps side-step those processes and principles. So for now my answer is we do not want ALL outcomes from IGF-linked processes to be reflected. Not until we know what we're dealing with and have principle-based processes in place, > > > > > I agree that it is good for governments to come to the IGF, and an event > > like this can help. I participated in the Nairobi event and it was > > certainly successful, but there was very little dialogue. It was more a > > case of one government after another showcasing what they are doing. > > > > > From what I remember the Nairobi ministerial meeting it was very limited in the number of non-govt stakeholders, and wasn't intended to be multi-stakeholder. The Bali meetings starts with the MAG all invited which makes 30+ (I think!), way ahead already. But I expect it will still be rather dull, the intent to allow governments to make statements as they usually do in UN forums. Exactly the kind of session we try to avoid in the IGF itself. I am not sure why people want to attend. > > > > I would really like to see governments have an interactive dialogue with > > one another at the IGF on internet policy issues. But high-level > > protocol is a powerful force, and not one that combines easily with > > interactive dialogue. > > > > You have to get them there first before they can join the broader dialogue and that was the intention behind the ministerial/high-level meeting. Worked to a degree in Nairobi, not sure since. > > Best, > > Adam > > > > > Anriette > > > > On 14/08/2013 12:58, Adam Peake wrote: > >> Parminder, > >> > >> My understanding of the high-level meeting (I think labelled "ministerial" in Nairobi) is the same as yours: intended a session in a format more familiar to high-level government representatives, get them and their staff to attend and to hopefully stay on. And I understand it worked in Nairobi, it was an effective carrot for both African govt and others to attend the IGF. And I'm OK with that, a pre-meeting that is clearly separate from the IGF is fine whether it's bestbits, the host country's HLM or giganet (etc). But it is problematic when the Baku high-level meeting produces a declaration (however innocuous) that is then made available on the official IGF website in the same space as the Chairman's Summary, the document that's traditionally been to only official output of the IGF process . Also a problem that the UN flag raising ceremony was listed as part of the Baku HLM agenda. Need to be more thoughtful in how these meetings are presented. > >> > >> Anriette - another question for today's MAG call, could you ask why the Baku declaration is available on the IGF website, and why it's presented along side the Chairman's summary? If it were on the host website only, then much less of an issue. This should be fixed for Bali. > >> > >> Further complication this year is that sessions from the IGF proper will be held on day "zero" (regional IGF session, etc.) Pre-meetings begin to mix with sessions of the IGF. Would be good to make a very clear demarcation between what is IGF and what is not IGF (the HLM should not be.) > >> > >> Adam > >> > >> > >> On Aug 14, 2013, at 1:09 PM, parminder wrote: > >> > >>> in addition to the below issues, we still do not know what the form of the high level meeting is. Is it a real round table kind of forum where people get an opportunity to wiegh in substantially or just a 'mix and make connections' thing which corporates types may still love to do but not many civil society kinds may to be too eager about. > >>> > >>> Also, is their any drafting process for the likely statement to come out of the HLM. That is crucial. > >>> > >>> And, the IGF or non IGF status of the meeting? > >>> > >>> I had asked for these clarifications on the IGC list from a civil society member of the MAG, and await them. > >>> > >>> My understanding is that initially is was a kind of a 'formal thing without real substance', which was to attract high level participation from governments, esp ministrial level. Kind of peoople who do not come over just to sit in the audience at the IGF. And when ministers come, their retinue of senior officials also come along, and that was supposed to fill in a (really) missing gap at the IG, especially in terms of governmental participation from developing countires. I will be cautious to see this meeting take a character and big role for itself, which could compromise the relatively participative nature of the IGF. Especially of concern is the declaration that comes from this meeting, which at present is the only real 'consumable' doc coming out the IGF environment. So, maybe civil socity may want to think around these issues as well. > >>> > >>> parminder > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wednesday 14 August 2013 08:47 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >>>> On 14/08/13 00:44, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >>>>> Jeremy Malcolm > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>>> How about setting up a joint NomCom by inviting members of all the > >>>>>>> various civil society organizations and networks to volunteer for > >>>>>>> the NomCom... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> It is a very good plan for the future, but not something that could > >>>>>> be accomplished easily in two weeks. > >>>>>> > >>>>> Where does that “two weeks” timeline come from? > >>>>> > >>>> Actually you're quite right, I'm mixing up the deadline for the CSTD enhanced cooperation questionnaire (which is in two weeks) with the (yet unspecified, but Izumi is finding out) deadline for nominating panelists to the High Level Meeting. So maybe we have longer, but surely not much longer. > >>>> > >>>> Establishing (or re-establishing - we had one in WSIS) a high-level mechanism for civil society groups to jointly nominate candidates for positions is very important, I couldn't agree with you more. But it's also ambitious. > >>>> > >>>> Noting that thanks to your leadership the IGC has a workshop relevant to this topic planned for Bali ("MS selection processes: accountability and transparency"), it would be better, I feel, to come up with a proposal and present it at that workshop. I wouldn't want to rush it on account of what is probably a minimally important pre-event in Bali. > >>>> > >>>> However, if you disagree then by all means put your idea to the IGC then I can put it to the Best Bits interim steering group and we can reach out to the other relevant groups and networks too. If it were me though, I would rather wait. > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> 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 > >>>> > >>>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > >>>> > >>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > >>>> > >>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > >>>> > >>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > >>>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> 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 > >> > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > > executive director, association for progressive communications > > www.apc.org > > po box 29755, melville 2109 > > south africa > > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 anriette at apc.org Tue Aug 27 04:20:52 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 10:20:52 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: Important new joint submission to CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <521C6164.7070005@apc.org> Hi all.. too late now to change the text, but Gene's intervention alerted me to a few issues in the response which I think are worth noting in discussion, if not in our response. I actually drafted this message last week.. but did not send it at the time. It is good that the 'tyrannical' reference was changed. On another issue, I think that to say that ICANN is "overseen" by just one government does not adequately reflect how influential the GAC has become in ICANN. E.g. on the recent gTLD decisions regarding .patagonia and .amazon the US abstained in the light of so many other governments opposing these gTLDs. While it does not change the structural location of ICANN in the US, which remains something I believe should change, it does reflect a shift in government participation and power in ICANN. In this particular instance I fully support the GAC's stance on rejecting these gTLDs and I hope that it will lead to ICANN reviewing is policies with regard to such domain names. I realise not all in Best Bits and among CS working in the name space would agree with me - but I feel very strongly that the marketisation of names, knowledge and concepts that ICANN encourages is counter to pubic-interest oriented IG. Civil society did not come up with a unified position on the issue (correct me if I am wrong) and but for government involvement those gTLDs would probably have been granted. But governments track record in GAC is mixed. A more powerful GAC can also pose risks for freedom of expression and assocition. My sense is that civil society is not all that strong in ICANN, but I would bow to the views of those people who are actively involved . Those who see ICANN as a best practice MS body should reflect on this. Progress in establishing enhanced cooperation in ICANN has, in my outsider view, focused primarily on government involvement and civil society influence is nowhere near being equal to that of business and governments. The technical community (e.g. NROs) does seem influential to me in ICANN, and seems to often intervene in favour of a more public interest oriented approach. If not for their influence in ICANN there would be little to counter the force of some business interests (not all business involved in ICANN have the same interests, but they do all mostly seem to support the marketisation approach). It seems to me that if not for the dedicated work of those CS people who work in the ICANN space CS would not feature as much as it does in that particular experiment in EC. I know they are working on ways to change this at structural level, and we should support these efforts. Going off on this tangent makes me think we should really try to state the importance of CS inclusion in EC even more strongly in responses to the CSTD WG, and in the subsequent discussion inside the WG and people should be careful when referring to ICANN as a 'good practice' example of multi-stakeholder participation and inclusive policy-making. But I remain in support of Jeremy's synthesis of inputs into this process. Anriette On 23/08/2013 09:16, genekimmelman at gmail.com wrote: > I hope we will reconsider use of the word tyrannical to describe any regime or action. If our goal is to make a strong statement and express some kind of parallelism between vastly different countries, it may be more effective to use a less provocative word. > Maybe something that conveys disrespect for human rights principles? > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Jeremy Malcolm > Date: > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: [bestbits] Re: Important new joint submission to CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation > > A reminder that any remaining comments on this draft submission are due over the weekend, so that can post it to the Best BIts site and begin collecting endorsements in time to submit it to the CSTD on 31 August. > > I would like to reiterate the importance of us delivering a strong joint civil society submission to this questionnaire. Other groups such as ICC-BASIS are supporting the status quo, and even putting forward the idea that things like the (much-criticised by civil society) APEC Cross-Border Privacy Regulation system is a good example of enhanced cooperation in practice! So it is very important for us to put forward a strong submission that points out the shortcomings of the status quo, and advances a public interest perspective on this topic. > > Thanks. > > On 19/08/2013, at 4:16 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > All Best Bits participants are now invited to finalise a joint submission to the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, which we are to submit by the end of August. This will be a very important submission in its own right, and also a key preparatory document to three upcoming Best Bits meetings - our APrIGF workshop in Seoul, Day 1 of our Best Bits meeting in Bali, and one of our two workshops at the global IGF. > > Its importance is that it addresses a question, unresolved for the last eight years, about how global Internet governance (in the broad sense that goes beyond technical issues) should evolve in response to states claims of sovereignty over public policy issues relating to the Internet. I wrote a background paper about this general question (and slides) for our WSIS+10 workshop in Paris. Post-PRISM, the question has only assumed greater importance. > > For the past few weeks, a civil society-only Best Bits working group (which also includes, though not in an official capacity, civil society members of the CSTD working group) has been working hard on this, to hone in on the core issues and to state them clearly and fairly, taking into account the wide divergence in views that exists even within civil society. The result of our work is open for your comment for one week, at which time we will close for endorsements: > > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/ec > > The current text is also pasted below. We aim for this submission to be as broadly inclusive of the views of Best Bits participants as possible, so after reading and considering the existing text carefully, if you have any changes to suggest, please speak up. If the changes are minor, you can just make them on the Etherpad. If major, we would ask that you raise them on the list first. The more groups that can endorse the submission, the more influence it will have. > > Just to reiterate, we are not taking endorsements yet. This will occur after one week of final comments from this list. (There is no point in taking endorsements when there might still be changes to the text.) For the same reason, we ask that you don't forward the draft text widely yet. If you want to bring other groups into the discussion that is welcome, but (for now) the best way to do so would be to ask them to join the Best Bits list. > > Here, then, is the current text (starting from question 2, which is intentional): > > 2. What do you think is the significance, purpose and scope of enhanced cooperation as per the Tunis Agenda? > > a) Significance > > The inclusion of the enhanced cooperation mandate in the Tunis Agenda was a political necessity to account for the view of many governments and others of the inadequacy of existing Internet governance arrangements when measured against the criteria identified in the first phase of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS): namely transparency, accountability, multilateralism, and the need to address public policy issues related to Internet governance in a coordinated manner (WGIG Report, para 35). In particular it was suggested "that there are many cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms" (Tunis Agenda, para 60). > > Foremost amongst the areas in which a deficit in existing arrangements was perceived was the issue of internationalizing Internet oversight beyond the United States, a struggle that had dominated the entire summit process from the beginning of WSIS I. But existing arrangements were also seen as failing to adequately address a broad range of other issues, some discussed below under question 4. At the conclusion of WSIS, civil society, backed by what ultimately became a coalition among the US and some other mainly developed countries, got the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), as a multi-stakeholder forum to address mainly those other broader issues. The promise of addressing the narrower issue of Internet oversight, as sought by a key group of other governments, was reserved for a process parallel to the IGF, and perhaps as a counterbalance to it. Those governments got as a result the 'enhanced cooperation' process. It is also significant that even though the discussion was quite conflictual, member states chose to use 'positive' words: enhance, and cooperation. The ongoing discussion about how to improve IG arrangements should continue in this same positive spirit. > > b) Purpose > > Therefore the purpose of enhanced cooperation process mandate, in conjunction with the closely related mandate for the formation of an Internet Governance Forum, is to address the perceived deficits described above. In particular the Tunis Agenda identifies that enhanced cooperation would enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet" (para 69). Subtextually, the main purpose of Enhanced Cooperation as sought by governments was to provide a space where they could further deal with the dominant issue across both the summits - internatiionalization of Internet oversight. With IGF a mainly civil society initiative, albeit multi-stakeholder in conception, enhanced cooperation was a process in which goverments would be the main actors. > > c) Scope > > The enhanced cooperation mandate "should include the development of globally-applicable principles on public policy issues" (para 70) and "also could envisage creation of a suitable framework or mechanisms, where justified" (para 61). But it does not envision the involvement of governments "in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy issues" (para 69). > > Although there is an emphasis on what enhanced cooperation means for governments (who, after all, were the only stakeholder group required to agree to the enhanced cooperation mandate), the Tunis Agenda does not suggest that enhanced cooperation is solely for governments. In paragraph 69, enhanced cooperation is suggested as a mechanism to "enable" governments to carry out their roles and responsibilities. To "enable" does not mean that enhanced cooperation is for governments alone. Indeed the scope of enhanced cooperation also encompasses all relevant stakeholders as per para 70 ("organisations responsible for essential tasks") and the process towards enhanced cooperation will involve "all stakeholders" per para 71. > > 3. To what extent has or has not enhanced cooperation been implemented? Please use the space below to explain and to provide examples to support your answer. > > It follows that for any public policy issue related to Internet governance that lacks at least one transparent, accountable, multilateral process, involving all stakeholders, for the development of globally-applicable principles to enable that issue to be addressed in a coordinated manner, or any framework or mechanisms to support such a process, the enhanced cooperation mandate is yet to be implemented. As the Tunis Agenda does not necessarily specify that a single or central process or mechanism is required, and indeed there is none yet, some point to a variety of independent efforts to coordinate policy development across a number of issue areas and fora as evidence of the implementation of the mandate. But the degree of such implementation currently varies. > > For example, the progress made at ICANN with respect to issues of critical Internet resources, involving the role of the Framework of Commitments (FoC) AND the Government Advisory Council (GAC) may be seen as a movement towards fulfilling the enhanced cooperation mandate in that context. Less evidence of such can be seen in the work of WIPO on intellectual property enforcement, that of UNCTAD on cross-border consumer protection, that of the UN Human Rights Council on the human rights impacts of government surveillance, or that of the World Wide Web Consortium on online behavioural advertising. There are other issues still for which there is no institution with a clear responsibility to implement the enhanced cooperation mandate: for example, there is no global body that deals comprehensively with data protection and privacy rights, and similar gaps exist in many other areas of a social, economic, political and cultural nature (see question 4). > > Indeed while the IGF has developed, across now seven annual sessions, enhanced cooperation has not really got off the ground. There was a session in New York the end of 2010, seeking wider input. And CSTD has held various meetings on the subject. But enhanced cooperation - as conceived in the grand bargain of WSIS - has so far not been taken to serious steps. Meanwhile the tensions that led to the enhanced cooperation bargain are still very much in play, as illustrated by the impasse at the ITU's World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in 2012 between governments seeking to assert greater control over the Internet, and those opposing international treaties as a method of such control. We can agree with both camps: that the enhanced cooperation mandate has not been adequately implemented, but also that going for an intergovernmental treaty is not the right way to begin implementing the EC imperative. > > 4. What are the relevant international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet? > (List in order of priority, if possible) > > The list of International public policy issues that pertain to the Internet is not closed, since these change over time as social conditions change. However, much work has already been done to elaborate some of the most relevant such issues. This work includes the WGIG report, the background report that accompanied it, and ITU Resolution 1305 with regard to “scope of work of ITU on international Internet-related public policy matters”. Drawing together and grouping some of the issues identified in these reports and elsewhere, we present a partial list, roughly categorised into groups (though many issues do cut across categories): > > Human rights > Freedom of Expression > Data protection and privacy rights > Consumer rights > Multilingualism > Access to knowledge and free information flows, deepening the public domain on the Internet > Internet intermediary companies as private agents for extra-territorial law enforcement (problems with) > Protection of vulnerable sections, like children, women, traditional communities etc > Net neutrality (that all data is given equal priority on networks) > Search neutrality (that global search engines give neutral results) > > Access and accessibility > Multilingualization of the Internet including Internationalized (multilingual) Domain Names > International Internet Connectivity > Cultural diversity > Accessibility policies for the disabled > Affordable and universal access > Reliability, and quality of service, especially in the developing world > Contributing to capacity building for Internet governance in developing countries > Developmental aspects of the Internet > > Critical Internet resources management and oversight > Administration of the root zone files and system > Interconnection costs (especially global interconnection) > Allocation of domain names > IP addressing > Convergence and next generation networks > Technical standards, and technology choices > Continuity, sustainability, and robustness of the Internet > Genuine internationalization of Internet oversight > > Security and law enforcement > Internet stability and security > Combatting cybercrime > Other issues pertaining to the use and misuse of the Internet > Dealing effectively with spam > Protecting children and young people from abuse and exploitation > Cryptography > Cross border coordination > > Trade and commerce > e-commerce > copyright > patents > trademarks > Cross border Internet flows > Internet service providers (ISPs) and third party liabilities > National policies and regulations (harmonization of) > Competition policy, liberalization, privatization and regulations > Applicable jurisdiction > Tax allocation among different jurisdictions with regard to global e-commerce > Development of, and protection to, local content, local application, local e-services, and local/ domestic Internet businesses > Internet and health systems, education systems, governance systems and so on. > Cloud computing (global issues involved) > Economics of personal data (who owns, who makes money from, and so on) > Media convergence - Internet and traditional media (Internet companies versus newspapers, radio, cable and TV, book publishing industry etc) > Regulation of global Internet businesses (in terms of adherence to competition policies, consumer rights, law enforcement etc) > > 5. What are the roles and responsibilities of the different stakeholders, including governments, in implementation of the various aspects of enhanced cooperation? > > We do not think that the allocation of roles between the stakeholders that the Tunis Agenda established should be taken as definitive. We take it that, like the definition of Internet governance adopted in the Tunis Agenda which was specified as a "working definition", so too the definitions of the roles of stakeholders adopted in the Tunis Agenda were also working definitions that would be subject to review. > > The definition of civil society's "important role ... especially at community level" is particularly unhelpful. We contend that civil society's role in contributing to the development of global public policy principles is much more integral than that definition suggests. In particular, there are cases in which governments are not inclined to uphold the human rights of Internet users, such as the rights of foreigners whose Internet usage is the subject of official surveillance. Civil society has a key role in representing the interests of such users, and others whose interests are otherwise poorly represented due to democratic deficits at national and international levels. > > But further, the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders cannot be fixed in Internet governance (or probably in many other areas of governance either). For example civil society can in some instances represent specific marginalised communities or user or interest groups (e.g. the visually impaired). At other times civil society can be experts providing input and guidance on how to approach policy issues. At other times civil society can play a 'watch' role to monitor the behaviour of business or government in order to protect the public interest. And so on. Roles and responsibilities of stakeholder groups will depend on the type of process, and the specific interests involved and with a stake in the outcome of each process. > > Please see also the response to Question 11, below, for some particulars. > > 6. How should enhanced cooperation be implemented to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet? > > We acknowledge that governments remain the main representative structure for international public policy development. This typically takes place through the UN and other multi-lateral institutions such as the WTO, etc. But on Internet-related public policy issues, there are transnational interests and impacts that governments cannot adequately take into account without the full participation of other stakeholders. There is room for discussion about the best way of involving those stakeholders, and it does not necessarily mean placing them on an equal level with governments. There would be value in establishing a framework or mechanism to address Internet related public policy issues that do not already have a home in any existing global forum, or where that forum does not fulfil the WSIS process criteria, including the participation of all stakeholders. Such a framework or mechanism should be non-duplicative and should take advantage of the expertise of existing arrangements, mechanisms, institutions or organisations where relevant. > > There is also a link between the global and national level. Governments need to put in place transparent, accountable, processes at the national level to support those at the global level. If one takes, for example, ICANN and the GAC, many governments are now participating in the GAC, but their participation is not always transparent to national stakeholders, and it is not clear who they are accountable to at national level. Member states need to fulfil WSIS process criteria at the national level otherwise it does not make much sense (other than just to large powerful business and CS actors) to implement them at the global level. > > 7. How can enhanced cooperation enable other stakeholders to carry out their roles and responsibilities? > > By bringing governments closer to the other stakeholders, the other stakeholders are also brought closer to governments. If enhanced cooperation is a process whereby governments (and existing Internet governance spaces/processes) are compelled to adhere to WSIS principles of transparency, accountability, etc., this can serve to create an approach to IG, and to existing and evolving IG processes and spaces that is rooted in the public interest and inclusive of all stakeholders. Even if the public interest is not always clear, such processes should, and could involve all stakeholders in negotiating a common understanding of what the broadest possible public interest is on any particular issue. > > 8. What are the most appropriate mechanisms to fully implement enhanced cooperation as recognized in the Tunis Agenda, including on international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet and public policy issues associated with coordination and management of critical Internet resources? > > The CSTD Working Group is itself an important mechanism for the stakeholders to set in train a process to fully implement enhanced cooperation, which may in turn eventually result in changes to frameworks, structures or institutions. This will not take place immediately, but in phases. We are now in a kind of distributed reform/exploration phase with the IGF and IGF-like processes trying to create more cooprative engagement, and institutions like ICANN and the ITU putting in place certain reforms, and institutions that previously ignore the Internet beginning to take it seriously (e.g. the Human Rights Council). > > This should lead into an intermediate phase of more formalised transparency and reporting and collaboration among all institutions or processes dealing with Internet governance. The IGF (with its mandate to "promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes") could be the home for this role. > > Ultimately however, this alone will not fill the gaps that created the enhanced cooperation mandate. There is also a pressing need to address very important global Internet related public policy issues, and to do so at the global level, and this work has to be done by democratic / representative structures. This may require the eventual establishment of a new framework or mechanism, particularly in the case of emerging and orphaned issues that have no other global home. Although a logical home for such a framework or mechanism would be the United Nations, we acknowledge the many weaknesses in UN processes at present, including in relation to transparency and very uneven support for the inclusion of civil society influence in the UN system. Certainly, a traditional intergovernmental organisation is not an appropriate structure. > > In the technical realm of Internet naming and numbering, the response to the weaknesses and shortcomings of the UN system has been to establish in ICANN a body which is independent of the UN system. But even ICANN is overseen by governments, or to be more precise by one government - the United States. And whilst the UN is characterised by some as being a haven for tyrranical regimes, the United States itself is widely criticised as having infringed global human rights norms through its global surveillance practices, and for its tyrannical pursuit of whistleblowers such as Edward Snowden for exposing such practices. Therefore in comparing the respective merits of a UN-based institution (particularly if it is an innovative, multi-stakeholder, and semi-autonomous one such as the IGF), and a non-US based institution that is nonetheless beholden to governments at some level, the choice is not as stark as it is often presented to be. > > Therefore in both areas - general public policy issues in which governments have a leading role through the international system, and naming and numbering in which ICANN has a leading role - reforms are eventually required. Taking first the case of ICANN, the reforms for which we advocate would not be to bring it within the United Nations, but to broaden its oversight beyond the United States alone. This may take the form of a new international oversight board with techno-political membership derived from different geopolitical regions. The mandate of this oversight mechanism would be very narrow, more or less the same as exercised by the Department of Commerce of the United States Government at present. ICANN would become an international organisation and enter into a host country agreement with the United States, giving it complete immunity from US law or any other form of control or interference. > > It is not necessary that the same new framework or mechanism that broadens the oversight of ICANN, should also deal with other general public policy issues. In fact there is considerable merit in looking at these aspects of enhanced cooperation separately. Because of the more mature state of the multi-stakeholder model that already exists around the regime for management of critical Internet resources, there is good reason to separate out the need to internationalise existing mechanisms for governmental oversight of that regime, from the need for new frameworks or mechanisms for dealing with more general public policy issues of various political, economic, social and cultural kinds, for which there might be a more central role for another new framework or mechanism. > > In such fields of public policy outside the narrowly technical, there would be the choice to build upon the existing global order that we have in the United Nations, or to rebuild this from scratch (as in the case of ICANN). Whilst there is merit in the idea of a post-UN transnational democratic order that derives its legitimacy from the individual rather than from the nation state, and which could provide legitimacy and oversight for both technical and broader public policy bodies, nothing of this kind exists or is a realistic prospect for the short or medium term. Therefore, if the mechanism that we begin through the CSTD Working Group does lead towards a new framework or process, we accept the likelihood that such framework or process would likely have to be at least loosely linked with the UN. > > It is sometimes claimed that there is no need for a new framework or mechanism, because all public policy issues are already covered by a network of existing mechanisms. But the WGIG and Tunis Agenda (paragraph 60) concluded that this was not true, and this remains the case. In fact, the kind of global Internet policy issues that are not adequately addressed by any existing mechanism has only grown in number and complexity since the WSIS. Does this mean that we are asking for a single new mechanism to cover all issues? No. But there must be at least one such mechanism (that is global, multi-stakeholder, etc) and if there is none, nor any scope for an existing narrower body (such as the ITU) to change in order to meet these criteria, then it follows that at least one new mechanism is needed. Conversely, whilst we agree that existing mechanisms should be used where available, we disagree that having a plethora of overlapping bodies or mechanisms is always a positive thing. This limits the ability for developing country governments and civil society representatives to participate, because of their limited resources. > > If the CSTD does recommend a process that leads to some new framework or mechanism in the future, any such new framework or mechanism should be based on the principles of subsidiarity, and be innovative in terms of mandate, structure, and functions, to be adequate to the unique requirements of global Internet governance. It must be participative of all stakeholders, promoting the democratic and innovative potential of the Internet. Exactly what shape it takes will emerge through reasoned deliberation. Some of us believe that governments will accept nothing less than a new intergovernmental body, like a committee that could be attached to the UN General Assembly, and accordingly would accept such a body if and only if it includes an extensive structure of participation by all stakeholders which could be modelled on the stakeholder participation mechanisms of the OECD's Internet policy development body, the CICCP, and would have a close and organic relationship with the IGF. This option proceeds from the position that global governance reforms should take place in-outwards, proceeding from current multilateral toward their further democratisation. > > For some others of us, although understanding the sincerity of governments and the legitimacy of their claim to set policy norms, there are too many dangers in proposing such a formal new intergovernmental body, but may be fewer dangers in an adjunct to the IGF, as described below in question 9. Whilst we are still formulating what format a new framework or mechanism might take, and will be discussing this question further at our meeting ahead of the Bali IGF, we are in accord that the CSTD should be open to considering a process that leads to some new framework or mechanism in the future, that is dedicated to fulfilling the purpose and scope of enhanced cooperation as mentioned in the Tunis Agenda and as described above, in a way that the uncoordinated efforts of individual stakeholders and institutions towards fulfilling that mandate have been unable to do. > > 9. What is the possible relationship between enhanced cooperation and the IGF? > > The IGF complements the enhanced cooperation mandate, but as it stands, it does not fulfill that mandate. Some of us believe there is the potential for a significantly strengthened IGF, with appropriate long-term funding support, to host a new framework or mechanism to facilitate the development of globally-applicable principles on public policy issues through a multi-stakeholder process. If so, this would have be entirely new and supplementary to the IGF's existing structures and processes, significantly differing from those that exist now such as the MAG, workshops and dynamic coalitions. In any case, regardless of whether any such new framework or mechanism is part of the IGF, the IGF's existing structures and processes will be valuable in deepening the public sphere for multi-stakeholder discussion of Internet policy issues, which will be integral to the work conducted through the new framework or mechanism. > > 10. How can the role of developing countries be made more effective in global Internet governance? > > Developing countries have taken recourse to the ITU because they feel that they are not otherwise represented in in the existing global Internet governance arrangements, which are dominated by developed countries and by companies and organisations based in those countries. This points to the need for reforms such as those advocated above. > > However that alone will not be enough. Developing countries are excluded at so many different levels, and they self-exclude, so addressing this problem is not at all trivial. The way in which Internet governance for development (IG4D) has been conceived and addressed in the IGF and in other global spaces is not helpful. It is narrow, and top down, and often does not go beyond affordable access issues. Clarifying the role of governments in Interent governance (see questions 5, 6, 7 and 11) is the first step. Developing country governments must be involved in this discussion otherwise they will not buy into its outcomes. Another necessary step is to foster more engagement with Internet governance issues at the national level in developing countries. In the way that developing countries have made an impact on global issues such as trade justice for, example, so too they could in Internet governance. The issues are debated at national level by the labour movement, local business, social justice groups etc. and this both pressurises governments and informs governments (not always in the desired way) at the global level. Critical thinking needs to be applied at national and regional level, with involvement of non-governmental stakeholders for more effective developing country representation at global level. And vice versa. Global Internet governance processes need to report and feed into national processes. In short, making developing countries (government and other stakeholders) play a more effective role in global Internet governance requires mechanisms at national and regional level as well as a process of democratisation at the global level. > > 11. What barriers remain for all stakeholders to fully participate in their respective roles in global Internet governance? How can these barriers best be overcome? > > As noted in questions 2a and 2b above, enhanced cooperation was largely a role taken by governments who required it, through which they hoped to address the over-arching issue of WSIS, namely internationalization of Internet oversight. But as question 3 notes, that has not happened. The apparent problem is that two separate objectives - the principal aims of either of the power poles - have been conflated. If these two objectives (in question 4 above) are treated separately, then there may become the possibility to find some common ground. > > Specifically, the US and its allies have feared, and have acted to stop, what they see as the threat of totalitarian control of the Internet. But it is possible to switch from this negative characterization, to a positive outlook: the US and its allies have been centrally concerned with freedom of expression, for our new global communications medium, the Internet. The other governmental power pole has been concerned, from the beginning of WSIS, and even well before, that oversight for the Internet move from the US, to a global arrangement. Both objectives are laudable, and reconcilable. > > The way forward, as suggested in question 8, is to treat those two objectives separately. In fact, continuing to conflate them - so that there can be no action on one, without impact on the other - assures deadlock. Separating them creates a freedom of maneuver that may permit to find ways forward, between the two, so-far implacable camps. > > Related to this, the bi-polar opposition between groups of states has come to be mirrored among (what have become) the states' frontline troops: the stakeholders. Multi-stakeholderism has been used as a point of distinction between the Internet governance model favoured by the US and its allies from those of the countries who have been calling for internationalisation of policy oversight. Thus multi-stakeholderism, perhaps the most important innovation of WSIS, which formally acknowledges governance roles for multiple stakeholders, has been co-opted into this struggle between the two governmental power poles. > > But this is a false dichotomy. Whilst it is fundamental that public policy issues be determined through democratic means, and in the ideal conception of democracy, this would fall to elected governments, we have found that even supposed governmental defenders of democracy abuse their state power - as the Snowden episode, and before it the Manning episode, and even the Wikileaks story, have revealed (not least through the treatment of the individuals themselves). In truth no governement has fully lived up to its fundamental democratic responsibilities, and then within that to the new promise of multi-stakeholderism at the national or the global level. > > Real multi-stakeholderism offers to formalize government consultation with its constituencies, as governments formulate policy. Among other purposes, this offers a safeguard against the abuses of state power, when 'the people' may otherwise be forgotten. This - real multi-stakeholderism - means consulting widely, certainly beyond the usual suspects who may frequent UN meetings. Thence, the people of a democracy may be empowered, with voices speaking from all corners, and providing a bulwark against the ever-present temptations, for those temporarily entrusted with governmental power, to abuse that power. > > Thus civil society - instead of being used as pawns in a global power tussle - may instead use the new regime, to assume a rightful place in democracy. > > 12. What actions are needed to promote effective participation of all marginalised people in the global information society? > > Information and communication policy and practice at national level that is based on (and committed to) information and communication processes supporting political, social and economic development. Access to ICTs can empower marginalised people and create more inclusion, but political and economic processes need to enable this for the full potential of this empowerment to make a difference. > > 13. How can enhanced cooperation address key issues toward global, social and economic development? > > > > 14. What is the role of various stakeholders in promoting the development of local language content? > > > > 15. What are the international internet-related public policy issues that are of special relevance to developing countries? > > > > 16. What are the key issues to be addressed to promote the affordability of the Internet, in particular in developing countries and least developed countries? > > > > 17. What are the national capacities to be developed and modalities to be considered for national governments to develop Internet-related public policy with participation of all stakeholders? > > > > 18. Are there other comments, or areas of concern, on enhanced cooperation you would like to submit? > > In institutionalizing and operationalizing enhanced cooperation, it is critically important to create a deliberative process in which all stakeholder perspectives are appropriately taken into consideration. It is not enough to just allow the various stakeholders to voice their perspectives. All the various comments must also be taken in consideration in a logical analysis process, in which for every important policy question, a set of possible answers is worked out, and each of the possible answers is evaluated against the objective of sustainable global, social and economic development as well as in regard to the fundamental principles of democracy, rule of law, and the internationally recognized human rights. > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Aug 27 05:00:57 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 18:00:57 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Re: Important new joint submission to CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <521C6164.7070005@apc.org> References: <521C6164.7070005@apc.org> Message-ID: <64A14678-CFB4-40CF-B82C-3C408048E7FF@glocom.ac.jp> Hi Anriette, The Affirmation of Commitments is actually a good example of enhanced cooperation, and the relationship that exists now between the U.S. govt and ICANN isn't one of oversight. Still needs to be improved, but significant progress since 2005. On the other hand, the recent IANN contract is a step back, U.S. govt claiming greater control than existed before. And in ICANN that's where I think we should focus, remembering civil society's long standing WSIS position, pre-2005, opposing unilateral control of the root. You're right, civil society isn't strong in ICANN, as to why might need a lot of thought (and perhaps lead to disagreement amongst those of us who are involved in ICANN... and that's never pretty :-)) Processes are open, organizations and individuals are able to join relevant constituent groups, but organizationally ICANN isn't structured around the 4 stakeholder groups in the same way as we expect in IGF etc. But increased civil society participation is important. An avenue to consider how to do this might be the new Strategy Panels announced in Durban to advise the CEO , particularly the panel on ICANN Multi-stakeholder Innovation chaired by Beth Noveck, herself with very strong CS background. Adam On Aug 27, 2013, at 5:20 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Hi all.. too late now to change the text, but Gene's intervention alerted me to a few issues in the response which I think are worth noting in discussion, if not in our response. I actually drafted this message last week.. but did not send it at the time. > > It is good that the 'tyrannical' reference was changed. > > On another issue, I think that to say that ICANN is "overseen" by just one government does > not adequately reflect how influential the GAC has become in ICANN. E.g. > on the recent gTLD decisions regarding .patagonia and .amazon the US > abstained in the light of so many other governments opposing these gTLDs. > > While it does not change the structural location of ICANN in the US, > which remains something I believe should change, it does reflect a shift > in government participation and power in ICANN. > > In this particular instance I fully support the GAC's stance on > rejecting these gTLDs and I hope that it will lead to ICANN reviewing is > policies with regard to such domain names. I realise not all in Best > Bits and among CS working in the name space would agree with me - but I > feel very strongly that the marketisation of names, knowledge and > concepts that ICANN encourages is counter to pubic-interest oriented IG. > Civil society did not come up with a unified position on the issue > (correct me if I am wrong) and but for government involvement those > gTLDs would probably have been granted. But governments track record in > GAC is mixed. A more powerful GAC can also pose risks for freedom of > expression and assocition. > > My sense is that civil society is not all that strong in ICANN, but I > would bow to the views of those people who are actively involved . > Those who see ICANN as a best practice MS body should reflect on this. > Progress in establishing enhanced cooperation in ICANN has, in my > outsider view, focused primarily on government involvement and civil > society influence is nowhere near being equal to that of business and > governments. The technical community (e.g. NROs) does seem influential > to me in ICANN, and seems to often intervene in favour of a more public interest oriented approach. If not for their influence in ICANN there would be little to counter the force of some business interests (not all business involved in ICANN have the same interests, but they do all mostly seem to support the marketisation approach). > > It seems to me that if not for the dedicated work of those CS people who > work in the ICANN space CS would not feature as much as it does in that > particular experiment in EC. I know they are working on ways to change > this at structural level, and we should support these efforts. > > Going off on this tangent makes me think we should really try to state the > importance of CS inclusion in EC even more strongly in responses to the CSTD WG, and in the subsequent discussion inside the WG and people should be careful when referring to ICANN as a 'good practice' example of multi-stakeholder participation and inclusive policy-making. > > But I remain in support of Jeremy's synthesis of inputs into this process. > > Anriette > > On 23/08/2013 09:16, genekimmelman at gmail.com wrote: >> I hope we will reconsider use of the word tyrannical to describe any regime or action. If our goal is to make a strong statement and express some kind of parallelism between vastly different countries, it may be more effective to use a less provocative word. >> Maybe something that conveys disrespect for human rights principles? >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Jeremy Malcolm >> Date: >> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> Subject: [bestbits] Re: Important new joint submission to CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation >> >> A reminder that any remaining comments on this draft submission are due over the weekend, so that can post it to the Best BIts site and begin collecting endorsements in time to submit it to the CSTD on 31 August. >> >> I would like to reiterate the importance of us delivering a strong joint civil society submission to this questionnaire. Other groups such as ICC-BASIS are supporting the status quo, and even putting forward the idea that things like the (much-criticised by civil society) APEC Cross-Border Privacy Regulation system is a good example of enhanced cooperation in practice! So it is very important for us to put forward a strong submission that points out the shortcomings of the status quo, and advances a public interest perspective on this topic. >> >> Thanks. >> >> On 19/08/2013, at 4:16 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> All Best Bits participants are now invited to finalise a joint submission to the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, which we are to submit by the end of August. This will be a very important submission in its own right, and also a key preparatory document to three upcoming Best Bits meetings - our APrIGF workshop in Seoul, Day 1 of our Best Bits meeting in Bali, and one of our two workshops at the global IGF. >> >> Its importance is that it addresses a question, unresolved for the last eight years, about how global Internet governance (in the broad sense that goes beyond technical issues) should evolve in response to states claims of sovereignty over public policy issues relating to the Internet. I wrote a background paper about this general question (and slides) for our WSIS+10 workshop in Paris. Post-PRISM, the question has only assumed greater importance. >> >> For the past few weeks, a civil society-only Best Bits working group (which also includes, though not in an official capacity, civil society members of the CSTD working group) has been working hard on this, to hone in on the core issues and to state them clearly and fairly, taking into account the wide divergence in views that exists even within civil society. The result of our work is open for your comment for one week, at which time we will close for endorsements: >> >> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/ec >> >> The current text is also pasted below. We aim for this submission to be as broadly inclusive of the views of Best Bits participants as possible, so after reading and considering the existing text carefully, if you have any changes to suggest, please speak up. If the changes are minor, you can just make them on the Etherpad. If major, we would ask that you raise them on the list first. The more groups that can endorse the submission, the more influence it will have. >> >> Just to reiterate, we are not taking endorsements yet. This will occur after one week of final comments from this list. (There is no point in taking endorsements when there might still be changes to the text.) For the same reason, we ask that you don't forward the draft text widely yet. If you want to bring other groups into the discussion that is welcome, but (for now) the best way to do so would be to ask them to join the Best Bits list. >> >> Here, then, is the current text (starting from question 2, which is intentional): >> >> 2. What do you think is the significance, purpose and scope of enhanced cooperation as per the Tunis Agenda? >> >> a) Significance >> >> The inclusion of the enhanced cooperation mandate in the Tunis Agenda was a political necessity to account for the view of many governments and others of the inadequacy of existing Internet governance arrangements when measured against the criteria identified in the first phase of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS): namely transparency, accountability, multilateralism, and the need to address public policy issues related to Internet governance in a coordinated manner (WGIG Report, para 35). In particular it was suggested "that there are many cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms" (Tunis Agenda, para 60). >> >> Foremost amongst the areas in which a deficit in existing arrangements was perceived was the issue of internationalizing Internet oversight beyond the United States, a struggle that had dominated the entire summit process from the beginning of WSIS I. But existing arrangements were also seen as failing to adequately address a broad range of other issues, some discussed below under question 4. At the conclusion of WSIS, civil society, backed by what ultimately became a coalition among the US and some other mainly developed countries, got the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), as a multi-stakeholder forum to address mainly those other broader issues. The promise of addressing the narrower issue of Internet oversight, as sought by a key group of other governments, was reserved for a process parallel to the IGF, and perhaps as a counterbalance to it. Those governments got as a result the 'enhanced cooperation' process. It is also significant that even though the discussion was quite conflictual, member states chose to use 'positive' words: enhance, and cooperation. The ongoing discussion about how to improve IG arrangements should continue in this same positive spirit. >> >> b) Purpose >> >> Therefore the purpose of enhanced cooperation process mandate, in conjunction with the closely related mandate for the formation of an Internet Governance Forum, is to address the perceived deficits described above. In particular the Tunis Agenda identifies that enhanced cooperation would enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet" (para 69). Subtextually, the main purpose of Enhanced Cooperation as sought by governments was to provide a space where they could further deal with the dominant issue across both the summits - internatiionalization of Internet oversight. With IGF a mainly civil society initiative, albeit multi-stakeholder in conception, enhanced cooperation was a process in which goverments would be the main actors. >> >> c) Scope >> >> The enhanced cooperation mandate "should include the development of globally-applicable principles on public policy issues" (para 70) and "also could envisage creation of a suitable framework or mechanisms, where justified" (para 61). But it does not envision the involvement of governments "in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy issues" (para 69). >> >> Although there is an emphasis on what enhanced cooperation means for governments (who, after all, were the only stakeholder group required to agree to the enhanced cooperation mandate), the Tunis Agenda does not suggest that enhanced cooperation is solely for governments. In paragraph 69, enhanced cooperation is suggested as a mechanism to "enable" governments to carry out their roles and responsibilities. To "enable" does not mean that enhanced cooperation is for governments alone. Indeed the scope of enhanced cooperation also encompasses all relevant stakeholders as per para 70 ("organisations responsible for essential tasks") and the process towards enhanced cooperation will involve "all stakeholders" per para 71. >> >> 3. To what extent has or has not enhanced cooperation been implemented? Please use the space below to explain and to provide examples to support your answer. >> >> It follows that for any public policy issue related to Internet governance that lacks at least one transparent, accountable, multilateral process, involving all stakeholders, for the development of globally-applicable principles to enable that issue to be addressed in a coordinated manner, or any framework or mechanisms to support such a process, the enhanced cooperation mandate is yet to be implemented. As the Tunis Agenda does not necessarily specify that a single or central process or mechanism is required, and indeed there is none yet, some point to a variety of independent efforts to coordinate policy development across a number of issue areas and fora as evidence of the implementation of the mandate. But the degree of such implementation currently varies. >> >> For example, the progress made at ICANN with respect to issues of critical Internet resources, involving the role of the Framework of Commitments (FoC) AND the Government Advisory Council (GAC) may be seen as a movement towards fulfilling the enhanced cooperation mandate in that context. Less evidence of such can be seen in the work of WIPO on intellectual property enforcement, that of UNCTAD on cross-border consumer protection, that of the UN Human Rights Council on the human rights impacts of government surveillance, or that of the World Wide Web Consortium on online behavioural advertising. There are other issues still for which there is no institution with a clear responsibility to implement the enhanced cooperation mandate: for example, there is no global body that deals comprehensively with data protection and privacy rights, and similar gaps exist in many other areas of a social, economic, political and cultural nature (see question 4). >> >> Indeed while the IGF has developed, across now seven annual sessions, enhanced cooperation has not really got off the ground. There was a session in New York the end of 2010, seeking wider input. And CSTD has held various meetings on the subject. But enhanced cooperation - as conceived in the grand bargain of WSIS - has so far not been taken to serious steps. Meanwhile the tensions that led to the enhanced cooperation bargain are still very much in play, as illustrated by the impasse at the ITU's World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in 2012 between governments seeking to assert greater control over the Internet, and those opposing international treaties as a method of such control. We can agree with both camps: that the enhanced cooperation mandate has not been adequately implemented, but also that going for an intergovernmental treaty is not the right way to begin implementing the EC imperative. >> >> 4. What are the relevant international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet? >> (List in order of priority, if possible) >> >> The list of International public policy issues that pertain to the Internet is not closed, since these change over time as social conditions change. However, much work has already been done to elaborate some of the most relevant such issues. This work includes the WGIG report, the background report that accompanied it, and ITU Resolution 1305 with regard to “scope of work of ITU on international Internet-related public policy matters”. Drawing together and grouping some of the issues identified in these reports and elsewhere, we present a partial list, roughly categorised into groups (though many issues do cut across categories): >> >> Human rights >> Freedom of Expression >> Data protection and privacy rights >> Consumer rights >> Multilingualism >> Access to knowledge and free information flows, deepening the public domain on the Internet >> Internet intermediary companies as private agents for extra-territorial law enforcement (problems with) >> Protection of vulnerable sections, like children, women, traditional communities etc >> Net neutrality (that all data is given equal priority on networks) >> Search neutrality (that global search engines give neutral results) >> >> Access and accessibility >> Multilingualization of the Internet including Internationalized (multilingual) Domain Names >> International Internet Connectivity >> Cultural diversity >> Accessibility policies for the disabled >> Affordable and universal access >> Reliability, and quality of service, especially in the developing world >> Contributing to capacity building for Internet governance in developing countries >> Developmental aspects of the Internet >> >> Critical Internet resources management and oversight >> Administration of the root zone files and system >> Interconnection costs (especially global interconnection) >> Allocation of domain names >> IP addressing >> Convergence and next generation networks >> Technical standards, and technology choices >> Continuity, sustainability, and robustness of the Internet >> Genuine internationalization of Internet oversight >> >> Security and law enforcement >> Internet stability and security >> Combatting cybercrime >> Other issues pertaining to the use and misuse of the Internet >> Dealing effectively with spam >> Protecting children and young people from abuse and exploitation >> Cryptography >> Cross border coordination >> >> Trade and commerce >> e-commerce >> copyright >> patents >> trademarks >> Cross border Internet flows >> Internet service providers (ISPs) and third party liabilities >> National policies and regulations (harmonization of) >> Competition policy, liberalization, privatization and regulations >> Applicable jurisdiction >> Tax allocation among different jurisdictions with regard to global e-commerce >> Development of, and protection to, local content, local application, local e-services, and local/ domestic Internet businesses >> Internet and health systems, education systems, governance systems and so on. >> Cloud computing (global issues involved) >> Economics of personal data (who owns, who makes money from, and so on) >> Media convergence - Internet and traditional media (Internet companies versus newspapers, radio, cable and TV, book publishing industry etc) >> Regulation of global Internet businesses (in terms of adherence to competition policies, consumer rights, law enforcement etc) >> >> 5. What are the roles and responsibilities of the different stakeholders, including governments, in implementation of the various aspects of enhanced cooperation? >> >> We do not think that the allocation of roles between the stakeholders that the Tunis Agenda established should be taken as definitive. We take it that, like the definition of Internet governance adopted in the Tunis Agenda which was specified as a "working definition", so too the definitions of the roles of stakeholders adopted in the Tunis Agenda were also working definitions that would be subject to review. >> >> The definition of civil society's "important role ... especially at community level" is particularly unhelpful. We contend that civil society's role in contributing to the development of global public policy principles is much more integral than that definition suggests. In particular, there are cases in which governments are not inclined to uphold the human rights of Internet users, such as the rights of foreigners whose Internet usage is the subject of official surveillance. Civil society has a key role in representing the interests of such users, and others whose interests are otherwise poorly represented due to democratic deficits at national and international levels. >> >> But further, the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders cannot be fixed in Internet governance (or probably in many other areas of governance either). For example civil society can in some instances represent specific marginalised communities or user or interest groups (e.g. the visually impaired). At other times civil society can be experts providing input and guidance on how to approach policy issues. At other times civil society can play a 'watch' role to monitor the behaviour of business or government in order to protect the public interest. And so on. Roles and responsibilities of stakeholder groups will depend on the type of process, and the specific interests involved and with a stake in the outcome of each process. >> >> Please see also the response to Question 11, below, for some particulars. >> >> 6. How should enhanced cooperation be implemented to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet? >> >> We acknowledge that governments remain the main representative structure for international public policy development. This typically takes place through the UN and other multi-lateral institutions such as the WTO, etc. But on Internet-related public policy issues, there are transnational interests and impacts that governments cannot adequately take into account without the full participation of other stakeholders. There is room for discussion about the best way of involving those stakeholders, and it does not necessarily mean placing them on an equal level with governments. There would be value in establishing a framework or mechanism to address Internet related public policy issues that do not already have a home in any existing global forum, or where that forum does not fulfil the WSIS process criteria, including the participation of all stakeholders. Such a framework or mechanism should be non-duplicative and should take advantage of the expertise of existing arrangements, mechanisms, institutions or organisations where relevant. >> >> There is also a link between the global and national level. Governments need to put in place transparent, accountable, processes at the national level to support those at the global level. If one takes, for example, ICANN and the GAC, many governments are now participating in the GAC, but their participation is not always transparent to national stakeholders, and it is not clear who they are accountable to at national level. Member states need to fulfil WSIS process criteria at the national level otherwise it does not make much sense (other than just to large powerful business and CS actors) to implement them at the global level. >> >> 7. How can enhanced cooperation enable other stakeholders to carry out their roles and responsibilities? >> >> By bringing governments closer to the other stakeholders, the other stakeholders are also brought closer to governments. If enhanced cooperation is a process whereby governments (and existing Internet governance spaces/processes) are compelled to adhere to WSIS principles of transparency, accountability, etc., this can serve to create an approach to IG, and to existing and evolving IG processes and spaces that is rooted in the public interest and inclusive of all stakeholders. Even if the public interest is not always clear, such processes should, and could involve all stakeholders in negotiating a common understanding of what the broadest possible public interest is on any particular issue. >> >> 8. What are the most appropriate mechanisms to fully implement enhanced cooperation as recognized in the Tunis Agenda, including on international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet and public policy issues associated with coordination and management of critical Internet resources? >> >> The CSTD Working Group is itself an important mechanism for the stakeholders to set in train a process to fully implement enhanced cooperation, which may in turn eventually result in changes to frameworks, structures or institutions. This will not take place immediately, but in phases. We are now in a kind of distributed reform/exploration phase with the IGF and IGF-like processes trying to create more cooprative engagement, and institutions like ICANN and the ITU putting in place certain reforms, and institutions that previously ignore the Internet beginning to take it seriously (e.g. the Human Rights Council). >> >> This should lead into an intermediate phase of more formalised transparency and reporting and collaboration among all institutions or processes dealing with Internet governance. The IGF (with its mandate to "promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes") could be the home for this role. >> >> Ultimately however, this alone will not fill the gaps that created the enhanced cooperation mandate. There is also a pressing need to address very important global Internet related public policy issues, and to do so at the global level, and this work has to be done by democratic / representative structures. This may require the eventual establishment of a new framework or mechanism, particularly in the case of emerging and orphaned issues that have no other global home. Although a logical home for such a framework or mechanism would be the United Nations, we acknowledge the many weaknesses in UN processes at present, including in relation to transparency and very uneven support for the inclusion of civil society influence in the UN system. Certainly, a traditional intergovernmental organisation is not an appropriate structure. >> >> In the technical realm of Internet naming and numbering, the response to the weaknesses and shortcomings of the UN system has been to establish in ICANN a body which is independent of the UN system. But even ICANN is overseen by governments, or to be more precise by one government - the United States. And whilst the UN is characterised by some as being a haven for tyrranical regimes, the United States itself is widely criticised as having infringed global human rights norms through its global surveillance practices, and for its tyrannical pursuit of whistleblowers such as Edward Snowden for exposing such practices. Therefore in comparing the respective merits of a UN-based institution (particularly if it is an innovative, multi-stakeholder, and semi-autonomous one such as the IGF), and a non-US based institution that is nonetheless beholden to governments at some level, the choice is not as stark as it is often presented to be. >> >> Therefore in both areas - general public policy issues in which governments have a leading role through the international system, and naming and numbering in which ICANN has a leading role - reforms are eventually required. Taking first the case of ICANN, the reforms for which we advocate would not be to bring it within the United Nations, but to broaden its oversight beyond the United States alone. This may take the form of a new international oversight board with techno-political membership derived from different geopolitical regions. The mandate of this oversight mechanism would be very narrow, more or less the same as exercised by the Department of Commerce of the United States Government at present. ICANN would become an international organisation and enter into a host country agreement with the United States, giving it complete immunity from US law or any other form of control or interference. >> >> It is not necessary that the same new framework or mechanism that broadens the oversight of ICANN, should also deal with other general public policy issues. In fact there is considerable merit in looking at these aspects of enhanced cooperation separately. Because of the more mature state of the multi-stakeholder model that already exists around the regime for management of critical Internet resources, there is good reason to separate out the need to internationalise existing mechanisms for governmental oversight of that regime, from the need for new frameworks or mechanisms for dealing with more general public policy issues of various political, economic, social and cultural kinds, for which there might be a more central role for another new framework or mechanism. >> >> In such fields of public policy outside the narrowly technical, there would be the choice to build upon the existing global order that we have in the United Nations, or to rebuild this from scratch (as in the case of ICANN). Whilst there is merit in the idea of a post-UN transnational democratic order that derives its legitimacy from the individual rather than from the nation state, and which could provide legitimacy and oversight for both technical and broader public policy bodies, nothing of this kind exists or is a realistic prospect for the short or medium term. Therefore, if the mechanism that we begin through the CSTD Working Group does lead towards a new framework or process, we accept the likelihood that such framework or process would likely have to be at least loosely linked with the UN. >> >> It is sometimes claimed that there is no need for a new framework or mechanism, because all public policy issues are already covered by a network of existing mechanisms. But the WGIG and Tunis Agenda (paragraph 60) concluded that this was not true, and this remains the case. In fact, the kind of global Internet policy issues that are not adequately addressed by any existing mechanism has only grown in number and complexity since the WSIS. Does this mean that we are asking for a single new mechanism to cover all issues? No. But there must be at least one such mechanism (that is global, multi-stakeholder, etc) and if there is none, nor any scope for an existing narrower body (such as the ITU) to change in order to meet these criteria, then it follows that at least one new mechanism is needed. Conversely, whilst we agree that existing mechanisms should be used where available, we disagree that having a plethora of overlapping bodies or mechanisms is always a positive thing. This limits the ability for developing country governments and civil society representatives to participate, because of their limited resources. >> >> If the CSTD does recommend a process that leads to some new framework or mechanism in the future, any such new framework or mechanism should be based on the principles of subsidiarity, and be innovative in terms of mandate, structure, and functions, to be adequate to the unique requirements of global Internet governance. It must be participative of all stakeholders, promoting the democratic and innovative potential of the Internet. Exactly what shape it takes will emerge through reasoned deliberation. Some of us believe that governments will accept nothing less than a new intergovernmental body, like a committee that could be attached to the UN General Assembly, and accordingly would accept such a body if and only if it includes an extensive structure of participation by all stakeholders which could be modelled on the stakeholder participation mechanisms of the OECD's Internet policy development body, the CICCP, and would have a close and organic relationship with the IGF. This option proceeds from the position that global governance reforms should take place in-outwards, proceeding from current multilateral toward their further democratisation. >> >> For some others of us, although understanding the sincerity of governments and the legitimacy of their claim to set policy norms, there are too many dangers in proposing such a formal new intergovernmental body, but may be fewer dangers in an adjunct to the IGF, as described below in question 9. Whilst we are still formulating what format a new framework or mechanism might take, and will be discussing this question further at our meeting ahead of the Bali IGF, we are in accord that the CSTD should be open to considering a process that leads to some new framework or mechanism in the future, that is dedicated to fulfilling the purpose and scope of enhanced cooperation as mentioned in the Tunis Agenda and as described above, in a way that the uncoordinated efforts of individual stakeholders and institutions towards fulfilling that mandate have been unable to do. >> >> 9. What is the possible relationship between enhanced cooperation and the IGF? >> >> The IGF complements the enhanced cooperation mandate, but as it stands, it does not fulfill that mandate. Some of us believe there is the potential for a significantly strengthened IGF, with appropriate long-term funding support, to host a new framework or mechanism to facilitate the development of globally-applicable principles on public policy issues through a multi-stakeholder process. If so, this would have be entirely new and supplementary to the IGF's existing structures and processes, significantly differing from those that exist now such as the MAG, workshops and dynamic coalitions. In any case, regardless of whether any such new framework or mechanism is part of the IGF, the IGF's existing structures and processes will be valuable in deepening the public sphere for multi-stakeholder discussion of Internet policy issues, which will be integral to the work conducted through the new framework or mechanism. >> >> 10. How can the role of developing countries be made more effective in global Internet governance? >> >> Developing countries have taken recourse to the ITU because they feel that they are not otherwise represented in in the existing global Internet governance arrangements, which are dominated by developed countries and by companies and organisations based in those countries. This points to the need for reforms such as those advocated above. >> >> However that alone will not be enough. Developing countries are excluded at so many different levels, and they self-exclude, so addressing this problem is not at all trivial. The way in which Internet governance for development (IG4D) has been conceived and addressed in the IGF and in other global spaces is not helpful. It is narrow, and top down, and often does not go beyond affordable access issues. Clarifying the role of governments in Interent governance (see questions 5, 6, 7 and 11) is the first step. Developing country governments must be involved in this discussion otherwise they will not buy into its outcomes. Another necessary step is to foster more engagement with Internet governance issues at the national level in developing countries. In the way that developing countries have made an impact on global issues such as trade justice for, example, so too they could in Internet governance. The issues are debated at national level by the labour movement, local business, social justice groups etc. and this both pressurises governments and informs governments (not always in the desired way) at the global level. Critical thinking needs to be applied at national and regional level, with involvement of non-governmental stakeholders for more effective developing country representation at global level. And vice versa. Global Internet governance processes need to report and feed into national processes. In short, making developing countries (government and other stakeholders) play a more effective role in global Internet governance requires mechanisms at national and regional level as well as a process of democratisation at the global level. >> >> 11. What barriers remain for all stakeholders to fully participate in their respective roles in global Internet governance? How can these barriers best be overcome? >> >> As noted in questions 2a and 2b above, enhanced cooperation was largely a role taken by governments who required it, through which they hoped to address the over-arching issue of WSIS, namely internationalization of Internet oversight. But as question 3 notes, that has not happened. The apparent problem is that two separate objectives - the principal aims of either of the power poles - have been conflated. If these two objectives (in question 4 above) are treated separately, then there may become the possibility to find some common ground. >> >> Specifically, the US and its allies have feared, and have acted to stop, what they see as the threat of totalitarian control of the Internet. But it is possible to switch from this negative characterization, to a positive outlook: the US and its allies have been centrally concerned with freedom of expression, for our new global communications medium, the Internet. The other governmental power pole has been concerned, from the beginning of WSIS, and even well before, that oversight for the Internet move from the US, to a global arrangement. Both objectives are laudable, and reconcilable. >> >> The way forward, as suggested in question 8, is to treat those two objectives separately. In fact, continuing to conflate them - so that there can be no action on one, without impact on the other - assures deadlock. Separating them creates a freedom of maneuver that may permit to find ways forward, between the two, so-far implacable camps. >> >> Related to this, the bi-polar opposition between groups of states has come to be mirrored among (what have become) the states' frontline troops: the stakeholders. Multi-stakeholderism has been used as a point of distinction between the Internet governance model favoured by the US and its allies from those of the countries who have been calling for internationalisation of policy oversight. Thus multi-stakeholderism, perhaps the most important innovation of WSIS, which formally acknowledges governance roles for multiple stakeholders, has been co-opted into this struggle between the two governmental power poles. >> >> But this is a false dichotomy. Whilst it is fundamental that public policy issues be determined through democratic means, and in the ideal conception of democracy, this would fall to elected governments, we have found that even supposed governmental defenders of democracy abuse their state power - as the Snowden episode, and before it the Manning episode, and even the Wikileaks story, have revealed (not least through the treatment of the individuals themselves). In truth no governement has fully lived up to its fundamental democratic responsibilities, and then within that to the new promise of multi-stakeholderism at the national or the global level. >> >> Real multi-stakeholderism offers to formalize government consultation with its constituencies, as governments formulate policy. Among other purposes, this offers a safeguard against the abuses of state power, when 'the people' may otherwise be forgotten. This - real multi-stakeholderism - means consulting widely, certainly beyond the usual suspects who may frequent UN meetings. Thence, the people of a democracy may be empowered, with voices speaking from all corners, and providing a bulwark against the ever-present temptations, for those temporarily entrusted with governmental power, to abuse that power. >> >> Thus civil society - instead of being used as pawns in a global power tussle - may instead use the new regime, to assume a rightful place in democracy. >> >> 12. What actions are needed to promote effective participation of all marginalised people in the global information society? >> >> Information and communication policy and practice at national level that is based on (and committed to) information and communication processes supporting political, social and economic development. Access to ICTs can empower marginalised people and create more inclusion, but political and economic processes need to enable this for the full potential of this empowerment to make a difference. >> >> 13. How can enhanced cooperation address key issues toward global, social and economic development? >> >> >> >> 14. What is the role of various stakeholders in promoting the development of local language content? >> >> >> >> 15. What are the international internet-related public policy issues that are of special relevance to developing countries? >> >> >> >> 16. What are the key issues to be addressed to promote the affordability of the Internet, in particular in developing countries and least developed countries? >> >> >> >> 17. What are the national capacities to be developed and modalities to be considered for national governments to develop Internet-related public policy with participation of all stakeholders? >> >> >> >> 18. Are there other comments, or areas of concern, on enhanced cooperation you would like to submit? >> >> In institutionalizing and operationalizing enhanced cooperation, it is critically important to create a deliberative process in which all stakeholder perspectives are appropriately taken into consideration. It is not enough to just allow the various stakeholders to voice their perspectives. All the various comments must also be taken in consideration in a logical analysis process, in which for every important policy question, a set of possible answers is worked out, and each of the possible answers is evaluated against the objective of sustainable global, social and economic development as well as in regard to the fundamental principles of democracy, rule of law, and the internationally recognized human rights. >> > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > From avri at acm.org Tue Aug 27 09:24:35 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 09:24:35 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Important new joint submission to CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <521C6164.7070005@apc.org> References: <521C6164.7070005@apc.org> Message-ID: On 27 Aug 2013, at 04:20, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > A more powerful GAC can also pose risks for freedom of > expression and assocition. Some of us believe that with the GAC, the Governments have already achieved near veto over ICANN decisions, and already control ICANN for all intents and purposes. Not a situation I am happy about, but it is what it is. As I mentioned before, I did not think those on the WGEC should contribute to statements so I stayed out of the discussions. But now that they are over, I figure I can comment. The idea that governments should control ICANN is sort of speaking about something that has already happened. avri From joana at varonferraz.com Tue Aug 27 11:50:33 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 12:50:33 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=5BNewsletter=5D_Digital_Rights=3A_Lati?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?n_Am=E9rica_=26_The_Caribbean=2E_N=B02?= Message-ID: Dear all, For those interested in LatAm, please, find the second edition of the newsletter Digital Rights LatAm and Caribe. It's a joint initiative with different organizations from the region. Articles are available in English, Portuguese and Spanish. For this issue, I've collaborated with one article about the contradictions within our country reactions to NSA scandals and the way governments are leading with privacy issues: Watch out: NSA scandal shall not masquerade national threats to privacy protection in LatAmHope it's useful. If you have interest, please, subscribe. ** Here you will find monthly analysis and information about the state of digital rights in Latin American and the Caribbean. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.. WELCOME In this edition we analyze the national threats to privacy protection in Latin America, as well as the Brazilian reaction to the Prism and its consequences related to Internet governance. We also observe the regional IGF and the problems of net neutrality in Chile. Human rights in the digital environment in Colombia and an unsuitable insight from Peruvian legislators about the internet are also addressed in the new edition of August 2013. Congress Passes New Law Regulating Copyright Collecting Societies in BrazilWith the passage of the bill by the Senate, Brazil now has the chance to have one of the most advanced laws from the comparative perspective on the global collection and distribution of copyright. Read more . Brazilian reaction to Prism raises questions about regulation and governance of the network The Brazilian government’s response, before the espionage on the UN Security Council was revealed, offers interesting perspectives on the future of regulation and global governance of the Internet. Read more . How we learned to stop worrying and love the ban A group of bills recently introduced in the Peruvian Congress address various issues related to Internet use. However, its take on technologies and their potential is biased and pessimistic resulting in formulas which propose banning all that which can not be controlled. Read more . The neutrality of the internet in Chile: Too much sophistication for SUBTEL? The neutrality of the internet in Chile is not much better now than it was three years ago, when there was no law in this regard. A large part of the responsibility for this can be laid at the door of the regulatory authority SUBTEL, which appears not to have taken on the technical challenges that the implementation of the legislation requires. Read more . Human Rights in the Digital Age, the Discussion in the Colombian Case Do we lose human rights when we log in to the Internet? What are the new nuances that take on this debate? Experts from four countries met to deliberate on the Colombian case on the conference “Human Rights in the Digital Age.” Read more . The Region Is Preparing for the Internet Governance Forum From 27th to 29th of August, the Sixth Regional Preparatory Meeting for the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) will be held in Cordoba, Argentina, a discussion space where, in addition for best practice sharing, it will serve to raise issues and challenges implicated in building this great new public space that is the Internet. Read more . Watch out: NSA scandal shall not masquerade national threats to privacy protection in LatAm The picture we sketch shows a dissonance between Latin American leaders reactions to the Snowden case and their governments’ practices regarding the respect and protection of privacy within their own borders, which highlights some ironies and threats of such nationalists reactions. Read more . Latest news in the region *Mercosur and the future of the Internet in Latin America* More information *Argentina: **The Government presented the National Web Site of Public Data* More information in Spanish *Argentina: **The Supreme Court revoked a ruling that condemned a journalist for a publication* More information in Spanish *Brazil: Dilma sanctions new law regulating copyright collecting societies in Brazil* More information in Portuguese *Chile: **Chilean Senators Formally Request Public Debate on the Trans Pacific Partnership* More information in Spanish *Chile: Music labels sent "warnings" to those who download pirated music in Chile* More information in Spanish *Chile: **UNASUR ministers reject Communications interception* More information in Spanish *Colombia: **New comment on 4th Lleras Law, following the work group discussion opened by the Colombian government.* More information in Spanish *Colombia: **More than 100 groups worldwide established the "International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance."* More information in Spanish *Perú: **The Chehade Porn SOPA* More information in Spanish Events Coming Soon - *Preparatory Meeting for the Internet Governance Forum. Cordoba - Argentina* August, 27th to 29th, 2013. - *Regional Forum on Business and Human Rights for Latin America and the Caribbean. Medellín, Colombia* August 28th to 30th, 2013 Documents - *Looking north is looking back: the negative impact of the DMCA. The Notice-and-takedown Procedure and Technological Protection Measures* Carlos Cortés | Language: Spanish - *Critical analysis of the mechanisms for the measurement of software piracy: the case of "Global software piracy study"* Pablo Viollier | Language: Spanish - *Chilean Journal of Law and Technology. No. 2 (2013): First Semester 2013.* Several authors | Language: Spanish This newsletter was made by: [image: ADEC] [image: Derechos Digitales] Share this on Facebook | Twitt this | Forward this Creative Commons BY-SA *2013 Digital Rights: Latin America and the Caribbean, *Some rights reserved*.* You are receiving this newsletter because you, or someone using this email address, subscribed to the Digital Rights: Latin América & The Caribbean. *Our mailing address is:* Digital Rights: Latin America and the Caribbean Diagonal Paraguay 450 piso 2 Santiago 8330026 Chile Add us to your address book [image: Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp] unsubscribe from this list| update subscription preferences -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew at gp-digital.org Tue Aug 27 13:11:16 2013 From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 18:11:16 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] IGF plus In-Reply-To: <000601cea2c6$a79e8050$f6db80f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: I think it would be useful to have a basic discussion of what we mean by M/S in the BB framework Andrew Puddephatt, Director Global Partners Digital Development House, 56-64 Leonard St, EC2A 4LT, UK Office 44 (0)207 549 0350 Mobile: +44 (0)771 339 9597 andrew at gp-digital.org www.global-partners.co.uk From: michael gurstein > Date: Tuesday, 27 August 2013 02:42 To: Jeremy Malcolm > Cc: andrew Puddephatt >, "" > Subject: RE: [bestbits] IGF plus My apologies if I'm going over ground that has already been sewn and harvested (I've been dealing with other matters for the last 3 months or so) but the issue of MSism really needs to start with a basic legitimacy of the constituting of the various stakeholder elements… how these interact to my mind (as covered in the items you point to below) is I think, a secondary issue… The current status appears to be something like all actual "stakeholders" are welcome (until they aren't), everyone can be a stakeholder(until they can't--for reasons of cost, voice, status, knowledge, skill etc.), "legitimate" stakeholder groups can simply, by showing up, obtain legitimacy without having to subscribe to any type of formal internal process (transparent, accountable etc.?) for the determination of the nature of the "stake" that they are "holding"/pursuing and so on, "legitimate stakeholders" q.v. are welcome but there are no effective means to facilitate participation of other (new, non-existing stakeholders (or to legitimize non-currently legitimized stakeholders… etc.etc. In my blogpost of some time ago, I talked about MSism vs. democracy and I don't see that we/anyone has made any progress in this area in the interim. I'm ready to agree that there are significant limitations with the use of representative democracy in the IG area but I am concerned that we may be too ready to jump on the MS bandwagon without having a very clear idea of what it means not only to us but to any of the other MS parties. And to respond to Andrew's question, I think the place to start is at the beginning--by insisting on/initiating some basic discussions on what is meant by MSism in the various forums where it is being invoked and working towards some sort of formalization (even if it is the formalization of the informal) in these processes at least to the extent of making them visible and thus subject to discussion and clarification. I'm thinking that the various workshops addressing this at the IGF will begin the process but I think we i.e. BB/CS has the responsibility/opportunity to be thinking of where this might go post IGF as for example into a declaration on what we mean by MSism and how we recognize MS processes which we believe are legitimate from a CS perspective. BTW, to be clear, I'm raising this not to attempt to fork other discussions but rather to suggest that unless there is clarity and agreement on these fundamentals it is hard to accept the legitimacy of anything that follows from these i.e. MS processes. M From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 4:56 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: 'Andrew Puddephatt'; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] IGF plus On 26/08/2013, at 3:36 PM, michael gurstein > wrote: I think before we start thinking about an IGF+ we need to be thinking about getting some kind of "formalization" (democratization etc.) in the MS processes that are at the core of the IGF etc. Until experiences like mine with the selection process for the ECWG are worked through and some determination is made as to what constitutes a "stakeholder" group and under what sort of governance/transparency/accountability structures those operate within I think it is seriously premature to be thinking about an IGF that is capable of working through to Soft Law or whatever. This isn't to say that we should be working in that direction but just to say that if the fundamentals aren't taken care of, everything that follows is suspect. I agree with everything bar the prefatory "before we start thinking about an IGF+" - as indeed as soon as we start to think about an IGF+, we are led inevitably to the reinforcement and formalisation of the IGF's governance/transparency/accountability structures. We have collectively begun to explore the IGF+ with the "IGF multistakeholder opinions" statement that many of us signed at http://bestbits.net/igf-opinions/. So that's a good starting point. I continue to stand by the slightly more elaborate "Multistakeholder Internet Policy Council" proposal that I developed for the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. See the thread "Comparison of five current civil society options" in the EC list for more on this (21 July and following, or I can repost here). For more detail still (largely consistent with the above, though with some differences in nomenclature), there's the paper "Appraising the Success of the Internet Governance Forum" that I wrote for the Internet Governance Project some (five!) years ago now, which is available from both http://igfwatch.org and http://www.internetgovernance.org. -- 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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Aug 27 13:17:34 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 22:47:34 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] IGF plus In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <521CDF2E.7000705@itforchange.net> Fully support this. Lets give one full day to this... I have often wondered about the basic difference that my organisation has with many others in the IG space... and It boils down to what is meant by MSism. So I would gain a lot by together exploring what we really mean by it - generally, and in different specific relationships, and also its relationship to democracy. parminder On Tuesday 27 August 2013 10:41 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > I think it would be useful to have a basic discussion of what we mean > by M/S in the BB framework > > *Andrew Puddephatt, Director**Global Partners Digital * > > *Development House, 56-64 Leonard St, EC2A 4LT, UK*** > > *Office **44 (0)207 549 0350*** > > *Mobile: +44 (0)771 339 9597*** > > *andrew at g > p-digital.org**www.global-partners.co.uk > * > > ** > > From: michael gurstein > > Date: Tuesday, 27 August 2013 02:42 > To: Jeremy Malcolm > > Cc: andrew Puddephatt >, "" > > > Subject: RE: [bestbits] IGF plus > > My apologies if I'm going over ground that has already been sewn and > harvested (I've been dealing with other matters for the last 3 months > or so) but the issue of MSism really needs to start with a basic > legitimacy of the constituting of the various stakeholder elements… > how these interact to my mind (as covered in the items you point to > below) is I think, a secondary issue… > > The current status appears to be something like all actual > "stakeholders" are welcome (until they aren't), everyone can be a > stakeholder(until they can't--for reasons of cost, voice, status, > knowledge, skill etc.), "legitimate" stakeholder groups can simply, by > showing up, obtain legitimacy without having to subscribe to any type > of formal internal process (transparent, accountable etc.?) for the > determination of the nature of the "stake" that they are > "holding"/pursuing and so on, "legitimate stakeholders" q.v. are > welcome but there are no effective means to facilitate participation > of other (new, non-existing stakeholders (or to legitimize > non-currently legitimized stakeholders… etc.etc. > > In my blogpost of some time ago, I talked about MSism vs. democracy > > and I don't see that we/anyone has made any progress in this area in > the interim. I'm ready to agree that there are significant > limitations with the use of representative democracy in the IG area > but I am concerned that we may be too ready to jump on the MS > bandwagon without having a very clear idea of what it means not only > to us but to any of the other MS parties. > > And to respond to Andrew's question, I think the place to start is at > the beginning--by insisting on/initiating some basic discussions on > what is meant by MSism in the various forums where it is being invoked > and working towards some sort of formalization (even if it is the > formalization of the informal) in these processes at least to the > extent of making them visible and thus subject to discussion and > clarification. I'm thinking that the various workshops addressing this > at the IGF will begin the process but I think we i.e. BB/CS has the > responsibility/opportunity to be thinking of where this might go post > IGF as for example into a declaration on what we mean by MSism and how > we recognize MS processes which we believe are legitimate from a CS > perspective. > > BTW, to be clear, I'm raising this not to attempt to fork other > discussions but rather to suggest that unless there is clarity and > agreement on these fundamentals it is hard to accept the legitimacy of > anything that follows from these i.e. MS processes. > > M > > *From:*Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] > *Sent:* Monday, August 26, 2013 4:56 PM > *To:* michael gurstein > *Cc:* 'Andrew Puddephatt'; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] IGF plus > > On 26/08/2013, at 3:36 PM, michael gurstein > wrote: > > > > I think before we start thinking about an IGF+ we need to be thinking > about getting some kind of "formalization" (democratization etc.) in > the MS processes that are at the core of the IGF etc. Until > experiences like mine with the selection process for the ECWG are > worked through and some determination is made as to what constitutes a > "stakeholder" group and under what sort of > governance/transparency/accountability structures those operate within > I think it is seriously premature to be thinking about an IGF that is > capable of working through to Soft Law or whatever. This isn't to say > that we should be working in that direction but just to say that if > the fundamentals aren't taken care of, everything that follows is suspect. > > I agree with everything bar the prefatory "before we start thinking > about an IGF+" - as indeed as soon as we start to think about an IGF+, > we are led inevitably to the reinforcement and formalisation of the > IGF's governance/transparency/accountability structures. > > We have collectively begun to explore the IGF+ with the "IGF > multistakeholder opinions" statement that many of us signed at > http://bestbits.net/igf-opinions/. So that's a good starting point. > > I continue to stand by the slightly more elaborate "Multistakeholder > Internet Policy Council" proposal that I developed for the CSTD > Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. See the thread "Comparison of > five current civil society options" in the EC list for more on this > (21 July and following, or I can repost here). > > For more detail still (largely consistent with the above, though with > some differences in nomenclature), there's the paper "Appraising > the Success of the Internet Governance Forum" that I wrote for the > Internet Governance Project some (five!) years ago now, which is > available from both http://igfwatch.organd > http://www.internetgovernance.org. > > -- > > *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 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge > hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mshears at cdt.org Wed Aug 7 12:01:53 2013 From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears) Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 17:01:53 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] PCLOB deadline extended to September 15th In-Reply-To: <51FAE664.10104@cdt.org> References: <51FAE664.10104@cdt.org> Message-ID: <52026F71.2040100@cdt.org> Dear all Just to follow-on from Emma's last note. Given the extension to September 15th, we have been deliberating when to file the letter with the PCLOB. We could wait until the new deadline but fear that the letter and its newsworthiness may be overcome by other events. Knowing what is the best time to file is a little tricky, but those of us who have been shepherding this along believe that despite the extension we should file sooner than later. We therefore propose that the letter be filed with the PCLOB next week which gives us a little more time to get additional signatures (we have been reaching out directly to organisations that have not signed up) and to work the press both in the US and internationally. Our proposal is that we submit end-of-day *Wednesday 14 August* while working media opportunities/placements through the end of that week. We propose leaving the letter on the site and open to further sign-ons through September 15th - submitting the letter next week does not preclude an update to PCLOB on the letter's status. So, for those organisations that wish to sign-on but haven't done so please do. And for those that have signed-on please go out to your networks and see if your partner organisations will consider joining this effort. Sign-ons by Wednesday are preferable - but welcome anytime through September 15. If you have suggestions as to media and news activities/connections please do let us know. Letter is here: http://bestbits.net/pclob/ Many thanks for your support for this important letter. Matthew On 01/08/2013 23:51, Emma Llanso wrote: > Hi all, > > At the last minute, the US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board > has extended their deadline > > for public comment until *September 15th*. This means that I'm going > to hold off on submitting the joint letter > that many of you have signed on to -- the > extended deadline gives us a lot more time to solicit signatories for > the letter, prepare a media strategy, and encourage organizations to > submit their own comments into the proceeding. > > I continue to think this comment process represents one of the best > opportunities for groups and advocates outside the US to make their > opinions heard to the US government on the NSA surveillance programs. > Thanks again to all of you who've taken the time to engage on this > joint letter, and I hope the extended deadline will give more of you > the time to consider commenting! > > Best, > Emma > > -- > Emma J. Llansó > Policy Counsel > Center for Democracy & Technology > 1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100 > Washington, DC 20006 > 202-407-8818 | @cendemtech | > @ellanso -- Matthew Shears Director and Representative Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) mshears at cdt.org +44 (0) 771 247 2987 Skype: mshears -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anriette at apc.org Tue Aug 27 14:03:31 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 20:03:31 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] IGF plus In-Reply-To: <521CDF2E.7000705@itforchange.net> References: <521CDF2E.7000705@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <521CE9F3.2000000@apc.org> Agree this is an important issue to discuss. We need to unpack the the terminology and the trends and identify what we really want and plan how to get there. MS is being used as a synonym for democracy, and approached as an end in itself as opposed to a means to an end. As people are sharing readings, here is an article I wrote in response to a paper by Bertrand de la Chapelle in MIND #2 (edited by Wolfgang Kleinwachter) http://www.collaboratory.de/w/A_Long_Way_to_Go_Civil_Society_Participation_in_Internet_Governance Anriette On 27/08/2013 19:17, parminder wrote: > > Fully support this. Lets give one full day to this... > > I have often wondered about the basic difference that my organisation > has with many others in the IG space... and It boils down to what is > meant by MSism. So I would gain a lot by together exploring what we > really mean by it - generally, and in different specific > relationships, and also its relationship to democracy. > parminder > > > On Tuesday 27 August 2013 10:41 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: >> I think it would be useful to have a basic discussion of what we mean >> by M/S in the BB framework >> >> *Andrew Puddephatt, Director**Global Partners Digital * >> >> *Development House, 56-64 Leonard St, EC2A 4LT, UK*** >> >> *Office **44 (0)207 549 0350*** >> >> *Mobile: +44 (0)771 339 9597*** >> >> *andrew at g >> p-digital.org**www.global-partners.co.uk >> * >> >> ** >> >> From: michael gurstein > >> Date: Tuesday, 27 August 2013 02:42 >> To: Jeremy Malcolm > >> Cc: andrew Puddephatt > >, "" >> > >> Subject: RE: [bestbits] IGF plus >> >> My apologies if I'm going over ground that has already been sewn and >> harvested (I've been dealing with other matters for the last 3 months >> or so) but the issue of MSism really needs to start with a basic >> legitimacy of the constituting of the various stakeholder elements… >> how these interact to my mind (as covered in the items you point to >> below) is I think, a secondary issue… >> >> The current status appears to be something like all actual >> "stakeholders" are welcome (until they aren't), everyone can be a >> stakeholder(until they can't--for reasons of cost, voice, status, >> knowledge, skill etc.), "legitimate" stakeholder groups can simply, >> by showing up, obtain legitimacy without having to subscribe to any >> type of formal internal process (transparent, accountable etc.?) for >> the determination of the nature of the "stake" that they are >> "holding"/pursuing and so on, "legitimate stakeholders" q.v. are >> welcome but there are no effective means to facilitate participation >> of other (new, non-existing stakeholders (or to legitimize >> non-currently legitimized stakeholders… etc.etc. >> >> In my blogpost of some time ago, I talked about MSism vs. democracy >> >> and I don't see that we/anyone has made any progress in this area in >> the interim. I'm ready to agree that there are significant >> limitations with the use of representative democracy in the IG area >> but I am concerned that we may be too ready to jump on the MS >> bandwagon without having a very clear idea of what it means not only >> to us but to any of the other MS parties. >> >> And to respond to Andrew's question, I think the place to start is at >> the beginning--by insisting on/initiating some basic discussions on >> what is meant by MSism in the various forums where it is being >> invoked and working towards some sort of formalization (even if it is >> the formalization of the informal) in these processes at least to the >> extent of making them visible and thus subject to discussion and >> clarification. I'm thinking that the various workshops addressing >> this at the IGF will begin the process but I think we i.e. BB/CS has >> the responsibility/opportunity to be thinking of where this might go >> post IGF as for example into a declaration on what we mean by MSism >> and how we recognize MS processes which we believe are legitimate >> from a CS perspective. >> >> BTW, to be clear, I'm raising this not to attempt to fork other >> discussions but rather to suggest that unless there is clarity and >> agreement on these fundamentals it is hard to accept the legitimacy >> of anything that follows from these i.e. MS processes. >> >> M >> >> *From:*Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] >> *Sent:* Monday, August 26, 2013 4:56 PM >> *To:* michael gurstein >> *Cc:* 'Andrew Puddephatt'; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> >> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] IGF plus >> >> On 26/08/2013, at 3:36 PM, michael gurstein > > wrote: >> >> >> >> I think before we start thinking about an IGF+ we need to be thinking >> about getting some kind of "formalization" (democratization etc.) in >> the MS processes that are at the core of the IGF etc. Until >> experiences like mine with the selection process for the ECWG are >> worked through and some determination is made as to what constitutes >> a "stakeholder" group and under what sort of >> governance/transparency/accountability structures those operate >> within I think it is seriously premature to be thinking about an IGF >> that is capable of working through to Soft Law or whatever. This >> isn't to say that we should be working in that direction but just to >> say that if the fundamentals aren't taken care of, everything that >> follows is suspect. >> >> I agree with everything bar the prefatory "before we start thinking >> about an IGF+" - as indeed as soon as we start to think about an >> IGF+, we are led inevitably to the reinforcement and formalisation of >> the IGF's governance/transparency/accountability structures. >> >> We have collectively begun to explore the IGF+ with the "IGF >> multistakeholder opinions" statement that many of us signed at >> http://bestbits.net/igf-opinions/. So that's a good starting point. >> >> I continue to stand by the slightly more elaborate "Multistakeholder >> Internet Policy Council" proposal that I developed for the CSTD >> Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. See the thread "Comparison of >> five current civil society options" in the EC list for more on this >> (21 July and following, or I can repost here). >> >> For more detail still (largely consistent with the above, though with >> some differences in nomenclature), there's the paper "Appraising the >> Success of the Internet Governance Forum" that I wrote for the >> Internet Governance Project some (five!) years ago now, which is >> available from both http://igfwatch.organd >> http://www.internetgovernance.org. >> >> -- >> >> *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 >> >> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement >> knowledge hub >> |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org >> | >> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice >> . Don't >> print this email unless necessary. >> >> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly >> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For >> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >> > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 From jefsey at jefsey.com Tue Aug 27 14:46:47 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 20:46:47 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: Important new joint submission to CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <65A17C82-7308-44A9-9605-6C76361A5296@ciroap.org> References: <52119C17.4040809@ciroap.org> <6C79E61E-0649-44C3-8C2E-8C2CC6C82F58@ciroap.org> <65A17C82-7308-44A9-9605-6C76361A5296@ciroap.org> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Aug 28 00:22:19 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 11:22:19 +0700 Subject: [bestbits] IGF plus In-Reply-To: <521CE9F3.2000000@apc.org> References: <521CDF2E.7000705@itforchange.net> <521CE9F3.2000000@apc.org> Message-ID: <025101cea3a6$3d4e8de0$b7eba9a0$@gmail.com> Thanks for this Anriette an interesting and useful article and good background for our discussions. Your having pointed me to the overall journal issue on this subject has given me a chance to review the various positions and particularly that of Bertrand de la Chapelle a leading MSism proponent. Reading these articles with post-Snowden eyes however, I must say that I found the overall discussion very naïve and even disingenuous on the part of some. MSism takes as its central and defining concept the notion of the "stake" as in a specific and "personal" (or direct) involvement in the matter under discussion. What is lacking in this notion (and notably I didn't see any reference to it in any of the articles in that journal issue) is the notion of "interest" as in financial "interest", or perhaps more importantly "national interest". One of the things that is coming out rather clearly from the Snowden revelations is the degree to which the US (at least as represented by its leading security agency) sees the infrastructure of the Internet (and its dominance thereof through various mechanisms including I would say through matters of Internet Governance) as being in it's "national interest". What I fail to see in any of the MS discussions and dare I say fabulations is any coming to grips with how very real, significant and powerful "interests" are to be handled/managed/confronted within a MS framework. While it is at least at the level of theory conceivable that all stakeholders in the Internet environment might obtain some return from their "stake", I am at a loss to see how the interests of for example, total global surveillance by the NSA can be reconciled with the interests of for example, civil society in upholding global Human Rights. My fear is that by dealing in these matters only at the level of "stakes", we fail to respond to the matters of conflicts of "interests" and of course, this diverting of attention only further allows for interest holders to effectively pursue their specific interests in these matters. M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 1:04 AM To: parminder Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] IGF plus Agree this is an important issue to discuss. We need to unpack the the terminology and the trends and identify what we really want and plan how to get there. MS is being used as a synonym for democracy, and approached as an end in itself as opposed to a means to an end. As people are sharing readings, here is an article I wrote in response to a paper by Bertrand de la Chapelle in MIND #2 (edited by Wolfgang Kleinwachter) http://www.collaboratory.de/w/A_Long_Way_to_Go_Civil_Society_Participation_i n_Internet_Governance Anriette On 27/08/2013 19:17, parminder wrote: > > Fully support this. Lets give one full day to this... > > I have often wondered about the basic difference that my organisation > has with many others in the IG space... and It boils down to what is > meant by MSism. So I would gain a lot by together exploring what we > really mean by it - generally, and in different specific > relationships, and also its relationship to democracy. > parminder > > > On Tuesday 27 August 2013 10:41 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: >> I think it would be useful to have a basic discussion of what we mean >> by M/S in the BB framework >> >> *Andrew Puddephatt, Director**Global Partners Digital * >> >> *Development House, 56-64 Leonard St, EC2A 4LT, UK*** >> >> *Office **44 (0)207 549 0350*** >> >> *Mobile: +44 (0)771 339 9597*** >> >> *andrew at g >> p-digital.org**www.global-partne >> rs.co.uk >> * >> >> ** >> >> From: michael gurstein > > >> Date: Tuesday, 27 August 2013 02:42 >> To: Jeremy Malcolm > >> Cc: andrew Puddephatt > >, "" >> > >> Subject: RE: [bestbits] IGF plus >> >> My apologies if I'm going over ground that has already been sewn and >> harvested (I've been dealing with other matters for the last 3 months >> or so) but the issue of MSism really needs to start with a basic >> legitimacy of the constituting of the various stakeholder elements >> how these interact to my mind (as covered in the items you point to >> below) is I think, a secondary issue >> >> The current status appears to be something like all actual >> "stakeholders" are welcome (until they aren't), everyone can be a >> stakeholder(until they can't--for reasons of cost, voice, status, >> knowledge, skill etc.), "legitimate" stakeholder groups can simply, >> by showing up, obtain legitimacy without having to subscribe to any >> type of formal internal process (transparent, accountable etc.?) for >> the determination of the nature of the "stake" that they are >> "holding"/pursuing and so on, "legitimate stakeholders" q.v. are >> welcome but there are no effective means to facilitate participation >> of other (new, non-existing stakeholders (or to legitimize >> non-currently legitimized stakeholders etc.etc. >> >> In my blogpost of some time ago, I talked about MSism vs. democracy >> > cracy-my-adventures-in-stakeholderland/> >> and I don't see that we/anyone has made any progress in this area in >> the interim. I'm ready to agree that there are significant >> limitations with the use of representative democracy in the IG area >> but I am concerned that we may be too ready to jump on the MS >> bandwagon without having a very clear idea of what it means not only >> to us but to any of the other MS parties. >> >> And to respond to Andrew's question, I think the place to start is at >> the beginning--by insisting on/initiating some basic discussions on >> what is meant by MSism in the various forums where it is being >> invoked and working towards some sort of formalization (even if it is >> the formalization of the informal) in these processes at least to the >> extent of making them visible and thus subject to discussion and >> clarification. I'm thinking that the various workshops addressing >> this at the IGF will begin the process but I think we i.e. BB/CS has >> the responsibility/opportunity to be thinking of where this might go >> post IGF as for example into a declaration on what we mean by MSism >> and how we recognize MS processes which we believe are legitimate >> from a CS perspective. >> >> BTW, to be clear, I'm raising this not to attempt to fork other >> discussions but rather to suggest that unless there is clarity and >> agreement on these fundamentals it is hard to accept the legitimacy >> of anything that follows from these i.e. MS processes. >> >> M >> >> *From:*Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] >> *Sent:* Monday, August 26, 2013 4:56 PM >> *To:* michael gurstein >> *Cc:* 'Andrew Puddephatt'; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> >> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] IGF plus >> >> On 26/08/2013, at 3:36 PM, michael gurstein > > wrote: >> >> >> >> I think before we start thinking about an IGF+ we need to be thinking >> about getting some kind of "formalization" (democratization etc.) in >> the MS processes that are at the core of the IGF etc. Until >> experiences like mine with the selection process for the ECWG are >> worked through and some determination is made as to what constitutes >> a "stakeholder" group and under what sort of >> governance/transparency/accountability structures those operate >> within I think it is seriously premature to be thinking about an IGF >> that is capable of working through to Soft Law or whatever. This >> isn't to say that we should be working in that direction but just to >> say that if the fundamentals aren't taken care of, everything that >> follows is suspect. >> >> I agree with everything bar the prefatory "before we start thinking >> about an IGF+" - as indeed as soon as we start to think about an >> IGF+, we are led inevitably to the reinforcement and formalisation of >> the IGF's governance/transparency/accountability structures. >> >> We have collectively begun to explore the IGF+ with the "IGF >> multistakeholder opinions" statement that many of us signed at >> http://bestbits.net/igf-opinions/. So that's a good starting point. >> >> I continue to stand by the slightly more elaborate "Multistakeholder >> Internet Policy Council" proposal that I developed for the CSTD >> Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. See the thread "Comparison of >> five current civil society options" in the EC list for more on this >> (21 July and following, or I can repost here). >> >> For more detail still (largely consistent with the above, though with >> some differences in nomenclature), there's the paper "Appraising the >> Success of the Internet Governance Forum" that I wrote for the >> Internet Governance Project some (five!) years ago now, which is >> available from both http://igfwatch.organd >> http://www.internetgovernance.org. >> >> -- >> >> *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 >> >> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement >> knowledge hub >> |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org >> | >> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice >> . Don't >> print this email unless necessary. >> >> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly >> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For >> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >> > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Aug 28 00:56:37 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 11:56:37 +0700 Subject: [bestbits] IGF plus References: <521CDF2E.7000705@itforchange.net> <521CE9F3.2000000@apc.org> Message-ID: <026a01cea3ab$014112a0$03c337e0$@gmail.com> Perhaps to clarify a wee little bit.. To use an analogy-- gamblers in Las Vegas have "stakes" (some large, some small which is what they are gambling and these come and go and change with time), the casino owners have "interests" and these change very very slowly. The first can be managed by mutual agreement (depending on the nature of the game being played, the second requires rather more substantial means to "manage" or regulate... M -----Original Message----- From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 11:22 AM To: 'anriette at apc.org'; 'parminder' Cc: 'bestbits at lists.bestbits.net' Subject: RE: [bestbits] IGF plus Thanks for this Anriette an interesting and useful article and good background for our discussions. Your having pointed me to the overall journal issue on this subject has given me a chance to review the various positions and particularly that of Bertrand de la Chapelle a leading MSism proponent. Reading these articles with post-Snowden eyes however, I must say that I found the overall discussion very naïve and even disingenuous on the part of some. MSism takes as its central and defining concept the notion of the "stake" as in a specific and "personal" (or direct) involvement in the matter under discussion. What is lacking in this notion (and notably I didn't see any reference to it in any of the articles in that journal issue) is the notion of "interest" as in financial "interest", or perhaps more importantly "national interest". One of the things that is coming out rather clearly from the Snowden revelations is the degree to which the US (at least as represented by its leading security agency) sees the infrastructure of the Internet (and its dominance thereof through various mechanisms including I would say through matters of Internet Governance) as being in it's "national interest". What I fail to see in any of the MS discussions and dare I say fabulations is any coming to grips with how very real, significant and powerful "interests" are to be handled/managed/confronted within a MS framework. While it is at least at the level of theory conceivable that all stakeholders in the Internet environment might obtain some return from their "stake", I am at a loss to see how the interests of for example, total global surveillance by the NSA can be reconciled with the interests of for example, civil society in upholding global Human Rights. My fear is that by dealing in these matters only at the level of "stakes", we fail to respond to the matters of conflicts of "interests" and of course, this diverting of attention only further allows for interest holders to effectively pursue their specific interests in these matters. M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 1:04 AM To: parminder Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] IGF plus Agree this is an important issue to discuss. We need to unpack the the terminology and the trends and identify what we really want and plan how to get there. MS is being used as a synonym for democracy, and approached as an end in itself as opposed to a means to an end. As people are sharing readings, here is an article I wrote in response to a paper by Bertrand de la Chapelle in MIND #2 (edited by Wolfgang Kleinwachter) http://www.collaboratory.de/w/A_Long_Way_to_Go_Civil_Society_Participation_i n_Internet_Governance Anriette On 27/08/2013 19:17, parminder wrote: > > Fully support this. Lets give one full day to this... > > I have often wondered about the basic difference that my organisation > has with many others in the IG space... and It boils down to what is > meant by MSism. So I would gain a lot by together exploring what we > really mean by it - generally, and in different specific > relationships, and also its relationship to democracy. > parminder > > > On Tuesday 27 August 2013 10:41 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: >> I think it would be useful to have a basic discussion of what we mean >> by M/S in the BB framework >> >> *Andrew Puddephatt, Director**Global Partners Digital * >> >> *Development House, 56-64 Leonard St, EC2A 4LT, UK*** >> >> *Office **44 (0)207 549 0350*** >> >> *Mobile: +44 (0)771 339 9597*** >> >> *andrew at g >> p-digital.org**www.global-partne >> rs.co.uk >> * >> >> ** >> >> From: michael gurstein > > >> Date: Tuesday, 27 August 2013 02:42 >> To: Jeremy Malcolm > >> Cc: andrew Puddephatt > >, "" >> > >> Subject: RE: [bestbits] IGF plus >> >> My apologies if I'm going over ground that has already been sewn and >> harvested (I've been dealing with other matters for the last 3 months >> or so) but the issue of MSism really needs to start with a basic >> legitimacy of the constituting of the various stakeholder elements >> how these interact to my mind (as covered in the items you point to >> below) is I think, a secondary issue >> >> The current status appears to be something like all actual >> "stakeholders" are welcome (until they aren't), everyone can be a >> stakeholder(until they can't--for reasons of cost, voice, status, >> knowledge, skill etc.), "legitimate" stakeholder groups can simply, >> by showing up, obtain legitimacy without having to subscribe to any >> type of formal internal process (transparent, accountable etc.?) for >> the determination of the nature of the "stake" that they are >> "holding"/pursuing and so on, "legitimate stakeholders" q.v. are >> welcome but there are no effective means to facilitate participation >> of other (new, non-existing stakeholders (or to legitimize >> non-currently legitimized stakeholders etc.etc. >> >> In my blogpost of some time ago, I talked about MSism vs. democracy >> > cracy-my-adventures-in-stakeholderland/> >> and I don't see that we/anyone has made any progress in this area in >> the interim. I'm ready to agree that there are significant >> limitations with the use of representative democracy in the IG area >> but I am concerned that we may be too ready to jump on the MS >> bandwagon without having a very clear idea of what it means not only >> to us but to any of the other MS parties. >> >> And to respond to Andrew's question, I think the place to start is at >> the beginning--by insisting on/initiating some basic discussions on >> what is meant by MSism in the various forums where it is being >> invoked and working towards some sort of formalization (even if it is >> the formalization of the informal) in these processes at least to the >> extent of making them visible and thus subject to discussion and >> clarification. I'm thinking that the various workshops addressing >> this at the IGF will begin the process but I think we i.e. BB/CS has >> the responsibility/opportunity to be thinking of where this might go >> post IGF as for example into a declaration on what we mean by MSism >> and how we recognize MS processes which we believe are legitimate >> from a CS perspective. >> >> BTW, to be clear, I'm raising this not to attempt to fork other >> discussions but rather to suggest that unless there is clarity and >> agreement on these fundamentals it is hard to accept the legitimacy >> of anything that follows from these i.e. MS processes. >> >> M >> >> *From:*Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] >> *Sent:* Monday, August 26, 2013 4:56 PM >> *To:* michael gurstein >> *Cc:* 'Andrew Puddephatt'; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> >> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] IGF plus >> >> On 26/08/2013, at 3:36 PM, michael gurstein > > wrote: >> >> >> >> I think before we start thinking about an IGF+ we need to be thinking >> about getting some kind of "formalization" (democratization etc.) in >> the MS processes that are at the core of the IGF etc. Until >> experiences like mine with the selection process for the ECWG are >> worked through and some determination is made as to what constitutes >> a "stakeholder" group and under what sort of >> governance/transparency/accountability structures those operate >> within I think it is seriously premature to be thinking about an IGF >> that is capable of working through to Soft Law or whatever. This >> isn't to say that we should be working in that direction but just to >> say that if the fundamentals aren't taken care of, everything that >> follows is suspect. >> >> I agree with everything bar the prefatory "before we start thinking >> about an IGF+" - as indeed as soon as we start to think about an >> IGF+, we are led inevitably to the reinforcement and formalisation of >> the IGF's governance/transparency/accountability structures. >> >> We have collectively begun to explore the IGF+ with the "IGF >> multistakeholder opinions" statement that many of us signed at >> http://bestbits.net/igf-opinions/. So that's a good starting point. >> >> I continue to stand by the slightly more elaborate "Multistakeholder >> Internet Policy Council" proposal that I developed for the CSTD >> Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. See the thread "Comparison of >> five current civil society options" in the EC list for more on this >> (21 July and following, or I can repost here). >> >> For more detail still (largely consistent with the above, though with >> some differences in nomenclature), there's the paper "Appraising the >> Success of the Internet Governance Forum" that I wrote for the >> Internet Governance Project some (five!) years ago now, which is >> available from both http://igfwatch.organd >> http://www.internetgovernance.org. >> >> -- >> >> *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 >> >> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement >> knowledge hub >> |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org >> | >> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice >> . Don't >> print this email unless necessary. >> >> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly >> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For >> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >> > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Wed Aug 28 02:03:23 2013 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 08:03:23 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] RE: IGF plus In-Reply-To: <026a01cea3ab$014112a0$03c337e0$@gmail.com> References: <521CDF2E.7000705@itforchange.net> <521CE9F3.2000000@apc.org> <026a01cea3ab$014112a0$03c337e0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear all, I find this discussion very interesting and I hope to be able to chip in soon. May I however suggest to change the subject line to something more specifically related to the topic at hand (which I think is only marginally related to IGF 2.0, IGF++ or similar) ? Ciao, Andrea On Wednesday, August 28, 2013, michael gurstein wrote: > Perhaps to clarify a wee little bit.. To use an analogy-- gamblers in Las > Vegas have "stakes" (some large, some small which is what they are gambling > and these come and go and change with time), the casino owners have > "interests" and these change very very slowly. The first can be managed by > mutual agreement (depending on the nature of the game being played, the > second requires rather more substantial means to "manage" or regulate... > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com ] > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 11:22 AM > To: 'anriette at apc.org '; 'parminder' > Cc: 'bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ' > Subject: RE: [bestbits] IGF plus > > Thanks for this Anriette an interesting and useful article and good > background for our discussions. > > Your having pointed me to the overall journal issue on this subject has > given me a chance to review the various positions and particularly that of > Bertrand de la Chapelle a leading MSism proponent. > > Reading these articles with post-Snowden eyes however, I must say that I > found the overall discussion very naïve and even disingenuous on the part > of > some. MSism takes as its central and defining concept the notion of the > "stake" as in a specific and "personal" (or direct) involvement in the > matter under discussion. > > What is lacking in this notion (and notably I didn't see any reference to > it > in any of the articles in that journal issue) is the notion of "interest" > as > in financial "interest", or perhaps more importantly "national interest". > One of the things that is coming out rather clearly from the Snowden > revelations is the degree to which the US (at least as represented by its > leading security agency) sees the infrastructure of the Internet (and its > dominance thereof through various mechanisms including I would say through > matters of Internet Governance) as being in it's "national interest". > > What I fail to see in any of the MS discussions and dare I say fabulations > is any coming to grips with how very real, significant and powerful > "interests" are to be handled/managed/confronted within a MS framework. > While it is at least at the level of theory conceivable that all > stakeholders in the Internet environment might obtain some return from > their > "stake", I am at a loss to see how the interests of for example, total > global surveillance by the NSA can be reconciled with the interests of for > example, civil society in upholding global Human Rights. > > My fear is that by dealing in these matters only at the level of "stakes", > we fail to respond to the matters of conflicts of "interests" and of > course, > this diverting of attention only further allows for interest holders to > effectively pursue their specific interests in these matters. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net ] On Behalf Of > Anriette > Esterhuysen > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 1:04 AM > To: parminder > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] IGF plus > > Agree this is an important issue to discuss. We need to unpack the the > terminology and the trends and identify what we really want and plan how to > get there. MS is being used as a synonym for democracy, and approached as > an > end in itself as opposed to a means to an end. As people are sharing > readings, here is an article I wrote in response to a paper by Bertrand de > la Chapelle in MIND #2 (edited by Wolfgang > Kleinwachter) > > > http://www.collaboratory.de/w/A_Long_Way_to_Go_Civil_Society_Participation_i > n_Internet_Governance > > Anriette > > > > On 27/08/2013 19:17, parminder wrote: > > > > Fully support this. Lets give one full day to this... > > > > I have often wondered about the basic difference that my organisation > > has with many others in the IG space... and It boils down to what is > > meant by MSism. So I would gain a lot by together exploring what we > > really mean by it - generally, and in different specific > > relationships, and also its relationship to democracy. > > parminder > > > > > > On Tuesday 27 August 2013 10:41 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > >> I think it would be useful to have a basic discussion of what we mean > >> by M/S in the BB framework > >> > >> *Andrew Puddephatt, Director**Global Partners Digital * > >> > >> *Development House, 56-64 Leonard St, EC2A 4LT, UK*** > >> > >> *Office **44 (0)207 549 0350*** > >> > >> *Mobile: +44 (0)771 339 9597*** > >> > >> *andrew at g > >> p-digital.org**www.global-partne > >> rs.co.uk > >> * > >> > >> ** > >> > >> From: michael gurstein >> > > >> Date: Tuesday, 27 August 2013 02:42 > >> To: Jeremy Malcolm > > >> Cc: andrew Puddephatt >> >, "" > >> > > >> Subject: RE: [bestbits] IGF plus > >> > >> My apologies if I'm going over ground that has already been sewn and > >> harvested (I've been dealing with other matters for the last 3 months > >> or so) but the issue of MSism really needs to start with a basic > >> legitimacy of the constituting of the various stakeholder elements… > >> how these interact to my mind (as covered in the items you point to > >> below) is I think, a secondary issue… > >> > >> The current status appears to be something like all actual > >> "stakeholders" are welcome (until they aren't), everyone can be a > >> stakeholder(until they can't--for reasons of cost, voice, status, > >> knowledge, skill etc.), "legitimate" stakeholder groups can simply, > >> by showing up, obtain legitimacy without having to subscribe to any > >> type of formal internal process (transparent, accountable etc.?) for > >> the determination of the nature of the "stake" that they are > >> "holding"/pursuing and so on, "legitimate stakeholders" q.v. are > >> welcome but there are no effective means to facilitate participation > >> of other (new, non-existing stakeholders (or to legitimize > >> non-currently legitimized stakeholders… etc.etc. > >> > >> In my blogpost of some time ago, I talked about MSism vs. democracy > >> < -- -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Aug 28 03:40:38 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 09:40:38 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] IGF plus In-Reply-To: <025101cea3a6$3d4e8de0$b7eba9a0$@gmail.com> References: <521CDF2E.7000705@itforchange.net> <521CE9F3.2000000@apc.org> <025101cea3a6$3d4e8de0$b7eba9a0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: At 06:22 28/08/2013, michael gurstein wrote: >Reading these articles with post-Snowden eyes however, I must say that I >found the overall discussion very naïve and even disingenuous on the part of >some. MSism takes as its central and defining concept the notion of the >"stake" as in a specific and "personal" (or direct) involvement in the >matter under discussion. > >What is lacking in this notion (and notably I didn't see any reference to it >in any of the articles in that journal issue) is the notion of "interest" as >in financial "interest", or perhaps more importantly "national interest". Michael, I fully agree with the word "naive". The stakes are the people, national, corporate and multinational interests. Our cup of tea are people and their relational spaces interests. The rest is blah, blah, blah. This is the same as about a pseudo "technical and academic community" category. Each MS category has its technical and academic community, with dramatically different (self) assigned objectives. There are colossal economic, strategic, cultural interests being in coopetition, sometimes in conflict, at some points at war. Let get real. The IGF is everything but democracy. It is a place and a game of force and power. MSism is a polycratic system where a-symmetric e-diplomacy/conterwarfare can be made pseudo-symmetric. This pseudo-symmetry has nothing to do with democracy or HRs. It is only accepted because the different stakeholders' categories do not have the same influence terms and the self-interest of each category in a 4D universe is to protect its interests in each of the terms. Business is short term oriented, Governments are middle term oriented, International organizations are long term oriented and Civil Society is multi-term implied. They may have money, power, and cooperation, but let remember at last that "There is no wealth but men" (Jean Bodin), that is ourselves. The US strategy is simple and applied everywhere: the survival of the US calls for the widest international cooperation ... coordinated by the US. This is the, most probably pertinent and at least widely acknowedged, conclusion of "The grand chessboard" of Zbigniew Brzezinski This survival has a well known definition in terms of internet governance: statUS-quo. The question the Civil Society is to answer is simple: is statUS-quo favorable to the people of the world? This question is not an easy one, including for those who viscerally oppose them because the US position in the Internet is too dominant to die. The risk we face is that the US relies far too much on the US private sector technical lack of contributions (hence may be the emphasis on a "technical and academic community"), on the ICANN contractual strategy, and architectonics lack of innovation/propositions: as a result the digital giant we tend to rely upon has feet of clay. jfc From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Aug 28 04:36:08 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 10:36:08 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] RE: IGF-PLUS In-Reply-To: References: <521CDF2E.7000705@itforchange.net> <521CE9F3.2000000@apc.org> <026a01cea3ab$014112a0$03c337e0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Aug 28 12:51:42 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 22:21:42 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Position by IT for Change and some other NGOs on enhanced cooperation Message-ID: <521E2A9E.7070004@itforchange.net> /Apologies for cross posting/ Dear All IT for Change and some other NGOs plan to forward the following position to the UN Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. Preceding the position statement is a covering letter seeking support. You are /*welcome to support this position any time before 12 noon GMT on 31st Aug*/. We are happy to provide any additional information/ clarification etc. Also happy to otherwise discuss this position, and its different elements. We are motivated by the need to come up with precise and clear institutional options at this stage. Politics of inertia and not doing anything just serves the status quo. These may not be the best institutional options, and we are ready to enter into discussion with other groups on what instead would be the better options. But, again, not doing anything is, in our opinion, would be detrimental to global public interest. The web link to this position is at http://www.itforchange.net/civil_society_input_to_the_UN_Working_Group_for_global_governance_of_the_Internet . parminder /*Covering letter / Background */ In May 2012, more than 60 civil society organisations and several individuals participated in a campaign for 'democratising the global governance of the Internet '. A joint letter signed by the participants of this campaign /inter alia/ asked for setting up a UN Working Group towards this objective. Such a Working Group was set up and has now asked for public inputs to formulate its recommendations. In our joint letter, we had proposed some outlines for reforming the current global governance architecture of the Internet. Time has come now to make more clear and specific recommendations of the actual institutional mechanism that we need. With most governments more worried about their narrow geopolitical interests and relationships with individual countries, it falls upon the civil society to be bold and forward looking and put precise proposals on the table that can then be taken forward by state actors. In a post-Snowden world, there is deep discomfort among almost all countries, other than the US, with the manner in which the global Internet is run and is evolving. The need for some global norms, principles, rules, and necessary governance mechanisms for the global Internet is being felt now as never before. The Internet can no longer remain anchored to the political and business interests of one country, or to serving global capital, as it is at present. As a global commons, it is our collective democratic right and responsibility to participate in the governance of the Internet, so that it can become a vehicle for greater prosperity, equity and social justice for all. We seek your support to join us in proposing the enclosed document as an input to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. The Working Group has sought public inputs through a questionnaire which can be seen at http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD.aspx . The most important question is at number 8, which seeks input with regard to precise mechanism(s) that are required. Our response will mostly address this all-important question. (You are also encouraged to, separately, give a fuller response to the questionnaire on your behalf or on behalf of your organization.) We will also like to give wide media publicity to this civil society statement . We will be glad if you can send your response to us /*before the 30th of August*/. We are of course happy to respond to any clarification or additional information that you may want to seek in the above regard. Please also circulate this to others who you think may want to participate in this initiative. The global Internet governance space seems to be dominated by those who push for neoliberal models of governance. We must therefore have as many voices heard as possible. (The statement is cut pasted below this email and may also be seen here ) With best regard, Parminder *Parminder Jeet Singh* ------------------------------------------------------------------------ IT for Change In special consultative status with the United Nations ECOSOC www.ITforChange.net T: 00-91-80-26654134| T: 00-91-80-26536890| Fax: 00-91-80-41461055 /_*A civil society input to the UN Working Group looking at *_/ /_*institutional mechanisms for global governance of the Internet *_/ /(Please write to itfc @itforchange.net before 29th Aug if you will like to endorse this statement)**/ /* Why global governance of the Internet?*/ Internet governance is seen largely in terms of national sovereignty and security or as pertaining to free speech and privacy. We are of the view that there exist many other equally important issues for global Internet governance that arise from the whole gamut of rights and aspirations of people – social, economic, cultural, political and developmental. The relationship of the global Internet to cultural diversity is one example. The Internet increasingly determines not only the global flows of information but also of cultures, and their commodification. No social process is exempt from the influence of the Internet – from education to health and governance. Social systems at national and local levels are being transformed under the influence of the global Internet. Instead of decentralizing power, the current structure of the global Internet tends to centralize control in the hands of a small number of companies. Some of these companies have near-monopoly power over key areas of economic and social significance. Therefore, regulation of global Internet business through pertinent competition law, consumer law, open interoperability standards, etc, is becoming a pressing need. Increasing statist controls need to be similarly resisted. With the emergent paradigm of cloud computing presenting the looming prospect of remote management of our digital lives from different 'power centres' across the world, it is inconceivable that we can do without appropriate democratic governance of the global Internet. Post-Snowden, as many countries have begun to contemplate and even embark upon measures for 'digital sovereignty', the only way to preserve a /global//**/Internet is through formulating appropriate /global/ norms, principles and rules that will underpin its governance. /*Background of this civil society input*/ A group of over 60 civil society organizations and several individuals, made a statement on /'Democratizing the global governance of the Internet '/ to the open consultations on 'enhanced cooperation'^1 called by the Chair of the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) on May 18th, 2012, in Geneva. The statement /inter alia/ sought the setting up of a CSTD Working Group to address this issue. We are happy to note that such a Working Group has been set up and has now called for public inputs to make its recommendations. This document is an input to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC) on the behalf of the undersigned . In the aforementioned statement of May 2012, the civil society signatories had called for the following institutional developments to take place in the global Internet governance architecture: /Our demands with respect to 'global' Internet Governance espouse a simple and obvious democratic logic. On the technical governance side, the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical infrastructure, at present with the US government, should be transferred to an appropriate, democratic and participative, multi-lateral body, without disturbing the existing distributed architecture of technical governance of the Internet in any significant way. (However, improvements in the technical governance systems are certainly needed.) On the side of larger Internet related public policy-making on global social, economic, cultural and political issues, the OECD-based model of global policy making, as well as the default application of US laws, should be replaced by a new UN-based democratic mechanism. Any such new arrangement should be based on the principle of subsidiarity, and be innovative in terms of its mandate, structure, and functions, to be adequate to the unique requirements of global Internet governance. It must be fully participative of all stakeholders, promoting the democratic and innovative potential of the//Internet. / As the WGEC deliberates on concrete ways to move forward, the time is ripe to propose clear and specific institutional mechanisms for democratizing the global governance of the Internet. We have, therefore, expanded the above demands into specific mechanisms that should be set in place for this purpose. /*New global governance mechanisms are needed*/ We are of the view that it would be useful to have two distinct mechanisms – one that looks at the global Internet-related public policy issues in various social, economic, cultural and political domains, and another that should undertake oversight of the technical and operational functions related to the Internet (basically, replacing the current unilateral oversight of the ICANN^2 by the US government). This will require setting up appropriate new global governance bodies as well as a framework of international law to facilitate their work, as follows. /*A new UN body for Internet-related public policy issues:*//**/ An anchor global institution for taking up and addressing various public policy issues pertaining to the Internet in an ongoing manner is urgently required. It can be a committee attached to the UN General Assemblyor a more elaborate and relatively autonomous set up linked loosely to the UN (as a specialized UN body). It should have a very strong and institutionalized public consultative mechanism, in the form of stakeholder advisory groups that are selected through formal processes by different stakeholder constituencies, ensuring adequate representativeness. (OECD's /Committee on Computer, Information and Communication Policy/ and India's recent proposal for a /UN/ /Committee on Internet-related Policies/ are two useful, and somewhat similar, models that can be looked at.) This 'new body' will stay abreast of global Internet-related issues; where necessary, develop international level public policies in the concerned areas; seek appropriate harmonization of national level policies, and; facilitate required treaties, conventions and agreements. It will also have the necessary means to undertake studies and present analyses in different policy areas. Most Internet-related public policy issues are of a cross-cutting nature, and involve overlaps with mandates of other existing global governance bodies, like WIPO, UNESCO, WTO, UNDP, UNCTAD, ITU and so on. Due to this reason, the proposed new 'body' will establish appropriate relationships with all these other existing bodies, including directing relevant public policy issues to them, receiving their inputs and comments, and itself contributing specific Internet-related perspectives to issues under the purview of these other bodies. /*A new 'Internet Technical Oversight and Advisory Board':*/ This board will replace the US government's current oversight role over the technical and operational functions performed by ICANN. The membership of this oversight board can be of a techno-political nature, /i.e./consisting of people with specialized expertise but who also have appropriate political backing, ascertained through a democratic process. For instance, the board can be made of 10/15 members, with 2/3 members each from five geographic regions (as understood in the UN system). These members can perhaps be selected through an appropriate process by the relevant technical standards bodies and/or country domain name bodies of all the countries of the respective region. (Other mechanisms for constituting the techno-political membership of this board can also be considered.) The Internet technical oversight and advisory board will seek to ensure that the various technical and operational functions related to the global Internet are undertaken by the relevant organizations as per international law and public policy principles developed by the concerned international bodies. With regard to ICANN, the role of this board will more or less be exactly the same as exercised by the US government in its oversight over ICANN. As for the decentralized Internet standards development mechanisms, like the Internet Engineering Task Force, these self organizing systems based on voluntary adoption of standards will continue to work as at present. The new board will have a very light touch and non-binding role with regard to them. It will bring in imperatives from, and advise these technical standards bodies on, international public policies, international law and norms being developed by various relevant bodies. For this board to be able to fulfill its oversight mandate, ICANN must become an international organization, without changing its existing multistakeholder character in any substantial manner. It would enter into a host country agreement with the US government (if ICANN has to continue to be headquartered in the US). It would have full immunity from US law and executive authority, and be guided solely by international law, and be incorporated under it. Supervision of the authoritative root zone server must also be transferred to this oversight broad. The board will exercise this role with the help of an internationalized ICANN. This board will also advise the afore-mentioned new public policy body on technical matters pertaining to the Internet policy making, as well as take public policy inputs from it. /*Framework Convention on the Internet:*//**/An appropriate international legal framework will be required sooner than later for the above bodies to function properly. Accordingly, one of the early tasks of the proposed 'new body' dealing with Internet-related public policy issues, discussed above, will be to help negotiate a 'Framework Convention on the Internet' (somewhat like the /Framework Convention on Climate Change )/. Governance of the Internet concerns different kinds of issues that are ever-evolving. It is, therefore, preferable to formulate an enabling legal structure as a 'framework convention' rather than as a specific treaty or convention that addresses only a bounded set of issues. It may also be easier to initially agree to a series of principles, protocols and processes that can then frame further agreements, treaties etc on more specific issues. Such a Framework Convention will thus enable appropriate and ongoing global policy responses to various opportunities and challenges that the fast-evolving phenomenon of the Internet throws up. It will also formalize the basic architecture of the global governance of the Internet; /inter alia/ recognizing and legitimizing the existing role and functions of the various bodies currently involved with managing the technical and logical infrastructure of the Internet, including the ICANN, Regional Internet Registries, Internet technical standards bodies and so on. Appropriate mechanisms for crisis response and dispute resolution in relation to the global Internet, and the social activity dependent on it, will also be required to be set up. /*Relationship with the IGF*/ The UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was established as a multistakeholder 'policy dialogue forum' by the World Summit on the Information Society. The proposed global Internet policy mechanism, especially the new UN based body, will maintain a close relationship with the IGF. IGF affords a very new kind of participative mechanism for policy making, whereby the participation realm is institutionalized, and relatively independent of the policy making structures. The IGF should preferably pre-discuss issues that are taken up by this new policy body and present diverse perspectives for its consideration. A good part of the agenda for this new body can emerge from the IGF. Whenever possible, draft proposals to be adopted by this new body should be shared with the IGF. To perform such a participation enhancing role, the IGF must be adequately strengthened and reformed, especially to address the dominance of Northern corporatist interests in its current working. It must be supported with public funds, and insulated from any funding system that can bring in perverse influences on its agenda and outcomes. Other required processes must also be put in place to ensure that the IGF indeed brings in constituencies that are typically under-represented, rather than provide further political clout to the already dominant. A participative body is only as good as the policy making mechanisms that feed off it. To that extent, the meaningfulness and effectiveness of the IGF itself requires a strong policy development mechanism, as suggested in this document, to be linked to it. Investing in the IGF is useful only if its outputs and contributions lead to something concrete. /*Funding*/ An innovative way to fund the proposed new global Internet policy mechanisms, and also the IGF, is to tap into the collections made by the relevant bodies from allocation of names and numbers resources pertaining to the global Internet (like the fee that ICANN collects annually from each domain name owner). These accruals now run into millions of dollars every year and could be adequate to fund a large part of the needed mechanisms for democratic governance of the global Internet. In the end, we may add that there is nothing really very novel in the above proposal for setting up new mechanisms for global governance of the Internet. Similar models, for instance, were proposed in the report of the Working Group on Internet Governance that was set up during the World Summit on the Information Society, back in 2004. We hope that the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation will fulfill its high mandate to lead the world towards the path of democratic governance of the global commons of the Internet. 1 The outcome documents of the World Summit on the Information Society, held in 2005, employed this as a placeholder term giving the mandate for further exploration of the necessary mechanisms for global governance of the Internet. 2 Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the US based non-profit that manages much of technical and logical infrastructural functions related to the Internet. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Aug 28 18:33:17 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 00:33:17 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Position by IT for Change and some other NGOs on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <521E2A9E.7070004@itforchange.net> References: <521E2A9E.7070004@itforchange.net> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Thu Aug 29 10:45:27 2013 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 10:45:27 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] UN Secretary-General on Surveillance and Human Rights Message-ID: Dear all, I thought this statement from UN Secretary-General Ban might be of interest. http://www.un.org/sg/statements/index.asp?nid=7046 Some highlights below: - Surveillance without safeguards to protect the right to privacy hampers fundamental freedoms. - People should feel secure in the knowledge that their private communications are not being unduly or unjustly scrutinised by the State. - In far too many places, we see opposition and obstacles to freedoms. It could come in the form of costly law enforcement machinery to sanction or spy on those who speak out. - Those disclosing information on matters that have implications for human rights need to be protected. - I will continue to stress the importance of empowering women and girls. Societies cannot be free if half their citizens cannot pursue their full potential. - Bans on minarets and other restrictions drive wedges in society by targeting minorities and migrant communities. - Protecting freedom is not free. But curtailing freedom also carries a heavy price. When people do not have a means to channel grievances - when they are not allowed to speak out, protest peacefully or exercise their democratic rights, stability will suffer. - I tell leaders "If you do not listen to your people, you will hear from them - in the streets, in the squares, or most tragically on the battlefield. - Here in Europe ... I make a special plea for tolerance, understanding and acceptance of diversity and the rights of migrants and refugees. - Thanks to human rights activism across the globe, nearly 40 countries have decriminalized same-sex relations. ... I have sought to lead the way at the United Nations as a proud defender of LGBT equality. Best, Deborah -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder.js at gmail.com Mon Aug 5 05:12:54 2013 From: parminder.js at gmail.com (Parminder) Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2013 14:42:54 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Extension of deadline for the WGEC questionnaire In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51FF6C96.7090906@gmail.com> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Extension of deadline for the WGEC questionnaire Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 09:59:18 +0200 From: WGEC Reply-To: UN CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation To: WGEC at LIST.UNICC.ORG Dear All, On behalf of the Chair of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, we are happy to share with you that the deadline for submitting responses to the WGEC questionnaire has been extended to 31 August 2013. Best regards, CSTD Secretariat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Thu Aug 29 14:15:44 2013 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 14:15:44 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Re: Important new joint submission to CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <65A17C82-7308-44A9-9605-6C76361A5296@ciroap.org> References: <52119C17.4040809@ciroap.org> <6C79E61E-0649-44C3-8C2E-8C2CC6C82F58@ciroap.org> <65A17C82-7308-44A9-9605-6C76361A5296@ciroap.org> Message-ID: On Aug 26, 2013, at 9:43 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 23/08/2013, at 11:55 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> A reminder that any remaining comments on this draft submission are >> due over the weekend, so that can post it to the Best BIts site and >> begin collecting endorsements in time to submit it to the CSTD on >> 31 August. >> >> I would like to reiterate the importance of us delivering a strong >> joint civil society submission to this questionnaire. Other groups >> such as ICC-BASIS are supporting the status quo, and even putting >> forward the idea that things like the (much-criticised by civil >> society) APEC Cross-Border Privacy Regulation system is a good >> example of enhanced cooperation in practice! So it is very >> important for us to put forward a strong submission that points out >> the shortcomings of the status quo, and advances a public interest >> perspective on this topic. > > Many thanks for those who offered further comments, and I'm sorry > that there has been no entirely satisfactory way to deal with the > late comments that Matthew offered. Some of the text that he found > objectionable could not be withdrawn from the statement > consensually, so in the end I have just had to include some late > amendments without the time to discuss them, and they are minor > because it was necessary that they would be changes that nobody else > would likely object to significantly: > > In paragraph 8, adding the bold text "Through a process fully > involving all stakeholders, this may require the eventual > establishment of a new framework or mechanism, particularly in the > case of emerging and orphaned issues that have no other global home." > Also in paragraph 8, adding the bold text "Therefore, if the > mechanism that we begin through the CSTD Working Group does lead > towards a new framework or process, we accept the likelihood that > for now such framework or process would likely have to be at least > loosely linked with the UN." > In paragraph 11, adding the bold text "and in the Westphalian ideal > conception of democracy, this would fall to elected governments". > Also in paragraph 11, adding the bold text "On one conception, real > multi-stakeholderism offers to formalize government consultation > with its constituencies, as governments formulate policy." > Also in paragraph 11, adding the bold text "On another conception > (or in the longer term), multi-stakeholderism promises a more > significant rebalancing of power between states and other networks > of individuals." > Concluding paragraph 11, adding "On either conception [delete: Thus] > civil society..." > > Realising that this won't satisfy either of those on each side of > this disagreement, I apologise to both of them. There is a lot of > good content in Matthew's text that could easily go into a > supplementary CDT submission. Nevertheless with time pressing, it > is not possible to reopen discussion so I've now put the final text > up on the website for endorsement: > > http://bestbits.net/ec > > With this tough process behind us, can I now just reiterate one > final time, that it is very important for you to endorse this > submission if you are able to do so (or to write your own submission > if you are unable to). This is possibly the best opportunity that > we have had since the Working Group on Internet Governance in 2004 > to offer our input into the evolution of global Internet governance > arrangements. > > The PRISM scandal highlighted that current Internet governance > arrangements do absolutely nothing to protect the human rights of > Internet users, for example by giving civil society a voice in the > development of global frameworks of principle that could hold > governments or corporations that infringe those rights to account on > the global stage. Without detracting from what needs to be done at > the domestic level also, our engagement in the current discussions > on the enhanced cooperation process is imperative if we are to turn > this global process to our advantage, rather than allowing it to be > hijacked by the the International Chamber of Commerce and the > Internet Society in favour of maintaining the status quo. (Remember > that it was the status quo that delivered us PRISM, and tried or is > trying to deliver us SOPA/PIPA, ACTA and the TPP.) > > A number of those who contributed to this joint submission, along > with stakeholder representatives from the private sector and > technical community, will be discussing these issues further next > week at the Best Bits workshop of the Asia-Pacific Regional Internet > Governance Forum, which we will also endeavour to have webcast. > More details will follow next week. In the meantime, I encourage > you once more to endorse the joint submission to the CSTD Working > Group on Enhanced Cooperation if you are able to do so. > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > As with the extended and detailed drafting, on the EC sublist, Jeremy's stewardship of the statement process here has been remarkable. We note Jeremy might have added an example, after ... another conception ..., [of] multi-stakeholderism promises ... His own "Multistakeholder Internet Policy Council," a descriptive link is http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/arc/ec/2013-04/msg00002.html , is one of the particularly well-thought out and elegant MS proposals. Perhaps his sense of principle would not allow to reference his own. Just as Jeremy shepherded the EC drafting work over four calendar months, meticulously, all the while providing the glue necessary, at each stage, to synthesize sometimes widely differing views - so has he here been the steward we need and appreciate so much. This makes the quality of work that civil society can justly hold out as emblematic of what it is capable. Thank you, Jeremy. David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Aug 30 06:09:55 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 20:09:55 +1000 Subject: [bestbits] Re: Important new joint submission to CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <65A17C82-7308-44A9-9605-6C76361A5296@ciroap.org> References: <52119C17.4040809@ciroap.org> <6C79E61E-0649-44C3-8C2E-8C2CC6C82F58@ciroap.org> <65A17C82-7308-44A9-9605-6C76361A5296@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <18AB3BB5-6DFD-4963-920E-52DAC2ED13EE@ciroap.org> Just a reminder that tomorrow is the deadline, either to endorse this submission, or - equally welcome, actually - to submit your own. Many thanks. On 27 Aug, 2013, at 11:43 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 23/08/2013, at 11:55 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> A reminder that any remaining comments on this draft submission are due over the weekend, so that can post it to the Best BIts site and begin collecting endorsements in time to submit it to the CSTD on 31 August. >> >> I would like to reiterate the importance of us delivering a strong joint civil society submission to this questionnaire. Other groups such as ICC-BASIS are supporting the status quo, and even putting forward the idea that things like the (much-criticised by civil society) APEC Cross-Border Privacy Regulation system is a good example of enhanced cooperation in practice! So it is very important for us to put forward a strong submission that points out the shortcomings of the status quo, and advances a public interest perspective on this topic. > > Many thanks for those who offered further comments, and I'm sorry that there has been no entirely satisfactory way to deal with the late comments that Matthew offered. Some of the text that he found objectionable could not be withdrawn from the statement consensually, so in the end I have just had to include some late amendments without the time to discuss them, and they are minor because it was necessary that they would be changes that nobody else would likely object to significantly: > > In paragraph 8, adding the bold text "Through a process fully involving all stakeholders, this may require the eventual establishment of a new framework or mechanism, particularly in the case of emerging and orphaned issues that have no other global home." > Also in paragraph 8, adding the bold text "Therefore, if the mechanism that we begin through the CSTD Working Group does lead towards a new framework or process, we accept the likelihood that for now such framework or process would likely have to be at least loosely linked with the UN." > In paragraph 11, adding the bold text "and in the Westphalian ideal conception of democracy, this would fall to elected governments". > Also in paragraph 11, adding the bold text "On one conception, real multi-stakeholderism offers to formalize government consultation with its constituencies, as governments formulate policy." > Also in paragraph 11, adding the bold text "On another conception (or in the longer term), multi-stakeholderism promises a more significant rebalancing of power between states and other networks of individuals." > Concluding paragraph 11, adding "On either conception [delete: Thus] civil society..." > > Realising that this won't satisfy either of those on each side of this disagreement, I apologise to both of them. There is a lot of good content in Matthew's text that could easily go into a supplementary CDT submission. Nevertheless with time pressing, it is not possible to reopen discussion so I've now put the final text up on the website for endorsement: > > http://bestbits.net/ec > > With this tough process behind us, can I now just reiterate one final time, that it is very important for you to endorse this submission if you are able to do so (or to write your own submission if you are unable to). This is possibly the best opportunity that we have had since the Working Group on Internet Governance in 2004 to offer our input into the evolution of global Internet governance arrangements. > > The PRISM scandal highlighted that current Internet governance arrangements do absolutely nothing to protect the human rights of Internet users, for example by giving civil society a voice in the development of global frameworks of principle that could hold governments or corporations that infringe those rights to account on the global stage. Without detracting from what needs to be done at the domestic level also, our engagement in the current discussions on the enhanced cooperation process is imperative if we are to turn this global process to our advantage, rather than allowing it to be hijacked by the the International Chamber of Commerce and the Internet Society in favour of maintaining the status quo. (Remember that it was the status quo that delivered us PRISM, and tried or is trying to deliver us SOPA/PIPA, ACTA and the TPP.) > > A number of those who contributed to this joint submission, along with stakeholder representatives from the private sector and technical community, will be discussing these issues further next week at the Best Bits workshop of the Asia-Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum, which we will also endeavour to have webcast. More details will follow next week. In the meantime, I encourage you once more to endorse the joint submission to the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation if you are able to do so. > > -- > 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 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu Fri Aug 30 06:59:29 2013 From: erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu (JOSEFSSON Erik) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 12:59:29 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] EurActiv - Professor Svallfors: "Edward Snowden deserves the Sakharov Prize" Message-ID: Hello! In case you have not seen the article on EurActiv already. Link: http://www.euractiv.com/pa/edward-snowden-deserves-sakharov-analysis-530027 Original article: http://www.sydsvenskan.se/opinion/aktuella-fragor/lat-snowden-fa-sacharovpriset/ Professor Svallfors own tweet: https://twitter.com/StefanSvallfors/status/373357194172833792 Here's formal Sakharov info: http://mjuk.is/sakharov.pdf Best regards. //Erik *Edward Snowden deserves the Sakharov Prize*** **** **** **** A deserving recipient of the 2013 Sakharov prize would be the American whistleblower Edward Snowden, writes Stefan Svallfors. By exposing the US Prism spying program, Snowden made it possible for us to say 'No -- this is not a development and a society we want', he argues. /Stefan Svallfors is Professor of Sociology at Umeå University (Sweden) and the Institute for Future Studies (Denmark). This op-ed was originally published in Swedish in Sydsvenska dagbladet on 29 August 2013. / Since 1988, the European Parliament has awarded the Sakharov Prize. According to its statutes, this is given to a person or group "who made remarkable efforts to defend human rights and fundamental freedoms" and thus "worked against intolerance, fanaticism and oppression." The award is given in memory of the Russian physicist Andrei Sakharov (1921-1989), known as one of the men behind the hydrogen bomb but even more as a Soviet dissident with his Human Rights Committee and his defence of political prisoners. Sakharov stands as a symbol of the individual human being who dares to stand up against tyranny and oppression, even when the personal cost is very high. A most deserving recipient of the 2013 price would be the American whistle blower Edward Snowden. In May, The Guardian published his disclosure of the extensive, illegal and deeply intrusive monitoring conducted by the American National Security Agency. For this heroic effort Snowden has paid a heavy personal price. He is hunted as an outlaw by the U.S. government, accused of crimes that will put him in jail for the rest of his life. The U.S. government has threatened the governments that dare to offer him asylum with serious consequences. In a painful irony, the only sanctuary that had been found for Snowden is Russia, a country whose democratic problems and authoritarian tendencies are obvious. But is really Snowden a worthy recipient of the prize, someone may sneeze. Is not America the world's leading democracy, a friend of Europe, committed to the rule of law? Yes. But even democracies can hide pockets of tyranny in their hearts: a democratic state may well coexist with other systems that are characterised by anything but democracy and law. As the monitoring system which now puts its global tentacles far into the private lives of citizens. By exposing this system Snowden made it possible for us to say No -- this is not a development and a society we want, we protect our civil rights and freedoms when they are threatened. Snowden's revelations make explicit demands on citizens and politicians to act and react. How have we responded to these demands? Not in any impressive way one must say. Individual politicians and many citizens have reacted, expressed support for Snowden, trying to act in his defence. They see the unpleasant consequences of a surveillance system where innocent citizens get their electronic communication and their phone calls tapped and mapped. The German President Joachim Gauck, with his personal East German experience, for example stated that Snowden "deserves respect" for his actions. But otherwise an awkward silence, evasive answers, gentle tiptoeing. Merkel hums, The European Commission whispers, the parliaments remain silent. On the Swedish side, even more depressing inaction is observed. Sweden acts together with Britain to make sure the question should not be addressed at European level. This is a bilateral issue and by the way, no Swedish interests are at stake, the Foreign Minister distractedly announces before returning to Twitter. The government obviously sees no reason to allow this issue to eclipse the splendor of Obama's forthcoming state visit. From the political left, a complete disinterest is shown. No social democratic position is advanced or even formulated. It is tragic to see how thin the liberal veneer is in many places. When liberalism is no longer easy and obvious, when it requires courage and sacrifice, when we are forced to choose and our choices have real costs, what happens then? We fall into line, we bend to power. Without grumbling we let fairly manageable threats from terrorists sweep away fundamental rights and freedoms. We must demand more of ourselves and our elected officials than that. We could start by giving Edward Snowden the prize whose name symbolises a man who refused to bow to oppression and thereby actually changed history. -- Erik Josefsson Advisor on Internet Policies Greens/EFA Group GSM: *+32484082063* BXL: PHS 04C075 TEL: +3222832667 SBG: WIC M03005 TEL: +33388173776 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 897 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From valeriab at apc.org Fri Aug 30 10:32:19 2013 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 09:32:19 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Position by IT for Change and some other NGOs on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <521E2A9E.7070004@itforchange.net> References: <521E2A9E.7070004@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear all, We are busy compiling an APC's network response and we will submit our own statement. We will also endorse the Best Bits statement, to which we contributed to. While we appreciate the effort that has gone into it and many of the points raised, APC will not endorse the IT for Change statement. APC members are independent so while some individual APC members might endorse it, APC as an organisation won't. Some of the main reasons why we have made that decision are explained at the end of this message. We thought it is useful to share our thinking in these spacea as a contribution to the debate. Best, Valeria ------------------------ * The basic case for "global governance of the Internet" is simply not made. The evidence for the proposed new mechanisms is weak, laden with polemic, and with a political bias that is not corrected by balanced, judicious weighing of options nor informed by practical experience (this in relation to ICANN and the technical community in particular). * The statement takes government and an internet-centric approach to policy making and suggests that a global internet policy making framework convention and new body is desirable. This overlooks and would undermine the many other approaches to policy making currently mandated by international law including rights based, environmental, and development among others. we have seen in the intellectual property field, for example, what happens when UN bodies are set up with topic specific mandates for global related policy issues. * To place the internet as the centre for public policy making is a grave conceptual error in our view -rather a better conceptual approach is to focus on internet related aspects of policy issues (such as health, education, discrimination, access, telecommunciations policy and so on). Even better, to put people at the centre of policy making. We must never forget that the internet does not exist in a parallel dimension. Nor can internet policy. Creating a new UN body to focus on internet policy and identifying which issues it should deal with is not going to be sustainable, or effective. The internet touches on so many issues that no single policy space could ever effectively deal with them all. * The imposition of a new global internet policy framework determined and agreed by governments - and therefore being a top down and central mechanism - contradicts the bottom-up multi-stakeholder principles of policy making and end to end principles of internet architecture: it's just wrong. This is not to say that multi-stakeholder policy processes are not flawed and still producing outcomes that reflect the interest of those with power and resources. But creating new frameworks and bodies will not address this automatically. * Most international agreements set MINIMUM standards because governments generally can only agree on the lowest common denominator - apart from generally resulting in inadequate policy, it also risks back- tracking on the existing points of agreement in the Tunis Agenda. * The statement proposes a new framework convention similar to the convention on climate change. Such conventions are inevitably negotiated and agreed by governments and not multi-stakeholder. in addition, the inequalities between States (a key source of friction in current arrangements) will not be solved by the creation of new mechanisms which the same States need to agree on - inevitably the politics simply transfer, Rather than propose a new convention (most take between 5-10 years to negotiate, assuming agreement can be reached), it would be better to empower and strengthen existing mechanisms - more ideas on that separately. APC proposed a framework convention of this nature immediately after Tunis in 2005. But after our work on the 'code of good practice' for internet governance during which we looked closely at environmental and climate change policy processes, and our experience in observing governments in the CSTD when they try to negotiate an annual resolution on WSIS follow up we decided against this. * Finally, the focus on global internet public policy undermines the role of national and regional IGFs and policy making processes many of which have quite different politics and are still evolving to suit their conditions. Not all these processes are inclusive, or even legitimate, but they are not going to be fixed from above by new agreements negotiated by governments. * On balance, then, we think more work is needed to develop options which suit civil society and empower civil society as stakeholders in policy making and that systematically try to consolidate current achievements with regard to human rights on the internet in, for example, the Human Rights Council. On 28/08/2013, at 11:51, parminder wrote: > Apologies for cross posting > > Dear All > > IT for Change and some other NGOs plan to forward the following > position to the UN Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. Preceding > the position statement is a covering letter seeking support. You are > welcome to support this position any time before 12 noon GMT on 31st > Aug. We are happy to provide any additional information/ > clarification etc. Also happy to otherwise discuss this position, > and its different elements. We are motivated by the need to come up > with precise and clear institutional options at this stage. Politics > of inertia and not doing anything just serves the status quo. These > may not be the best institutional options, and we are ready to enter > into discussion with other groups on what instead would be the > better options. But, again, not doing anything is, in our opinion, > would be detrimental to global public interest. > > The web link to this position is at http://www.itforchange.net/civil_society_input_to_the_UN_Working_Group_for_global_governance_of_the_Internet > . > > parminder > > > Covering letter / Background > > In May 2012, more than 60 civil society organisations and several > individuals participated in a campaign for 'democratising the global > governance of the Internet'. A joint letter signed by the > participants of this campaign inter alia asked for setting up a UN > Working Group towards this objective. Such a Working Group was set > up and has now asked for public inputs to formulate its > recommendations. > > In our joint letter, we had proposed some outlines for reforming the > current global governance architecture of the Internet. Time has > come now to make more clear and specific recommendations of the > actual institutional mechanism that we need. With most governments > more worried about their narrow geopolitical interests and > relationships with individual countries, it falls upon the civil > society to be bold and forward looking and put precise proposals on > the table that can then be taken forward by state actors. > > In a post-Snowden world, there is deep discomfort among almost all > countries, other than the US, with the manner in which the global > Internet is run and is evolving. The need for some global norms, > principles, rules, and necessary governance mechanisms for the > global Internet is being felt now as never before. The Internet can > no longer remain anchored to the political and business interests of > one country, or to serving global capital, as it is at present. As a > global commons, it is our collective democratic right and > responsibility to participate in the governance of the Internet, so > that it can become a vehicle for greater prosperity, equity and > social justice for all. > > We seek your support to join us in proposing the enclosed document > as an input to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. The > Working Group has sought public inputs through a questionnaire which > can be seen at http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD.aspx . The most > important question is at number 8, which seeks input with regard to > precise mechanism(s) that are required. Our response will mostly > address this all-important question. (You are also encouraged to, > separately, give a fuller response to the questionnaire on your > behalf or on behalf of your organization.) We will also like to give > wide media publicity to this civil society statement . > > We will be glad if you can send your response to us before the 30th > of August. We are of course happy to respond to any clarification or > additional information that you may want to seek in the above > regard. Please also circulate this to others who you think may want > to participate in this initiative. The global Internet governance > space seems to be dominated by those who push for neoliberal models > of governance. We must therefore have as many voices heard as > possible. > > (The statement is cut pasted below this email and may also be seen > here ) > > With best regard, > > Parminder > > > Parminder Jeet Singh > IT for Change > In special consultative status with the United Nations ECOSOC > www.ITforChange.net > T: 00-91-80-26654134 | T: 00-91-80-26536890 | Fax: 00-91-80-41461055 > A civil society input to the UN Working Group looking at > institutional mechanisms for global governance of the Internet > (Please write to itfc at itforchange.net before 29th Aug if you will > like to endorse this statement) > > Why global governance of the Internet? > Internet governance is seen largely in terms of national sovereignty > and security or as pertaining to free speech and privacy. We are of > the view that there exist many other equally important issues for > global Internet governance that arise from the whole gamut of rights > and aspirations of people – social, economic, cultural, political > and developmental. The relationship of the global Internet to > cultural diversity is one example. The Internet increasingly > determines not only the global flows of information but also of > cultures, and their commodification. No social process is exempt > from the influence of the Internet – from education to health and > governance. Social systems at national and local levels are being > transformed under the influence of the global Internet. > Instead of decentralizing power, the current structure of the global > Internet tends to centralize control in the hands of a small number > of companies. Some of these companies have near-monopoly power over > key areas of economic and social significance. Therefore, regulation > of global Internet business through pertinent competition law, > consumer law, open interoperability standards, etc, is becoming a > pressing need. Increasing statist controls need to be similarly > resisted. With the emergent paradigm of cloud computing presenting > the looming prospect of remote management of our digital lives from > different 'power centres' across the world, it is inconceivable that > we can do without appropriate democratic governance of the global > Internet. Post-Snowden, as many countries have begun to contemplate > and even embark upon measures for 'digital sovereignty', the only > way to preserve a global Internet is through formulating appropriate > global norms, principles and rules that will underpin its governance. > Background of this civil society input > A group of over 60 civil society organizations and several > individuals, made a statement on 'Democratizing the global > governance of the Internet' to the open consultations on 'enhanced > cooperation'1 called by the Chair of the UN Commission on Science > and Technology for Development (CSTD) on May 18th, 2012, in Geneva. > The statement inter alia sought the setting up of a CSTD Working > Group to address this issue. We are happy to note that such a > Working Group has been set up and has now called for public inputs > to make its recommendations. This document is an input to the > Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC) on the behalf of the > undersigned . > In the aforementioned statement of May 2012, the civil society > signatories had called for the following institutional developments > to take place in the global Internet governance architecture: > Our demands with respect to 'global' Internet Governance espouse a > simple and obvious democratic logic. On the technical governance > side, the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical > infrastructure, at present with the US government, should be > transferred to an appropriate, democratic and participative, multi- > lateral body, without disturbing the existing distributed > architecture of technical governance of the Internet in any > significant way. (However, improvements in the technical governance > systems are certainly needed.) On the side of larger Internet > related public policy-making on global social, economic, cultural > and political issues, the OECD-based model of global policy making, > as well as the default application of US laws, should be replaced by > a new UN-based democratic mechanism. Any such new arrangement should > be based on the principle of subsidiarity, and be innovative in > terms of its mandate, structure, and functions, to be adequate to > the unique requirements of global Internet governance. It must be > fully participative of all stakeholders, promoting the democratic > and innovative potential of the Internet. > As the WGEC deliberates on concrete ways to move forward, the time > is ripe to propose clear and specific institutional mechanisms for > democratizing the global governance of the Internet. We have, > therefore, expanded the above demands into specific mechanisms that > should be set in place for this purpose. > New global governance mechanisms are needed > We are of the view that it would be useful to have two distinct > mechanisms – one that looks at the global Internet-related public > policy issues in various social, economic, cultural and political > domains, and another that should undertake oversight of the > technical and operational functions related to the Internet > (basically, replacing the current unilateral oversight of the ICANN2 > by the US government). This will require setting up appropriate new > global governance bodies as well as a framework of international law > to facilitate their work, as follows. > A new UN body for Internet-related public policy issues: An anchor > global institution for taking up and addressing various public > policy issues pertaining to the Internet in an ongoing manner is > urgently required. It can be a committee attached to the UN General > Assembly or a more elaborate and relatively autonomous set up linked > loosely to the UN (as a specialized UN body). It should have a very > strong and institutionalized public consultative mechanism, in the > form of stakeholder advisory groups that are selected through formal > processes by different stakeholder constituencies, ensuring adequate > representativeness. (OECD's Committee on Computer, Information and > Communication Policy and India's recent proposal for a UN Committee > on Internet-related Policies are two useful, and somewhat similar, > models that can be looked at.) > This 'new body' will stay abreast of global Internet-related issues; > where necessary, develop international level public policies in the > concerned areas; seek appropriate harmonization of national level > policies, and; facilitate required treaties, conventions and > agreements. It will also have the necessary means to undertake > studies and present analyses in different policy areas. > Most Internet-related public policy issues are of a cross-cutting > nature, and involve overlaps with mandates of other existing global > governance bodies, like WIPO, UNESCO, WTO, UNDP, UNCTAD, ITU and so > on. Due to this reason, the proposed new 'body' will establish > appropriate relationships with all these other existing bodies, > including directing relevant public policy issues to them, receiving > their inputs and comments, and itself contributing specific Internet- > related perspectives to issues under the purview of these other > bodies. > > A new 'Internet Technical Oversight and Advisory Board': This board > will replace the US government's current oversight role over the > technical and operational functions performed by ICANN. The > membership of this oversight board can be of a techno-political > nature, i.e. consisting of people with specialized expertise but who > also have appropriate political backing, ascertained through a > democratic process. For instance, the board can be made of 10/15 > members, with 2/3 members each from five geographic regions (as > understood in the UN system). These members can perhaps be selected > through an appropriate process by the relevant technical standards > bodies and/or country domain name bodies of all the countries of the > respective region. (Other mechanisms for constituting the techno- > political membership of this board can also be considered.) > The Internet technical oversight and advisory board will seek to > ensure that the various technical and operational functions related > to the global Internet are undertaken by the relevant organizations > as per international law and public policy principles developed by > the concerned international bodies. With regard to ICANN, the role > of this board will more or less be exactly the same as exercised by > the US government in its oversight over ICANN. As for the > decentralized Internet standards development mechanisms, like the > Internet Engineering Task Force, these self organizing systems based > on voluntary adoption of standards will continue to work as at > present. The new board will have a very light touch and non-binding > role with regard to them. It will bring in imperatives from, and > advise these technical standards bodies on, international public > policies, international law and norms being developed by various > relevant bodies. > For this board to be able to fulfill its oversight mandate, ICANN > must become an international organization, without changing its > existing multistakeholder character in any substantial manner. It > would enter into a host country agreement with the US government (if > ICANN has to continue to be headquartered in the US). It would have > full immunity from US law and executive authority, and be guided > solely by international law, and be incorporated under it. > Supervision of the authoritative root zone server must also be > transferred to this oversight broad. The board will exercise this > role with the help of an internationalized ICANN. > This board will also advise the afore-mentioned new public policy > body on technical matters pertaining to the Internet policy making, > as well as take public policy inputs from it. > Framework Convention on the Internet: An appropriate international > legal framework will be required sooner than later for the above > bodies to function properly. Accordingly, one of the early tasks of > the proposed 'new body' dealing with Internet-related public policy > issues, discussed above, will be to help negotiate a 'Framework > Convention on the Internet' (somewhat like the Framework Convention > on Climate Change). Governance of the Internet concerns different > kinds of issues that are ever-evolving. It is, therefore, preferable > to formulate an enabling legal structure as a 'framework convention' > rather than as a specific treaty or convention that addresses only a > bounded set of issues. It may also be easier to initially agree to a > series of principles, protocols and processes that can then frame > further agreements, treaties etc on more specific issues. > Such a Framework Convention will thus enable appropriate and ongoing > global policy responses to various opportunities and challenges that > the fast-evolving phenomenon of the Internet throws up. It will also > formalize the basic architecture of the global governance of the > Internet; inter alia recognizing and legitimizing the existing role > and functions of the various bodies currently involved with managing > the technical and logical infrastructure of the Internet, including > the ICANN, Regional Internet Registries, Internet technical > standards bodies and so on. > Appropriate mechanisms for crisis response and dispute resolution in > relation to the global Internet, and the social activity dependent > on it, will also be required to be set up. > Relationship with the IGF > The UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was established as a > multistakeholder 'policy dialogue forum' by the World Summit on the > Information Society. The proposed global Internet policy mechanism, > especially the new UN based body, will maintain a close relationship > with the IGF. IGF affords a very new kind of participative mechanism > for policy making, whereby the participation realm is > institutionalized, and relatively independent of the policy making > structures. The IGF should preferably pre-discuss issues that are > taken up by this new policy body and present diverse perspectives > for its consideration. A good part of the agenda for this new body > can emerge from the IGF. Whenever possible, draft proposals to be > adopted by this new body should be shared with the IGF. > To perform such a participation enhancing role, the IGF must be > adequately strengthened and reformed, especially to address the > dominance of Northern corporatist interests in its current working. > It must be supported with public funds, and insulated from any > funding system that can bring in perverse influences on its agenda > and outcomes. Other required processes must also be put in place to > ensure that the IGF indeed brings in constituencies that are > typically under-represented, rather than provide further political > clout to the already dominant. > A participative body is only as good as the policy making mechanisms > that feed off it. To that extent, the meaningfulness and > effectiveness of the IGF itself requires a strong policy development > mechanism, as suggested in this document, to be linked to it. > Investing in the IGF is useful only if its outputs and contributions > lead to something concrete. > Funding > An innovative way to fund the proposed new global Internet policy > mechanisms, and also the IGF, is to tap into the collections made by > the relevant bodies from allocation of names and numbers resources > pertaining to the global Internet (like the fee that ICANN collects > annually from each domain name owner). These accruals now run into > millions of dollars every year and could be adequate to fund a large > part of the needed mechanisms for democratic governance of the > global Internet. > In the end, we may add that there is nothing really very novel in > the above proposal for setting up new mechanisms for global > governance of the Internet. Similar models, for instance, were > proposed in the report of the Working Group on Internet > Governance that was set up during the World Summit on the > Information Society, back in 2004. > We hope that the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation will fulfill > its high mandate to lead the world towards the path of democratic > governance of the global commons of the Internet. > > 1The outcome documents of the World Summit on the Information > Society, held in 2005, employed this as a placeholder term giving > the mandate for further exploration of the necessary mechanisms for > global governance of the Internet. > > 2Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the US based > non-profit that manages much of technical and logical > infrastructural functions related to the Internet. > ------------- Valeria Betancourt Directora / Manager Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and Information Policy Programme Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for Progressive Communications, APC http://www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anne at webfoundation.org Fri Aug 30 11:48:09 2013 From: anne at webfoundation.org (Anne Jellema) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 16:48:09 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Call for sign on CWG-Internet statement2 (Was Call for comments/signatures: Draft Statement on Rejection of Proposal to Open CWG- Internet) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Deborah and everyone else who contributed to drafting. Web Foundation has signed (I hope so anyway - the website hung as I was submitting the form). Best Anne On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Deborah Brown wrote: > Dear all, > > Please find the revised statement on the ITU Council's rejection of > proposals to open participation in the Council Working Group on > International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet): > http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet-2/ > > The text takes into account edits in the pad ( > https://pad.riseup.net/p/CWG-Internet) as of Monday, 19 August. Thanks to > all who contributed to the editing process. > > Please indicate whether you would like to endorse this statement by end of > day *2 September*. > > In terms of outreach on the statement, Nnenna suggested targeting specific > Council members. I think is a good idea and I'm interested in hearing > others' thoughts on this. I've pasted the list of members of the ITU > Council below. > > Source: http://www.itu.int/en/council/Pages/members.aspx > Council Membership (2010-2014) > > - *Region A (Americas)*: 9 seats > Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, Cuba, Mexico, Paraguay, United > States, Venezuela > > - *Region B (Western Europe)*: 8 seats > France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey > > - *Region C (Eastern Europe and Northern Asia)*: 5 seats > Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation > > - *Region D (Africa)*: 13 seats > Algeria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Mali, Morocco, > Nigeria, Senegal, Rwanda, South Africa, Tunisia > > - *Region E (Asia and Australasia)*: 13 seats > Australia, Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea (Republic > of), Kuwait, Malaysia, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, United Arab > Emirates > > > Best, > Deborah > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 5:51 AM, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > >> I have done a few edits. >> However, I do recall that during WCIT in Dubai, >> There was a face-to-face meeting with Hamadoun Touré on the openness >> issue. So that "effort" has been on. >> I also recall that HT did say that countries were playing double >> standards: speaking "openness" in public spaces and kicking against >> openness in council. >> >> Should we also specifically target some council members? Like send the >> letter to HT and also send copies to key council members? >> >> Just a thought >> >> N >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Tapani Tarvainen < >> tapani.tarvainen at effi.org> wrote: >> >>> Ditto for Effi. >>> >>> -- >>> Tapani Tarvainen >>> >>> On Aug 12 18:20, Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org) wrote: >>> >>> > Dear Joana and all >>> > >>> > I like this and am pretty sure APC will support, but I will run it by >>> > members and staff. >>> > >>> > I am not entirely sure this last paragraph is necessary. I think to >>> some >>> > extent it detracts from the main message in the letter which is about >>> > opening the CWG. >>> > >>> > "We also take this opportunity to renew our call for the ITU to >>> continue >>> > to coordinate itseffortswith that of relevant >>> /multistakeholder/Internet >>> > governance bodies, taking advantage of those bodies’ expertise and not >>> > attempting to duplicate their functions. These bodies include those >>> > devoted to technical issues (such as ICANN, the IETF and the RIRs) and >>> > those dealing primarily with non-technical issues (such as the Internet >>> > Governance Forum)." >>> > >>> > Anriette >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On 12/08/2013 17:12, Joana Varon wrote: >>> > > Dear people, >>> > > >>> > > As you may know, the ITU Council has rejected proposals to open >>> > > participation in the Council Working Group on International >>> > > Internet-Related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet). >>> > > >>> > > That happened in disregard of our previous >>> > > request, >>> > > of contributions from some Member States >>> > > < >>> http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S13-CL-C-0069!!MSW-E.pdf> >>> > > and >>> > > of a statement from the Secretary General at the closing session of >>> WTPF, >>> > > where we called for adopting an IEG model of participation within >>> other >>> > > meetings of the organization. >>> > > >>> > > The CWG-Internet is a particularly relevant WG, as the Brazilian >>> proposal >>> > > on the role of States shall be discussed. Also a very important >>> topic in a >>> > > context where "Snowden conjecture" seams to be causing reactions for >>> a >>> > > State centric internet governance (at least that's my perception). >>> > > >>> > > Therefore, Deborah, Matthew, Gene, Carolina and I have drafted a >>> response >>> > > to submit to ITU. Please, find it bellow, just like the link for the >>> > > editable pad: >>> > > >>> > > https://pad.riseup.net/p/CWG-Internet >>> > > >>> > > Your comments are more then welcome. *The plan is to leave it open >>> until >>> > > next Monday, 19th.* Hope you find it useful. >>> > > >>> > > All the best >>> > > >>> > > Joana >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > ------------------------------------------------------ >>> > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>> > executive director, association for progressive communications >>> > www.apc.org >>> > po box 29755, melville 2109 >>> > south africa >>> > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>> > >>> >> >> > > > -- > Deborah Brown > Senior Policy Analyst > Access | AccessNow.org > E. deborah at accessnow.org > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D > -- Anne Jellema Chief Executive Officer Cape Town, RSA mob +27 61 036 9652 tel +27 21 788 4585 Skype anne.jellema @afjellema World Wide Web Foundation | 1889 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew at gp-digital.org Fri Aug 30 12:42:32 2013 From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 17:42:32 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Call for sign on CWG-Internet statement2 (Was Call for comments/signatures: Draft Statement on Rejection of Proposal to Open CWG- Internet) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I'm also having trouble signing – the website appears to be hung once I press the endorsement button Andrew Puddephatt, Director Global Partners Digital Development House, 56-64 Leonard St, EC2A 4LT, UK Office 44 (0)207 549 0350 Mobile: +44 (0)771 339 9597 andrew at gp-digital.org www.global-partners.co.uk From: Anne Jellema > Date: Friday, 30 August 2013 16:48 To: Deborah Brown > Cc: Nnenna Nwakanma >, "" > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call for sign on CWG-Internet statement2 (Was Call for comments/signatures: Draft Statement on Rejection of Proposal to Open CWG- Internet) Thanks Deborah and everyone else who contributed to drafting. Web Foundation has signed (I hope so anyway - the website hung as I was submitting the form). Best Anne On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Deborah Brown > wrote: Dear all, Please find the revised statement on the ITU Council's rejection of proposals to open participation in the Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet): http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet-2/ The text takes into account edits in the pad (https://pad.riseup.net/p/CWG-Internet) as of Monday, 19 August. Thanks to all who contributed to the editing process. Please indicate whether you would like to endorse this statement by end of day *2 September*. In terms of outreach on the statement, Nnenna suggested targeting specific Council members. I think is a good idea and I'm interested in hearing others' thoughts on this. I've pasted the list of members of the ITU Council below. Source: http://www.itu.int/en/council/Pages/members.aspx Council Membership (2010-2014) * Region A (Americas): 9 seats Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, Cuba, Mexico, Paraguay, United States, Venezuela * Region B (Western Europe): 8 seats France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey * Region C (Eastern Europe and Northern Asia): 5 seats Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation * Region D (Africa): 13 seats Algeria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Mali, Morocco, Nigeria, Senegal, Rwanda, South Africa, Tunisia * Region E (Asia and Australasia): 13 seats Australia, Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea (Republic of), Kuwait, Malaysia, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, United Arab Emirates Best, Deborah On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 5:51 AM, Nnenna Nwakanma > wrote: I have done a few edits. However, I do recall that during WCIT in Dubai, There was a face-to-face meeting with Hamadoun Touré on the openness issue. So that "effort" has been on. I also recall that HT did say that countries were playing double standards: speaking "openness" in public spaces and kicking against openness in council. Should we also specifically target some council members? Like send the letter to HT and also send copies to key council members? Just a thought N On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Tapani Tarvainen > wrote: Ditto for Effi. -- Tapani Tarvainen On Aug 12 18:20, Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org) wrote: > Dear Joana and all > > I like this and am pretty sure APC will support, but I will run it by > members and staff. > > I am not entirely sure this last paragraph is necessary. I think to some > extent it detracts from the main message in the letter which is about > opening the CWG. > > "We also take this opportunity to renew our call for the ITU to continue > to coordinate itseffortswith that of relevant /multistakeholder/Internet > governance bodies, taking advantage of those bodies’ expertise and not > attempting to duplicate their functions. These bodies include those > devoted to technical issues (such as ICANN, the IETF and the RIRs) and > those dealing primarily with non-technical issues (such as the Internet > Governance Forum)." > > Anriette > > > > > > On 12/08/2013 17:12, Joana Varon wrote: > > Dear people, > > > > As you may know, the ITU Council has rejected proposals to open > > participation in the Council Working Group on International > > Internet-Related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet). > > > > That happened in disregard of our previous > > request, > > of contributions from some Member States > > > > and > > of a statement from the Secretary General at the closing session of WTPF, > > where we called for adopting an IEG model of participation within other > > meetings of the organization. > > > > The CWG-Internet is a particularly relevant WG, as the Brazilian proposal > > on the role of States shall be discussed. Also a very important topic in a > > context where "Snowden conjecture" seams to be causing reactions for a > > State centric internet governance (at least that's my perception). > > > > Therefore, Deborah, Matthew, Gene, Carolina and I have drafted a response > > to submit to ITU. Please, find it bellow, just like the link for the > > editable pad: > > > > https://pad.riseup.net/p/CWG-Internet > > > > Your comments are more then welcome. *The plan is to leave it open until > > next Monday, 19th.* Hope you find it useful. > > > > All the best > > > > Joana > > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -- Anne Jellema Chief Executive Officer Cape Town, RSA mob +27 61 036 9652 tel +27 21 788 4585 Skype anne.jellema @afjellema World Wide Web Foundation | 1889 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anriette at apc.org Fri Aug 30 12:53:58 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 18:53:58 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Call for sign on CWG-Internet statement2 (Was Call for comments/signatures: Draft Statement on Rejection of Proposal to Open CWG- Internet) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5220CE26.10903@apc.org> Hi all.. it also happened to me but then I got the confirmation email immediately after. It is working. Anriette On 30/08/2013 18:42, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > I'm also having trouble signing – the website appears to be hung once I press the endorsement button > Andrew Puddephatt, Director Global Partners Digital > Development House, 56-64 Leonard St, EC2A 4LT, UK > Office 44 (0)207 549 0350 > Mobile: +44 (0)771 339 9597 > andrew at gp-digital.org www.global-partners.co.uk > > From: Anne Jellema > > Date: Friday, 30 August 2013 16:48 > To: Deborah Brown > > Cc: Nnenna Nwakanma >, "" > > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call for sign on CWG-Internet statement2 (Was Call for comments/signatures: Draft Statement on Rejection of Proposal to Open CWG- Internet) > > Thanks Deborah and everyone else who contributed to drafting. Web Foundation has signed (I hope so anyway - the website hung as I was submitting the form). > Best > Anne > > > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Deborah Brown > wrote: > Dear all, > > Please find the revised statement on the ITU Council's rejection of proposals to open participation in the Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet): http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet-2/ > > The text takes into account edits in the pad (https://pad.riseup.net/p/CWG-Internet) as of Monday, 19 August. Thanks to all who contributed to the editing process. > > Please indicate whether you would like to endorse this statement by end of day *2 September*. > > In terms of outreach on the statement, Nnenna suggested targeting specific Council members. I think is a good idea and I'm interested in hearing others' thoughts on this. I've pasted the list of members of the ITU Council below. > > Source: http://www.itu.int/en/council/Pages/members.aspx > Council Membership (2010-2014) > > * Region A (Americas): 9 seats > Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, Cuba, Mexico, Paraguay, United States, Venezuela > > * Region B (Western Europe): 8 seats > France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey > > * Region C (Eastern Europe and Northern Asia): 5 seats > Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation > > * Region D (Africa): 13 seats > Algeria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Mali, Morocco, Nigeria, Senegal, Rwanda, South Africa, Tunisia > > * Region E (Asia and Australasia): 13 seats > Australia, Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea (Republic of), Kuwait, Malaysia, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, United Arab Emirates > > Best, > Deborah > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 5:51 AM, Nnenna Nwakanma > wrote: > I have done a few edits. > However, I do recall that during WCIT in Dubai, > There was a face-to-face meeting with Hamadoun Touré on the openness issue. So that "effort" has been on. > I also recall that HT did say that countries were playing double standards: speaking "openness" in public spaces and kicking against openness in council. > > Should we also specifically target some council members? Like send the letter to HT and also send copies to key council members? > > Just a thought > > N > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Tapani Tarvainen > wrote: > Ditto for Effi. > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > > On Aug 12 18:20, Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org) wrote: > >> Dear Joana and all >> >> I like this and am pretty sure APC will support, but I will run it by >> members and staff. >> >> I am not entirely sure this last paragraph is necessary. I think to some >> extent it detracts from the main message in the letter which is about >> opening the CWG. >> >> "We also take this opportunity to renew our call for the ITU to continue >> to coordinate itseffortswith that of relevant /multistakeholder/Internet >> governance bodies, taking advantage of those bodies’ expertise and not >> attempting to duplicate their functions. These bodies include those >> devoted to technical issues (such as ICANN, the IETF and the RIRs) and >> those dealing primarily with non-technical issues (such as the Internet >> Governance Forum)." >> >> Anriette >> >> >> >> >> >> On 12/08/2013 17:12, Joana Varon wrote: >>> Dear people, >>> >>> As you may know, the ITU Council has rejected proposals to open >>> participation in the Council Working Group on International >>> Internet-Related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet). >>> >>> That happened in disregard of our previous >>> request, >>> of contributions from some Member States >>> >>> and >>> of a statement from the Secretary General at the closing session of WTPF, >>> where we called for adopting an IEG model of participation within other >>> meetings of the organization. >>> >>> The CWG-Internet is a particularly relevant WG, as the Brazilian proposal >>> on the role of States shall be discussed. Also a very important topic in a >>> context where "Snowden conjecture" seams to be causing reactions for a >>> State centric internet governance (at least that's my perception). >>> >>> Therefore, Deborah, Matthew, Gene, Carolina and I have drafted a response >>> to submit to ITU. Please, find it bellow, just like the link for the >>> editable pad: >>> >>> https://pad.riseup.net/p/CWG-Internet >>> >>> Your comments are more then welcome. *The plan is to leave it open until >>> next Monday, 19th.* Hope you find it useful. >>> >>> All the best >>> >>> Joana >>> >>> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> executive director, association for progressive communications >> www.apc.org >> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> south africa >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> > > > > -- > Deborah Brown > Senior Policy Analyst > Access | AccessNow.org > E. deborah at accessnow.org > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D > > > > -- > Anne Jellema > Chief Executive Officer > Cape Town, RSA > mob +27 61 036 9652 > tel +27 21 788 4585 > Skype anne.jellema > @afjellema > > World Wide Web Foundation | 1889 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 From Andrew at gp-digital.org Fri Aug 30 12:56:38 2013 From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 17:56:38 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Call for sign on CWG-Internet statement2 (Was Call for comments/signatures: Draft Statement on Rejection of Proposal to Open CWG- Internet) In-Reply-To: <5220CE26.10903@apc.org> Message-ID: OK - I'll give it an hour or so Andrew Puddephatt, Director Global Partners Digital Development House, 56-64 Leonard St, EC2A 4LT, UK Office 44 (0)207 549 0350 Mobile: +44 (0)771 339 9597 andrew at g p-digital.org www.global-partners.co.uk On 30/08/2013 17:53, "Anriette Esterhuysen" wrote: >Hi all.. it also happened to me but then I got the confirmation email >immediately after. It is working. > >Anriette > >On 30/08/2013 18:42, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: >> I'm also having trouble signing ­ the website appears to be hung once I >>press the endorsement button >> Andrew Puddephatt, Director Global Partners Digital >> Development House, 56-64 Leonard St, EC2A 4LT, UK >> Office 44 (0)207 549 0350 >> Mobile: +44 (0)771 339 9597 >> andrew at gp-digital.org >> www.global-partners.co.uk >> >> From: Anne Jellema >>> >> Date: Friday, 30 August 2013 16:48 >> To: Deborah Brown > >> Cc: Nnenna Nwakanma >, >>"" >>> >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call for sign on CWG-Internet statement2 (Was >>Call for comments/signatures: Draft Statement on Rejection of Proposal >>to Open CWG- Internet) >> >> Thanks Deborah and everyone else who contributed to drafting. Web >>Foundation has signed (I hope so anyway - the website hung as I was >>submitting the form). >> Best >> Anne >> >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Deborah Brown >>> wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> Please find the revised statement on the ITU Council's rejection of >>proposals to open participation in the Council Working Group on >>International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet): >>http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet-2/ >> >> The text takes into account edits in the pad >>(https://pad.riseup.net/p/CWG-Internet) as of Monday, 19 August. Thanks >>to all who contributed to the editing process. >> >> Please indicate whether you would like to endorse this statement by end >>of day *2 September*. >> >> In terms of outreach on the statement, Nnenna suggested targeting >>specific Council members. I think is a good idea and I'm interested in >>hearing others' thoughts on this. I've pasted the list of members of the >>ITU Council below. >> >> Source: http://www.itu.int/en/council/Pages/members.aspx >> Council Membership (2010-2014) >> >> * Region A (Americas): 9 seats >> Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, Cuba, Mexico, Paraguay, United >>States, Venezuela >> >> * Region B (Western Europe): 8 seats >> France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey >> >> * Region C (Eastern Europe and Northern Asia): 5 seats >> Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation >> >> * Region D (Africa): 13 seats >> Algeria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Mali, Morocco, >>Nigeria, Senegal, Rwanda, South Africa, Tunisia >> >> * Region E (Asia and Australasia): 13 seats >> Australia, Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea (Republic >>of), Kuwait, Malaysia, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, United Arab >>Emirates >> >> Best, >> Deborah >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 5:51 AM, Nnenna Nwakanma >>> wrote: >> I have done a few edits. >> However, I do recall that during WCIT in Dubai, >> There was a face-to-face meeting with Hamadoun Touré on the openness >>issue. So that "effort" has been on. >> I also recall that HT did say that countries were playing double >>standards: speaking "openness" in public spaces and kicking against >>openness in council. >> >> Should we also specifically target some council members? Like send the >>letter to HT and also send copies to key council members? >> >> Just a thought >> >> N >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Tapani Tarvainen >>> wrote: >> Ditto for Effi. >> >> -- >> Tapani Tarvainen >> >> On Aug 12 18:20, Anriette Esterhuysen >>(anriette at apc.org) wrote: >> >>> Dear Joana and all >>> >>> I like this and am pretty sure APC will support, but I will run it by >>> members and staff. >>> >>> I am not entirely sure this last paragraph is necessary. I think to >>>some >>> extent it detracts from the main message in the letter which is about >>> opening the CWG. >>> >>> "We also take this opportunity to renew our call for the ITU to >>>continue >>> to coordinate itseffortswith that of relevant >>>/multistakeholder/Internet >>> governance bodies, taking advantage of those bodies¹ expertise and not >>> attempting to duplicate their functions. These bodies include those >>> devoted to technical issues (such as ICANN, the IETF and the RIRs) and >>> those dealing primarily with non-technical issues (such as the Internet >>> Governance Forum)." >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 12/08/2013 17:12, Joana Varon wrote: >>>> Dear people, >>>> >>>> As you may know, the ITU Council has rejected proposals to open >>>> participation in the Council Working Group on International >>>> Internet-Related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet). >>>> >>>> That happened in disregard of our previous >>>> request, >>>> of contributions from some Member States >>>> >>>>>>>es.wcitleaks.org/public/S13-CL-C-0069!!MSW-E.pdf> >>>> and >>>> of a statement from the Secretary General at the closing session of >>>>WTPF, >>>> where we called for adopting an IEG model of participation within >>>>other >>>> meetings of the organization. >>>> >>>> The CWG-Internet is a particularly relevant WG, as the Brazilian >>>>proposal >>>> on the role of States shall be discussed. Also a very important topic >>>>in a >>>> context where "Snowden conjecture" seams to be causing reactions for a >>>> State centric internet governance (at least that's my perception). >>>> >>>> Therefore, Deborah, Matthew, Gene, Carolina and I have drafted a >>>>response >>>> to submit to ITU. Please, find it bellow, just like the link for the >>>> editable pad: >>>> >>>> https://pad.riseup.net/p/CWG-Internet >>>> >>>> Your comments are more then welcome. *The plan is to leave it open >>>>until >>>> next Monday, 19th.* Hope you find it useful. >>>> >>>> All the best >>>> >>>> Joana >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>> www.apc.org >>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>> south africa >>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Deborah Brown >> Senior Policy Analyst >> Access | AccessNow.org >> E. deborah at accessnow.org >> @deblebrown >> PGP 0x5EB4727D >> >> >> >> -- >> Anne Jellema >> Chief Executive Officer >> Cape Town, RSA >> mob +27 61 036 9652 >> tel +27 21 788 4585 >> Skype anne.jellema >> @afjellema >> >> World Wide Web Foundation | 1889 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, USA >>| www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: >>@webfoundation >> > >-- >------------------------------------------------------ >anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >executive director, association for progressive communications >www.apc.org >po box 29755, melville 2109 >south africa >tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > From anja at internetdemocracy.in Fri Aug 30 14:23:38 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 23:53:38 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Position by IT for Change and some other NGOs on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <521E2A9E.7070004@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear all, While the Internet Democracy Project is not a member of APC, and though we do have differences of opinion with APC (e.g. on how severe the threat of backgtracking on the Tunis agenda is), we broadly agree with APC's views on the IT for Change statement as outlined by Valeria. We will not be able to sign the IT for Change statement. It is oftentimes made to seem as if there are only two options where Internet governance arrangements are concerned: the status quo and a more centralised form of governance, the latter often (though not always) imagined as involving greater government control. We believe that there is a third way, and one that has far greater potential for a politics of justice, which is that of distributed governance. We will be submitting a submission to the WGEC along these lines. Best regards, Anja On 30 August 2013 20:02, Valeria Betancourt wrote: > Dear all, > > We are busy compiling an APC's network response and we will submit our own > statement. We will also endorse the Best Bits statement, to which we > contributed to. > > While we appreciate the effort that has gone into it and many of the > points raised, APC will not endorse the IT for Change statement. APC > members are independent so while some individual APC members might endorse > it, APC as an organisation won't. Some of the main reasons why we have > made that decision are explained at the end of this message. We thought it > is useful to share our thinking in these spacea as a contribution to the > debate. > > Best, > > Valeria > ------------------------ > > * The basic case for "global governance of the Internet" is simply > not made. The evidence for the proposed new mechanisms is weak, laden > with polemic, and with a political bias that is not corrected by balanced, > judicious weighing of options nor informed by practical experience (this > in relation to ICANN and the technical community in particular). > > * The statement takes government and an internet-centric approach > to policy making and suggests that a global internet policy > making framework convention and new body is desirable. This overlooks and > would > undermine the many other approaches to policy making currently mandated by > international law including rights based, environmental, and development > among others. we have seen in the intellectual property field, for example, > what happens when UN bodies are set up with topic specific mandates for > global related policy issues. > > * To place the internet as the centre for public policy making is a grave > conceptual error in our view -rather a better conceptual approach is to > focus on internet related aspects of policy issues (such as health, > education, discrimination, access, telecommunciations policy and so on). > Even better, to put people at the centre of policy making. We must never > forget that the internet does not exist in a parallel dimension. Nor can > internet policy. Creating a new UN body to focus on internet policy and > identifying which issues it should deal with is not going to be > sustainable, or effective. The internet touches on so many issues that no > single policy space could ever effectively deal with them all. > > * The imposition of a new global internet policy framework determined and > agreed by governments - and therefore being a top down and > central mechanism - contradicts the bottom-up multi-stakeholder principles > of > policy making and end to end principles of internet architecture: > it's just wrong. This is not to say that multi-stakeholder policy > processes are not flawed and still producing outcomes that reflect the > interest of those with power and resources. But creating new frameworks > and bodies will not address this automatically. > > * Most international agreements set MINIMUM standards because governments > generally can only agree on the lowest common denominator - apart from > generally resulting in inadequate policy, it also risks back- tracking on > the existing points of agreement in the Tunis Agenda. > > * The statement proposes a new framework convention similar to > the convention on climate change. Such conventions are inevitably > negotiated and agreed by governments and not multi-stakeholder. in > addition, the > inequalities between States (a key source of friction in > current arrangements) will not be solved by the creation of new mechanisms > which the same States need to agree on - inevitably the politics > simply transfer, Rather than propose a new convention (most take between > 5-10 years to negotiate, assuming agreement can be reached), it would > be better to empower and strengthen existing mechanisms - more ideas on > that separately. APC proposed a framework convention of this > nature immediately after Tunis in 2005. But after our work on the 'code > of good practice' for internet governance during which we looked closely at > environmental and climate change policy processes, and our experience in > observing governments in the CSTD when they try to negotiate an annual > resolution on WSIS follow up we decided against this. > > * Finally, the focus on global internet public policy undermines the role > of national and regional IGFs and policy making processes many of which > have quite different politics and are still evolving to suit > their conditions. Not all these processes are inclusive, or even > legitimate, but they are not going to be fixed from above by new > agreements negotiated by governments. > > * On balance, then, we think more work is needed to develop options which > suit civil society and empower civil society as stakeholders in policy > making and that systematically try to consolidate current achievements with > regard to human rights on the internet in, for example, the Human Rights > Council. > > > On 28/08/2013, at 11:51, parminder wrote: > > *Apologies for cross posting* > > Dear All > > IT for Change and some other NGOs plan to forward the following position > to the UN Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. Preceding the position > statement is a covering letter seeking support. You are *welcome to > support this position any time before 12 noon GMT on 31st Aug*. We are > happy to provide any additional information/ clarification etc. Also happy > to otherwise discuss this position, and its different elements. We are > motivated by the need to come up with precise and clear institutional > options at this stage. Politics of inertia and not doing anything just > serves the status quo. These may not be the best institutional options, and > we are ready to enter into discussion with other groups on what instead > would be the better options. But, again, not doing anything is, in our > opinion, would be detrimental to global public interest. > > The web link to this position is at > http://www.itforchange.net/civil_society_input_to_the_UN_Working_Group_for_global_governance_of_the_Internet. > > parminder > > > *Covering letter / Background > * > In May 2012, more than 60 civil society organisations and several > individuals participated in a campaign for 'democratising the global > governance of the Internet'. > A joint letter signed by the participants of this campaign *inter alia*asked for setting up a UN Working Group towards this objective. Such a > Working Group was set up and has now asked for public inputs to formulate > its recommendations. > > In our joint letter, we had proposed some outlines for reforming the > current global governance architecture of the Internet. Time has come now > to make more clear and specific recommendations of the actual institutional > mechanism that we need. With most governments more worried about their > narrow geopolitical interests and relationships with individual countries, > it falls upon the civil society to be bold and forward looking and put > precise proposals on the table that can then be taken forward by state > actors. > > In a post-Snowden world, there is deep discomfort among almost all > countries, other than the US, with the manner in which the global Internet > is run and is evolving. The need for some global norms, principles, rules, > and necessary governance mechanisms for the global Internet is being felt > now as never before. The Internet can no longer remain anchored to the > political and business interests of one country, or to serving global > capital, as it is at present. As a global commons, it is our collective > democratic right and responsibility to participate in the governance of the > Internet, so that it can become a vehicle for greater prosperity, equity > and social justice for all. > > We seek your support to join us in proposing the enclosed document as an > input to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. The Working Group has > sought public inputs through a questionnaire which can be seen at > http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD.aspx . The most important question is at > number 8, which seeks input with regard to precise mechanism(s) that are > required. Our response will mostly address this all-important question. > (You are also encouraged to, separately, give a fuller response to the > questionnaire on your behalf or on behalf of your organization.) We will > also like to give wide media publicity to this civil society statement . > > We will be glad if you can send your response to us *before the 30th of > August*. We are of course happy to respond to any clarification or > additional information that you may want to seek in the above regard. > Please also circulate this to others who you think may want to participate > in this initiative. The global Internet governance space seems to be > dominated by those who push for neoliberal models of governance. We must > therefore have as many voices heard as possible. > > (The statement is cut pasted below this email and may also be seen here) > > With best regard, > > Parminder > > > *Parminder Jeet Singh* > ------------------------------ > IT for Change > In special consultative status with the United Nations ECOSOC > www.ITforChange.net > T: 00-91-80-26654134 | T: 00-91-80-26536890 | Fax: 00-91-80-41461055 > > *A civil society input to the UN Working Group looking at * > > *institutional mechanisms for global governance of the Internet * > > *(Please write to itfc @itforchange.netbefore 29th Aug if you will like to endorse this statement) > * > > * > Why global governance of the Internet?* > > Internet governance is seen largely in terms of national sovereignty and > security or as pertaining to free speech and privacy. We are of the view > that there exist many other equally important issues for global Internet > governance that arise from the whole gamut of rights and aspirations of > people – social, economic, cultural, political and developmental. The > relationship of the global Internet to cultural diversity is one example. > The Internet increasingly determines not only the global flows of > information but also of cultures, and their commodification. No social > process is exempt from the influence of the Internet – from education to > health and governance. Social systems at national and local levels are > being transformed under the influence of the global Internet. > > Instead of decentralizing power, the current structure of the global > Internet tends to centralize control in the hands of a small number of > companies. Some of these companies have near-monopoly power over key areas > of economic and social significance. Therefore, regulation of global > Internet business through pertinent competition law, consumer law, open > interoperability standards, etc, is becoming a pressing need. Increasing > statist controls need to be similarly resisted. With the emergent paradigm > of cloud computing presenting the looming prospect of remote management of > our digital lives from different 'power centres' across the world, it is > inconceivable that we can do without appropriate democratic governance of > the global Internet. Post-Snowden, as many countries have begun to > contemplate and even embark upon measures for 'digital sovereignty', the > only way to preserve a *global** *Internet is through formulating > appropriate *global* norms, principles and rules that will underpin its > governance. > > *Background of this civil society input* > > A group of over 60 civil society organizations and several individuals, > made a statement on *'Democratizing the global governance of the Internet > '* to the open consultations on 'enhanced cooperation'1 called by the > Chair of the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) > on May 18th, 2012, in Geneva. The statement *inter alia* sought the > setting up of a CSTD Working Group to address this issue. We are happy to > note that such a Working Group has been set up and has now called for > public inputs to make its recommendations. This document is an input to the > Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC) on the behalf of the > undersigned . > > In the aforementioned statementof May 2012, the civil society signatories had called for the following > institutional developments to take place in the global Internet governance > architecture: > > *Our demands with respect to 'global' Internet Governance espouse a > simple and obvious democratic logic. On the technical governance side, the > oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical infrastructure, > at present with the US government, should be transferred to an appropriate, > democratic and participative, multi-lateral body, without disturbing the > existing distributed architecture of technical governance of the Internet > in any significant way. (However, improvements in the technical governance > systems are certainly needed.) On the side of larger Internet related > public policy-making on global social, economic, cultural and political > issues, the OECD-based model of global policy making, as well as the > default application of US laws, should be replaced by a new UN-based > democratic mechanism. Any such new arrangement should be based on the > principle of subsidiarity, and be innovative in terms of its mandate, > structure, and functions, to be adequate to the unique requirements of > global Internet governance. It must be fully participative of all > stakeholders, promoting the democratic and innovative potential of the* *Internet. > * > > As the WGEC deliberates on concrete ways to move forward, the time is ripe > to propose clear and specific institutional mechanisms for democratizing > the global governance of the Internet. We have, therefore, expanded the > above demands into specific mechanisms that should be set in place for this > purpose. > > *New global governance mechanisms are needed* > > We are of the view that it would be useful to have two distinct mechanisms > – one that looks at the global Internet-related public policy issues in > various social, economic, cultural and political domains, and another that > should undertake oversight of the technical and operational functions > related to the Internet (basically, replacing the current unilateral > oversight of the ICANN2 by the US government). This will require setting > up appropriate new global governance bodies as well as a framework of > international law to facilitate their work, as follows. > > *A new UN body for Internet-related public policy issues:** * An anchor > global institution for taking up and addressing various public policy > issues pertaining to the Internet in an ongoing manner is urgently > required. It can be a committee attached to the UN General Assembly or a > more elaborate and relatively autonomous set up linked loosely to the UN > (as a specialized UN body). It should have a very strong and > institutionalized public consultative mechanism, in the form of > stakeholder advisory groups that are selected through formal processes by > different stakeholder constituencies, ensuring adequate representativeness. > (OECD's *Committee on Computer, Information and Communication Policy*and India's recent proposal for a > *UN* > *Committee on > Internet-related Policies* > are two useful, and > somewhat similar, models that can be looked at.) > > This 'new body' will stay abreast of global Internet-related issues; where > necessary, develop international level public policies in the concerned > areas; seek appropriate harmonization of national level policies, and; > facilitate required treaties, conventions and agreements. It will also have > the necessary means to undertake studies and present analyses in different > policy areas. > > Most Internet-related public policy issues are of a cross-cutting nature, > and involve overlaps with mandates of other existing global governance > bodies, like WIPO, UNESCO, WTO, UNDP, UNCTAD, ITU and so on. Due to this > reason, the proposed new 'body' will establish appropriate relationships > with all these other existing bodies, including directing relevant public > policy issues to them, receiving their inputs and comments, and itself > contributing specific Internet-related perspectives to issues under the > purview of these other bodies. > > *A new 'Internet Technical Oversight and Advisory Board':* This board > will replace the US government's current oversight role over the technical > and operational functions performed by ICANN. The membership of this > oversight board can be of a techno-political nature, *i.e.* consisting of > people with specialized expertise but who also have appropriate political > backing, ascertained through a democratic process. For instance, the board > can be made of 10/15 members, with 2/3 members each from five geographic > regions (as understood in the UN system). These members can perhaps be > selected through an appropriate process by the relevant technical standards > bodies and/or country domain name bodies of all the countries of the > respective region. (Other mechanisms for constituting the techno-political > membership of this board can also be considered.) > > The Internet technical oversight and advisory board will seek to ensure > that the various technical and operational functions related to the global > Internet are undertaken by the relevant organizations as per international > law and public policy principles developed by the concerned international > bodies. With regard to ICANN, the role of this board will more or less be > exactly the same as exercised by the US government in its oversight over > ICANN. As for the decentralized Internet standards development mechanisms, > like the Internet Engineering Task Force, these self organizing systems > based on voluntary adoption of standards will continue to work as at > present. The new board will have a very light touch and non-binding role > with regard to them. It will bring in imperatives from, and advise these > technical standards bodies on, international public policies, international > law and norms being developed by various relevant bodies. > > For this board to be able to fulfill its oversight mandate, ICANN must > become an international organization, without changing its existing > multistakeholder character in any substantial manner. It would enter into a > host country agreement with the US government (if ICANN has to continue to > be headquartered in the US). It would have full immunity from US law and > executive authority, and be guided solely by international law, and be > incorporated under it. Supervision of the authoritative root zone server > must also be transferred to this oversight broad. The board will exercise > this role with the help of an internationalized ICANN. > > This board will also advise the afore-mentioned new public policy body on > technical matters pertaining to the Internet policy making, as well as take > public policy inputs from it. > > *Framework Convention on the Internet:** *An appropriate international > legal framework will be required sooner than later for the above bodies to > function properly. Accordingly, one of the early tasks of the proposed 'new > body' dealing with Internet-related public policy issues, discussed above, > will be to help negotiate a 'Framework Convention on the Internet' > (somewhat like the *Framework Convention on Climate Change > )*. Governance of the Internet concerns different kinds of issues that > are ever-evolving. It is, therefore, preferable to formulate an enabling > legal structure as a 'framework convention' rather than as a specific > treaty or convention that addresses only a bounded set of issues. It may > also be easier to initially agree to a series of principles, protocols and > processes that can then frame further agreements, treaties etc on more > specific issues. > > Such a Framework Convention will thus enable appropriate and ongoing > global policy responses to various opportunities and challenges that the > fast-evolving phenomenon of the Internet throws up. It will also formalize > the basic architecture of the global governance of the Internet; * inter > alia* recognizing and legitimizing the existing role and functions of the > various bodies currently involved with managing the technical and logical > infrastructure of the Internet, including the ICANN, Regional Internet > Registries, Internet technical standards bodies and so on. > > Appropriate mechanisms for crisis response and dispute resolution in > relation to the global Internet, and the social activity dependent on it, > will also be required to be set up. > > *Relationship with the IGF* > > The UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was established as a > multistakeholder 'policy dialogue forum' by the World Summit on the > Information Society. The proposed global Internet policy mechanism, > especially the new UN based body, will maintain a close relationship with > the IGF. IGF affords a very new kind of participative mechanism for policy > making, whereby the participation realm is institutionalized, and > relatively independent of the policy making structures. The IGF should > preferably pre-discuss issues that are taken up by this new policy body and > present diverse perspectives for its consideration. A good part of the > agenda for this new body can emerge from the IGF. Whenever possible, draft > proposals to be adopted by this new body should be shared with the IGF. > > To perform such a participation enhancing role, the IGF must be adequately > strengthened and reformed, especially to address the dominance of Northern > corporatist interests in its current working. It must be supported with > public funds, and insulated from any funding system that can bring in > perverse influences on its agenda and outcomes. Other required processes > must also be put in place to ensure that the IGF indeed brings in > constituencies that are typically under-represented, rather than provide > further political clout to the already dominant. > > A participative body is only as good as the policy making mechanisms that > feed off it. To that extent, the meaningfulness and effectiveness of the > IGF itself requires a strong policy development mechanism, as suggested in > this document, to be linked to it. Investing in the IGF is useful only if > its outputs and contributions lead to something concrete. > > *Funding* > > An innovative way to fund the proposed new global Internet policy > mechanisms, and also the IGF, is to tap into the collections made by the > relevant bodies from allocation of names and numbers resources pertaining > to the global Internet (like the fee that ICANN collects annually from each > domain name owner). These accruals now run into millions of dollars every > year and could be adequate to fund a large part of the needed mechanisms > for democratic governance of the global Internet. > > In the end, we may add that there is nothing really very novel in the > above proposal for setting up new mechanisms for global governance of the > Internet. Similar models, for instance, were proposed in the report of the > Working Group on Internet Governance that was set up during the World > Summit on the Information Society, back in 2004. > > We hope that the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation will fulfill its > high mandate to lead the world towards the path of democratic governance of > the global commons of the Internet. > > 1The outcome documents of the World Summit on the Information Society, > held in 2005, employed this as a placeholder term giving the mandate for > further exploration of the necessary mechanisms for global governance of > the Internet. > > 2Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the US based > non-profit that manages much of technical and logical infrastructural > functions related to the Internet. > > > ------------- > Valeria Betancourt > Directora / Manager > Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and > Information Policy Programme > Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for > Progressive Communications, APC > http://www.apc.org > > > > > > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew at gp-digital.org Fri Aug 30 14:47:36 2013 From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 19:47:36 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Call for sign on CWG-Internet statement2 (Was Call for comments/signatures: Draft Statement on Rejection of Proposal to Open CWG- Internet) In-Reply-To: <5220CE26.10903@apc.org> Message-ID: OK - I'll give it an hour or so Andrew Puddephatt, Director Global Partners Digital Development House, 56-64 Leonard St, EC2A 4LT, UK Office 44 (0)207 549 0350 Mobile: +44 (0)771 339 9597 andrew at g p-digital.org www.global-partners.co.uk On 30/08/2013 17:53, "Anriette Esterhuysen" wrote: >Hi all.. it also happened to me but then I got the confirmation email >immediately after. It is working. > >Anriette > >On 30/08/2013 18:42, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: >> I'm also having trouble signing ­ the website appears to be hung once I >>press the endorsement button >> Andrew Puddephatt, Director Global Partners Digital >> Development House, 56-64 Leonard St, EC2A 4LT, UK >> Office 44 (0)207 549 0350 >> Mobile: +44 (0)771 339 9597 >> andrew at gp-digital.org >> www.global-partners.co.uk >> >> From: Anne Jellema >>> >> Date: Friday, 30 August 2013 16:48 >> To: Deborah Brown > >> Cc: Nnenna Nwakanma >, >>"" >>> >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call for sign on CWG-Internet statement2 (Was >>Call for comments/signatures: Draft Statement on Rejection of Proposal >>to Open CWG- Internet) >> >> Thanks Deborah and everyone else who contributed to drafting. Web >>Foundation has signed (I hope so anyway - the website hung as I was >>submitting the form). >> Best >> Anne >> >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Deborah Brown >>> wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> Please find the revised statement on the ITU Council's rejection of >>proposals to open participation in the Council Working Group on >>International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet): >>http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet-2/ >> >> The text takes into account edits in the pad >>(https://pad.riseup.net/p/CWG-Internet) as of Monday, 19 August. Thanks >>to all who contributed to the editing process. >> >> Please indicate whether you would like to endorse this statement by end >>of day *2 September*. >> >> In terms of outreach on the statement, Nnenna suggested targeting >>specific Council members. I think is a good idea and I'm interested in >>hearing others' thoughts on this. I've pasted the list of members of the >>ITU Council below. >> >> Source: http://www.itu.int/en/council/Pages/members.aspx >> Council Membership (2010-2014) >> >> * Region A (Americas): 9 seats >> Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, Cuba, Mexico, Paraguay, United >>States, Venezuela >> >> * Region B (Western Europe): 8 seats >> France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey >> >> * Region C (Eastern Europe and Northern Asia): 5 seats >> Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation >> >> * Region D (Africa): 13 seats >> Algeria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Mali, Morocco, >>Nigeria, Senegal, Rwanda, South Africa, Tunisia >> >> * Region E (Asia and Australasia): 13 seats >> Australia, Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea (Republic >>of), Kuwait, Malaysia, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, United Arab >>Emirates >> >> Best, >> Deborah >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 5:51 AM, Nnenna Nwakanma >>> wrote: >> I have done a few edits. >> However, I do recall that during WCIT in Dubai, >> There was a face-to-face meeting with Hamadoun Touré on the openness >>issue. So that "effort" has been on. >> I also recall that HT did say that countries were playing double >>standards: speaking "openness" in public spaces and kicking against >>openness in council. >> >> Should we also specifically target some council members? Like send the >>letter to HT and also send copies to key council members? >> >> Just a thought >> >> N >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Tapani Tarvainen >>> wrote: >> Ditto for Effi. >> >> -- >> Tapani Tarvainen >> >> On Aug 12 18:20, Anriette Esterhuysen >>(anriette at apc.org) wrote: >> >>> Dear Joana and all >>> >>> I like this and am pretty sure APC will support, but I will run it by >>> members and staff. >>> >>> I am not entirely sure this last paragraph is necessary. I think to >>>some >>> extent it detracts from the main message in the letter which is about >>> opening the CWG. >>> >>> "We also take this opportunity to renew our call for the ITU to >>>continue >>> to coordinate itseffortswith that of relevant >>>/multistakeholder/Internet >>> governance bodies, taking advantage of those bodies¹ expertise and not >>> attempting to duplicate their functions. These bodies include those >>> devoted to technical issues (such as ICANN, the IETF and the RIRs) and >>> those dealing primarily with non-technical issues (such as the Internet >>> Governance Forum)." >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 12/08/2013 17:12, Joana Varon wrote: >>>> Dear people, >>>> >>>> As you may know, the ITU Council has rejected proposals to open >>>> participation in the Council Working Group on International >>>> Internet-Related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet). >>>> >>>> That happened in disregard of our previous >>>> request, >>>> of contributions from some Member States >>>> >>>>>>>es.wcitleaks.org/public/S13-CL-C-0069!!MSW-E.pdf> >>>> and >>>> of a statement from the Secretary General at the closing session of >>>>WTPF, >>>> where we called for adopting an IEG model of participation within >>>>other >>>> meetings of the organization. >>>> >>>> The CWG-Internet is a particularly relevant WG, as the Brazilian >>>>proposal >>>> on the role of States shall be discussed. Also a very important topic >>>>in a >>>> context where "Snowden conjecture" seams to be causing reactions for a >>>> State centric internet governance (at least that's my perception). >>>> >>>> Therefore, Deborah, Matthew, Gene, Carolina and I have drafted a >>>>response >>>> to submit to ITU. Please, find it bellow, just like the link for the >>>> editable pad: >>>> >>>> https://pad.riseup.net/p/CWG-Internet >>>> >>>> Your comments are more then welcome. *The plan is to leave it open >>>>until >>>> next Monday, 19th.* Hope you find it useful. >>>> >>>> All the best >>>> >>>> Joana >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>> www.apc.org >>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>> south africa >>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Deborah Brown >> Senior Policy Analyst >> Access | AccessNow.org >> E. deborah at accessnow.org >> @deblebrown >> PGP 0x5EB4727D >> >> >> >> -- >> Anne Jellema >> Chief Executive Officer >> Cape Town, RSA >> mob +27 61 036 9652 >> tel +27 21 788 4585 >> Skype anne.jellema >> @afjellema >> >> World Wide Web Foundation | 1889 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, USA >>| www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: >>@webfoundation >> > >-- >------------------------------------------------------ >anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >executive director, association for progressive communications >www.apc.org >po box 29755, melville 2109 >south africa >tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > From jeremy at ciroap.org Sat Aug 10 11:36:08 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 23:36:08 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Programme for Best Bits annual meeting Message-ID: <36DD99DF-3B81-4184-8F47-D1C6DD9C4451@ciroap.org> Since the good news that the 2013 IGF will be going ahead after all, it's time to revise and finalise the programme for our annual meeting in Bali. The interim steering group has been talking about this, and here was their suggestion for topics (the descriptions are mine though): Day 1 1) Best Bits itself: goals, structure, processes, fundraising, interactions with other groups, etc. The interim steering group is working on a documents with our brainstorming about all this, which we will share soon. The purpose of this session is to reach a consensus that we are heading in the right direction (or not), and to provide a mandate to carry out proposals that will help us grow and become stronger and more sustainable. 2) Global Internet governance principles and Enhanced Cooperation. As you know, there are groups at the IGF MAG and the CSTD discussing these issues, but until now there has been no strong unified civil society position about the evolution of Internet governance arrangements, and this equivocation has played into the wrong hands. We have been largely split between groups that are averse to any changes, and those with proposals for changes that are seen as radical. The purpose of this session (as I see it, anyway) is to get together behind a shared position that can become a solid base for advocacy. We already have a working group arguing over these issues (in a good way), which will report back to this main list soon. Day 2 3) The ITU processes, up to the ITU Plenipotentiary in 2014 and the WSIS+10 review. What is coming up? What is our long term strategy? Have we responded adequately to the ITU's most recent refusal to open up the Council Working Group on Internet Policy to stakeholders? If we still don't see change at the Plenipotentiary, what then - do we disengage? 4) The NSA surveillance issue may become a sub-item of the ITU discussion, given that there are countries that may bring this debate to the ITU. But it will also include an update on the Human Rights Council, stateside developments, how this has altered the Internet governance landscape in the long term, and general strategy going forward. There's also a lot of other work to be done between now and then, including work on the website (so that you can actually register for the meeting!) and on fundraising (to help pay for it). I'll be posting more about that very soon. Meanwhile your comments are invited on the programme... -- 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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @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: From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Aug 30 15:00:06 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 02:00:06 +0700 Subject: [bestbits] Position by IT for Change and some other NGOs on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <521E2A9E.7070004@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <030d01cea5b3$2cc32a80$86497f80$@gmail.com> Below is my response to the APC message (I'm currently an Associate (individual) member of APC… Thanks for this Anriette and all... I'll be endorsing the ITfC statement along with the BestBits statement which I don't see as being incompatible. I think the major difference between the two and where I'm suggesting that individual members might consider endorsement of both statements is that the IT for Change document begins the process of placing the overall issues of Internet governance into the larger (geo) political context into which the Snowden revelations have firmly placed them. I don't believe it is possible now to think about or take action in the Internet governance space without recognizing the degree to which that space is seen by certain parties (as articulated by various of Snowden's NSA documents) as being of sovereign and "national security" level importance. What that means is that what Internet governance mechanisms are proposed/responded to have to be understood within the broader context of global governance and the possible distribution of power/control within that framework. I would point you folks to the recent blogpost by Byron Holland the Executive Director of the Canadian Internet Registry Authority (CIRA) reflecting on recent events in the Internet governance space and how, post-Snowden, all of that needs to be reconsidered... http://blog.cira.ca/2013/08/the-internet-as-we-know-it-is-dead/?goback=%2Egde_110405_member_268692395#%21 http://tinyurl.com/pywp46b I don't necessarily agree with the specifics of the institutional approaches identified in the ITfC document. But that some sort of global (and globally authorized) mechanism is required to counter the very clear attempts to design Internet governance in such a way as to ensure future and permanent enshrinement of the dominance of certain national and corporate interests is I believe manifestly evident. A "hands off the Internet" approach, does I believe mitigate in direct opposition to the interests of civil society and particularly civil society in LDC's in support of a free, open, transparent and responsive Internet as a basis for overcoming social and economic inequalities. What Snowden/NSA makes clear I believe, is that if the Internet is to be developed as a resource for all rather than as a tool benefiting the interests of only some then mechanisms which allow for the broadest base of input into Internet governance need to be created -- how, what and by whom I think is what we need to be discussing--I think that Snowden has given us sufficient insight to recognize that the question of whether such is necessary and most certainly from a civil society perspective needs no longer to be discussed. Mike Gurstein From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anja Kovacs Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2013 1:24 AM To: Valeria Betancourt Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Position by IT for Change and some other NGOs on enhanced cooperation Dear all, While the Internet Democracy Project is not a member of APC, and though we do have differences of opinion with APC (e.g. on how severe the threat of backgtracking on the Tunis agenda is), we broadly agree with APC's views on the IT for Change statement as outlined by Valeria. We will not be able to sign the IT for Change statement. It is oftentimes made to seem as if there are only two options where Internet governance arrangements are concerned: the status quo and a more centralised form of governance, the latter often (though not always) imagined as involving greater government control. We believe that there is a third way, and one that has far greater potential for a politics of justice, which is that of distributed governance. We will be submitting a submission to the WGEC along these lines. Best regards, Anja On 30 August 2013 20:02, Valeria Betancourt wrote: Dear all, We are busy compiling an APC's network response and we will submit our own statement. We will also endorse the Best Bits statement, to which we contributed to. While we appreciate the effort that has gone into it and many of the points raised, APC will not endorse the IT for Change statement. APC members are independent so while some individual APC members might endorse it, APC as an organisation won't. Some of the main reasons why we have made that decision are explained at the end of this message. We thought it is useful to share our thinking in these spacea as a contribution to the debate. Best, Valeria ------------------------ * The basic case for "global governance of the Internet" is simply not made. The evidence for the proposed new mechanisms is weak, laden with polemic, and with a political bias that is not corrected by balanced, judicious weighing of options nor informed by practical experience (this in relation to ICANN and the technical community in particular). * The statement takes government and an internet-centric approach to policy making and suggests that a global internet policy making framework convention and new body is desirable. This overlooks and would undermine the many other approaches to policy making currently mandated by international law including rights based, environmental, and development among others. we have seen in the intellectual property field, for example, what happens when UN bodies are set up with topic specific mandates for global related policy issues. * To place the internet as the centre for public policy making is a grave conceptual error in our view -rather a better conceptual approach is to focus on internet related aspects of policy issues (such as health, education, discrimination, access, telecommunciations policy and so on). Even better, to put people at the centre of policy making. We must never forget that the internet does not exist in a parallel dimension. Nor can internet policy. Creating a new UN body to focus on internet policy and identifying which issues it should deal with is not going to be sustainable, or effective. The internet touches on so many issues that no single policy space could ever effectively deal with them all. * The imposition of a new global internet policy framework determined and agreed by governments - and therefore being a top down and central mechanism - contradicts the bottom-up multi-stakeholder principles of policy making and end to end principles of internet architecture: it's just wrong. This is not to say that multi-stakeholder policy processes are not flawed and still producing outcomes that reflect the interest of those with power and resources. But creating new frameworks and bodies will not address this automatically. * Most international agreements set MINIMUM standards because governments generally can only agree on the lowest common denominator - apart from generally resulting in inadequate policy, it also risks back- tracking on the existing points of agreement in the Tunis Agenda. * The statement proposes a new framework convention similar to the convention on climate change. Such conventions are inevitably negotiated and agreed by governments and not multi-stakeholder. in addition, the inequalities between States (a key source of friction in current arrangements) will not be solved by the creation of new mechanisms which the same States need to agree on - inevitably the politics simply transfer, Rather than propose a new convention (most take between 5-10 years to negotiate, assuming agreement can be reached), it would be better to empower and strengthen existing mechanisms - more ideas on that separately. APC proposed a framework convention of this nature immediately after Tunis in 2005. But after our work on the 'code of good practice' for internet governance during which we looked closely at environmental and climate change policy processes, and our experience in observing governments in the CSTD when they try to negotiate an annual resolution on WSIS follow up we decided against this. * Finally, the focus on global internet public policy undermines the role of national and regional IGFs and policy making processes many of which have quite different politics and are still evolving to suit their conditions. Not all these processes are inclusive, or even legitimate, but they are not going to be fixed from above by new agreements negotiated by governments. * On balance, then, we think more work is needed to develop options which suit civil society and empower civil society as stakeholders in policy making and that systematically try to consolidate current achievements with regard to human rights on the internet in, for example, the Human Rights Council. On 28/08/2013, at 11:51, parminder wrote: Apologies for cross posting Dear All IT for Change and some other NGOs plan to forward the following position to the UN Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. Preceding the position statement is a covering letter seeking support. You are welcome to support this position any time before 12 noon GMT on 31st Aug. We are happy to provide any additional information/ clarification etc. Also happy to otherwise discuss this position, and its different elements. We are motivated by the need to come up with precise and clear institutional options at this stage. Politics of inertia and not doing anything just serves the status quo. These may not be the best institutional options, and we are ready to enter into discussion with other groups on what instead would be the better options. But, again, not doing anything is, in our opinion, would be detrimental to global public interest. The web link to this position is at http://www.itforchange.net/civil_society_input_to_the_UN_Working_Group_for_global_governance_of_the_Internet . parminder Covering letter / Background In May 2012, more than 60 civil society organisations and several individuals participated in a campaign for 'democratising the global governance of the Internet '. A joint letter signed by the participants of this campaign inter alia asked for setting up a UN Working Group towards this objective. Such a Working Group was set up and has now asked for public inputs to formulate its recommendations. In our joint letter, we had proposed some outlines for reforming the current global governance architecture of the Internet. Time has come now to make more clear and specific recommendations of the actual institutional mechanism that we need. With most governments more worried about their narrow geopolitical interests and relationships with individual countries, it falls upon the civil society to be bold and forward looking and put precise proposals on the table that can then be taken forward by state actors. In a post-Snowden world, there is deep discomfort among almost all countries, other than the US, with the manner in which the global Internet is run and is evolving. The need for some global norms, principles, rules, and necessary governance mechanisms for the global Internet is being felt now as never before. The Internet can no longer remain anchored to the political and business interests of one country, or to serving global capital, as it is at present. As a global commons, it is our collective democratic right and responsibility to participate in the governance of the Internet, so that it can become a vehicle for greater prosperity, equity and social justice for all. We seek your support to join us in proposing the enclosed document as an input to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. The Working Group has sought public inputs through a questionnaire which can be seen at http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD.aspx . The most important question is at number 8, which seeks input with regard to precise mechanism(s) that are required. Our response will mostly address this all-important question. (You are also encouraged to, separately, give a fuller response to the questionnaire on your behalf or on behalf of your organization.) We will also like to give wide media publicity to this civil society statement . We will be glad if you can send your response to us before the 30th of August. We are of course happy to respond to any clarification or additional information that you may want to seek in the above regard. Please also circulate this to others who you think may want to participate in this initiative. The global Internet governance space seems to be dominated by those who push for neoliberal models of governance. We must therefore have as many voices heard as possible. (The statement is cut pasted below this email and may also be seen here ) With best regard, Parminder Parminder Jeet Singh _____ IT for Change In special consultative status with the United Nations ECOSOC www.ITforChange.net T: 00-91-80-26654134 | T: 00-91-80-26536890 | Fax: 00-91-80-41461055 A civil society input to the UN Working Group looking at institutional mechanisms for global governance of the Internet (Please write to itfc @itforchange.net before 29th Aug if you will like to endorse this statement) Why global governance of the Internet? Internet governance is seen largely in terms of national sovereignty and security or as pertaining to free speech and privacy. We are of the view that there exist many other equally important issues for global Internet governance that arise from the whole gamut of rights and aspirations of people – social, economic, cultural, political and developmental. The relationship of the global Internet to cultural diversity is one example. The Internet increasingly determines not only the global flows of information but also of cultures, and their commodification. No social process is exempt from the influence of the Internet – from education to health and governance. Social systems at national and local levels are being transformed under the influence of the global Internet. Instead of decentralizing power, the current structure of the global Internet tends to centralize control in the hands of a small number of companies. Some of these companies have near-monopoly power over key areas of economic and social significance. Therefore, regulation of global Internet business through pertinent competition law, consumer law, open interoperability standards, etc, is becoming a pressing need. Increasing statist controls need to be similarly resisted. With the emergent paradigm of cloud computing presenting the looming prospect of remote management of our digital lives from different 'power centres' across the world, it is inconceivable that we can do without appropriate democratic governance of the global Internet. Post-Snowden, as many countries have begun to contemplate and even embark upon measures for 'digital sovereignty', the only way to preserve a global Internet is through formulating appropriate global norms, principles and rules that will underpin its governance. Background of this civil society input A group of over 60 civil society organizations and several individuals, made a statement on 'Democratizing the global governance of the Internet ' to the open consultations on 'enhanced cooperation'1 called by the Chair of the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) on May 18th, 2012, in Geneva. The statement inter alia sought the setting up of a CSTD Working Group to address this issue. We are happy to note that such a Working Group has been set up and has now called for public inputs to make its recommendations. This document is an input to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC) on the behalf of the undersigned . In the aforementioned statement of May 2012, the civil society signatories had called for the following institutional developments to take place in the global Internet governance architecture: Our demands with respect to 'global' Internet Governance espouse a simple and obvious democratic logic. On the technical governance side, the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical infrastructure, at present with the US government, should be transferred to an appropriate, democratic and participative, multi-lateral body, without disturbing the existing distributed architecture of technical governance of the Internet in any significant way. (However, improvements in the technical governance systems are certainly needed.) On the side of larger Internet related public policy-making on global social, economic, cultural and political issues, the OECD-based model of global policy making, as well as the default application of US laws, should be replaced by a new UN-based democratic mechanism. Any such new arrangement should be based on the principle of subsidiarity, and be innovative in terms of its mandate, structure, and functions, to be adequate to the unique requirements of global Internet governance. It must be fully participative of all stakeholders, promoting the democratic and innovative potential of the Internet. As the WGEC deliberates on concrete ways to move forward, the time is ripe to propose clear and specific institutional mechanisms for democratizing the global governance of the Internet. We have, therefore, expanded the above demands into specific mechanisms that should be set in place for this purpose. New global governance mechanisms are needed We are of the view that it would be useful to have two distinct mechanisms – one that looks at the global Internet-related public policy issues in various social, economic, cultural and political domains, and another that should undertake oversight of the technical and operational functions related to the Internet (basically, replacing the current unilateral oversight of the ICANN2 by the US government). This will require setting up appropriate new global governance bodies as well as a framework of international law to facilitate their work, as follows. A new UN body for Internet-related public policy issues: An anchor global institution for taking up and addressing various public policy issues pertaining to the Internet in an ongoing manner is urgently required. It can be a committee attached to the UN General Assembly or a more elaborate and relatively autonomous set up linked loosely to the UN (as a specialized UN body). It should have a very strong and institutionalized public consultative mechanism, in the form of stakeholder advisory groups that are selected through formal processes by different stakeholder constituencies, ensuring adequate representativeness. (OECD's Committee on Computer, Information and Communication Policy and India's recent proposal for a UN Committee on Internet-related Policies are two useful, and somewhat similar, models that can be looked at.) This 'new body' will stay abreast of global Internet-related issues; where necessary, develop international level public policies in the concerned areas; seek appropriate harmonization of national level policies, and; facilitate required treaties, conventions and agreements. It will also have the necessary means to undertake studies and present analyses in different policy areas. Most Internet-related public policy issues are of a cross-cutting nature, and involve overlaps with mandates of other existing global governance bodies, like WIPO, UNESCO, WTO, UNDP, UNCTAD, ITU and so on. Due to this reason, the proposed new 'body' will establish appropriate relationships with all these other existing bodies, including directing relevant public policy issues to them, receiving their inputs and comments, and itself contributing specific Internet-related perspectives to issues under the purview of these other bodies. A new 'Internet Technical Oversight and Advisory Board': This board will replace the US government's current oversight role over the technical and operational functions performed by ICANN. The membership of this oversight board can be of a techno-political nature, i.e. consisting of people with specialized expertise but who also have appropriate political backing, ascertained through a democratic process. For instance, the board can be made of 10/15 members, with 2/3 members each from five geographic regions (as understood in the UN system). These members can perhaps be selected through an appropriate process by the relevant technical standards bodies and/or country domain name bodies of all the countries of the respective region. (Other mechanisms for constituting the techno-political membership of this board can also be considered.) The Internet technical oversight and advisory board will seek to ensure that the various technical and operational functions related to the global Internet are undertaken by the relevant organizations as per international law and public policy principles developed by the concerned international bodies. With regard to ICANN, the role of this board will more or less be exactly the same as exercised by the US government in its oversight over ICANN. As for the decentralized Internet standards development mechanisms, like the Internet Engineering Task Force, these self organizing systems based on voluntary adoption of standards will continue to work as at present. The new board will have a very light touch and non-binding role with regard to them. It will bring in imperatives from, and advise these technical standards bodies on, international public policies, international law and norms being developed by various relevant bodies. For this board to be able to fulfill its oversight mandate, ICANN must become an international organization, without changing its existing multistakeholder character in any substantial manner. It would enter into a host country agreement with the US government (if ICANN has to continue to be headquartered in the US). It would have full immunity from US law and executive authority, and be guided solely by international law, and be incorporated under it. Supervision of the authoritative root zone server must also be transferred to this oversight broad. The board will exercise this role with the help of an internationalized ICANN. This board will also advise the afore-mentioned new public policy body on technical matters pertaining to the Internet policy making, as well as take public policy inputs from it. Framework Convention on the Internet: An appropriate international legal framework will be required sooner than later for the above bodies to function properly. Accordingly, one of the early tasks of the proposed 'new body' dealing with Internet-related public policy issues, discussed above, will be to help negotiate a 'Framework Convention on the Internet' (somewhat like the Framework Convention on Climate Change ). Governance of the Internet concerns different kinds of issues that are ever-evolving. It is, therefore, preferable to formulate an enabling legal structure as a 'framework convention' rather than as a specific treaty or convention that addresses only a bounded set of issues. It may also be easier to initially agree to a series of principles, protocols and processes that can then frame further agreements, treaties etc on more specific issues. Such a Framework Convention will thus enable appropriate and ongoing global policy responses to various opportunities and challenges that the fast-evolving phenomenon of the Internet throws up. It will also formalize the basic architecture of the global governance of the Internet; inter alia recognizing and legitimizing the existing role and functions of the various bodies currently involved with managing the technical and logical infrastructure of the Internet, including the ICANN, Regional Internet Registries, Internet technical standards bodies and so on. Appropriate mechanisms for crisis response and dispute resolution in relation to the global Internet, and the social activity dependent on it, will also be required to be set up. Relationship with the IGF The UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was established as a multistakeholder 'policy dialogue forum' by the World Summit on the Information Society. The proposed global Internet policy mechanism, especially the new UN based body, will maintain a close relationship with the IGF. IGF affords a very new kind of participative mechanism for policy making, whereby the participation realm is institutionalized, and relatively independent of the policy making structures. The IGF should preferably pre-discuss issues that are taken up by this new policy body and present diverse perspectives for its consideration. A good part of the agenda for this new body can emerge from the IGF. Whenever possible, draft proposals to be adopted by this new body should be shared with the IGF. To perform such a participation enhancing role, the IGF must be adequately strengthened and reformed, especially to address the dominance of Northern corporatist interests in its current working. It must be supported with public funds, and insulated from any funding system that can bring in perverse influences on its agenda and outcomes. Other required processes must also be put in place to ensure that the IGF indeed brings in constituencies that are typically under-represented, rather than provide further political clout to the already dominant. A participative body is only as good as the policy making mechanisms that feed off it. To that extent, the meaningfulness and effectiveness of the IGF itself requires a strong policy development mechanism, as suggested in this document, to be linked to it. Investing in the IGF is useful only if its outputs and contributions lead to something concrete. Funding An innovative way to fund the proposed new global Internet policy mechanisms, and also the IGF, is to tap into the collections made by the relevant bodies from allocation of names and numbers resources pertaining to the global Internet (like the fee that ICANN collects annually from each domain name owner). These accruals now run into millions of dollars every year and could be adequate to fund a large part of the needed mechanisms for democratic governance of the global Internet. In the end, we may add that there is nothing really very novel in the above proposal for setting up new mechanisms for global governance of the Internet. Similar models, for instance, were proposed in the report of the Working Group on Internet Governance that was set up during the World Summit on the Information Society, back in 2004. We hope that the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation will fulfill its high mandate to lead the world towards the path of democratic governance of the global commons of the Internet. 1The outcome documents of the World Summit on the Information Society, held in 2005, employed this as a placeholder term giving the mandate for further exploration of the necessary mechanisms for global governance of the Internet. 2Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the US based non-profit that manages much of technical and logical infrastructural functions related to the Internet. ------------- Valeria Betancourt Directora / Manager Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and Information Policy Programme Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for Progressive Communications, APC http://www.apc.org -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew at gp-digital.org Fri Aug 30 15:24:59 2013 From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 20:24:59 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Call for sign on CWG-Internet statement2 (Was Call for comments/signatures: Draft Statement on Rejection of Proposal to Open CWG- Internet) In-Reply-To: <5220CE26.10903@apc.org> Message-ID: I'm still having trouble - when I press the endorsement button it hangs. So this is paranoia - I'm trying to do this from the US - Andrew Puddephatt, Director Global Partners Digital Development House, 56-64 Leonard St, EC2A 4LT, UK Office 44 (0)207 549 0350 Mobile: +44 (0)771 339 9597 andrew at g p-digital.org www.global-partners.co.uk On 30/08/2013 17:53, "Anriette Esterhuysen" wrote: >Hi all.. it also happened to me but then I got the confirmation email >immediately after. It is working. > >Anriette > >On 30/08/2013 18:42, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: >> I'm also having trouble signing ­ the website appears to be hung once I >>press the endorsement button >> Andrew Puddephatt, Director Global Partners Digital >> Development House, 56-64 Leonard St, EC2A 4LT, UK >> Office 44 (0)207 549 0350 >> Mobile: +44 (0)771 339 9597 >> andrew at gp-digital.org >> www.global-partners.co.uk >> >> From: Anne Jellema >>> >> Date: Friday, 30 August 2013 16:48 >> To: Deborah Brown > >> Cc: Nnenna Nwakanma >, >>"" >>> >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call for sign on CWG-Internet statement2 (Was >>Call for comments/signatures: Draft Statement on Rejection of Proposal >>to Open CWG- Internet) >> >> Thanks Deborah and everyone else who contributed to drafting. Web >>Foundation has signed (I hope so anyway - the website hung as I was >>submitting the form). >> Best >> Anne >> >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Deborah Brown >>> wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> Please find the revised statement on the ITU Council's rejection of >>proposals to open participation in the Council Working Group on >>International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet): >>http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet-2/ >> >> The text takes into account edits in the pad >>(https://pad.riseup.net/p/CWG-Internet) as of Monday, 19 August. Thanks >>to all who contributed to the editing process. >> >> Please indicate whether you would like to endorse this statement by end >>of day *2 September*. >> >> In terms of outreach on the statement, Nnenna suggested targeting >>specific Council members. I think is a good idea and I'm interested in >>hearing others' thoughts on this. I've pasted the list of members of the >>ITU Council below. >> >> Source: http://www.itu.int/en/council/Pages/members.aspx >> Council Membership (2010-2014) >> >> * Region A (Americas): 9 seats >> Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, Cuba, Mexico, Paraguay, United >>States, Venezuela >> >> * Region B (Western Europe): 8 seats >> France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey >> >> * Region C (Eastern Europe and Northern Asia): 5 seats >> Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation >> >> * Region D (Africa): 13 seats >> Algeria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Mali, Morocco, >>Nigeria, Senegal, Rwanda, South Africa, Tunisia >> >> * Region E (Asia and Australasia): 13 seats >> Australia, Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea (Republic >>of), Kuwait, Malaysia, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, United Arab >>Emirates >> >> Best, >> Deborah >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 5:51 AM, Nnenna Nwakanma >>> wrote: >> I have done a few edits. >> However, I do recall that during WCIT in Dubai, >> There was a face-to-face meeting with Hamadoun Touré on the openness >>issue. So that "effort" has been on. >> I also recall that HT did say that countries were playing double >>standards: speaking "openness" in public spaces and kicking against >>openness in council. >> >> Should we also specifically target some council members? Like send the >>letter to HT and also send copies to key council members? >> >> Just a thought >> >> N >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Tapani Tarvainen >>> wrote: >> Ditto for Effi. >> >> -- >> Tapani Tarvainen >> >> On Aug 12 18:20, Anriette Esterhuysen >>(anriette at apc.org) wrote: >> >>> Dear Joana and all >>> >>> I like this and am pretty sure APC will support, but I will run it by >>> members and staff. >>> >>> I am not entirely sure this last paragraph is necessary. I think to >>>some >>> extent it detracts from the main message in the letter which is about >>> opening the CWG. >>> >>> "We also take this opportunity to renew our call for the ITU to >>>continue >>> to coordinate itseffortswith that of relevant >>>/multistakeholder/Internet >>> governance bodies, taking advantage of those bodies¹ expertise and not >>> attempting to duplicate their functions. These bodies include those >>> devoted to technical issues (such as ICANN, the IETF and the RIRs) and >>> those dealing primarily with non-technical issues (such as the Internet >>> Governance Forum)." >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 12/08/2013 17:12, Joana Varon wrote: >>>> Dear people, >>>> >>>> As you may know, the ITU Council has rejected proposals to open >>>> participation in the Council Working Group on International >>>> Internet-Related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet). >>>> >>>> That happened in disregard of our previous >>>> request, >>>> of contributions from some Member States >>>> >>>>>>>es.wcitleaks.org/public/S13-CL-C-0069!!MSW-E.pdf> >>>> and >>>> of a statement from the Secretary General at the closing session of >>>>WTPF, >>>> where we called for adopting an IEG model of participation within >>>>other >>>> meetings of the organization. >>>> >>>> The CWG-Internet is a particularly relevant WG, as the Brazilian >>>>proposal >>>> on the role of States shall be discussed. Also a very important topic >>>>in a >>>> context where "Snowden conjecture" seams to be causing reactions for a >>>> State centric internet governance (at least that's my perception). >>>> >>>> Therefore, Deborah, Matthew, Gene, Carolina and I have drafted a >>>>response >>>> to submit to ITU. Please, find it bellow, just like the link for the >>>> editable pad: >>>> >>>> https://pad.riseup.net/p/CWG-Internet >>>> >>>> Your comments are more then welcome. *The plan is to leave it open >>>>until >>>> next Monday, 19th.* Hope you find it useful. >>>> >>>> All the best >>>> >>>> Joana >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>> www.apc.org >>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>> south africa >>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Deborah Brown >> Senior Policy Analyst >> Access | AccessNow.org >> E. deborah at accessnow.org >> @deblebrown >> PGP 0x5EB4727D >> >> >> >> -- >> Anne Jellema >> Chief Executive Officer >> Cape Town, RSA >> mob +27 61 036 9652 >> tel +27 21 788 4585 >> Skype anne.jellema >> @afjellema >> >> World Wide Web Foundation | 1889 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, USA >>| www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: >>@webfoundation >> > >-- >------------------------------------------------------ >anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >executive director, association for progressive communications >www.apc.org >po box 29755, melville 2109 >south africa >tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Aug 30 16:56:43 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 03:56:43 +0700 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Position by IT for Change and some other NGOs on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <521E2A9E.7070004@itforchange.net> <030d01cea5b3$2cc32a80$86497f80$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <035f01cea5c3$7a5db390$6f191ab0$@gmail.com> McTim, As I've just replied to Avri who made the same arguments on a different list... What you are saying is of course, a cop out/diversion since it makes little sense to make a blanket statement ("put all governments (with perhaps a few exceptions) in this category") such as you have done and thus implicitly draw an equivalency between the US Government and its powers and inclinations and the government of, for example, Nauru... Until one makes that quite evident distinction then a statement such as "keep governments as just one of many "multi-equal" stakeholders" tells us little if anything since the USG is rather more than simply a "multi-equal stakeholder" (and we need to figure out ways collectively how to respond and globally govern this) while the government of Nauru is hardly relevant in this context including as an "equal stakeholder" or whatever. M -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2013 3:05 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: Anja Kovacs; Valeria Betancourt; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; IRP Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Position by IT for Change and some other NGOs on enhanced cooperation On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 3:00 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Below is my response to the APC message (I'm currently an Associate > (individual) member of APC. > > > > > I don't believe it is possible now to think about or take action in > the Internet governance space without recognizing the degree to which > that space is seen by certain parties (as articulated by various of > Snowden's NSA > documents) as being of sovereign and "national security" level importance. I would put all governments (with perhaps a few exceptions) in this in the category of "certain parties". > What that means is that what Internet governance mechanisms are > proposed/responded to have to be understood within the broader context > of global governance and the possible distribution of power/control > within that framework. Not if you keep governments as just one of many "multi-equal" stakeholders. > > > > I would point you folks to the recent blogpost by Byron Holland the > Executive Director of the Canadian Internet Registry Authority (CIRA) > reflecting on recent events in the Internet governance space and how, > post-Snowden, all of that needs to be reconsidered... > > http://blog.cira.ca/2013/08/the-internet-as-we-know-it-is-dead/?goback > =%2Egde_110405_member_268692395#%21 > I disagree with Byron on this. > > > http://tinyurl.com/pywp46b > > > > I don't necessarily agree with the specifics of the institutional > approaches identified in the ITfC document. But that some sort of > global (and globally > authorized) mechanism is required to counter the very clear attempts > to design Internet governance in such a way as to ensure future and > permanent enshrinement of the dominance of certain national all national, not just certain. and corporate interests is > I believe manifestly evident. A "hands off the Internet" approach, > does I believe mitigate in direct opposition to the interests of civil > society and particularly civil society in LDC's in support of a free, > open, transparent and responsive Internet as a basis for overcoming > social and economic inequalities. and many of us believe that a truly multi-equal stakeholdersim is in the interests of CS, especially CS in LDCs. So you are pro-free internet, but opposed to Internet Freedom? > > > > What Snowden/NSA makes clear is that government security types will try to snoop into our comms no matter what! I believe, is that if the Internet is to be > developed as a resource for all rather than as a tool benefiting the > interests of only some then mechanisms which allow for the broadest > base of input into Internet governance need to be created agreed, and that is why I spend time in the fora that are BUTOC, bottom up, transparent, open and consensus driven. -- how, what and by whom I > think is what we need to be discussing--I think that Snowden has given > us sufficient insight to recognize that the question of whether such > is necessary and most certainly from a civil society perspective needs > no longer to be discussed. Declaring victory and trying to close off this discussion still doesn't mean that your analysis is correct! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel From shahzad at bytesforall.pk Sat Aug 31 02:11:12 2013 From: shahzad at bytesforall.pk (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 11:11:12 +0500 Subject: [bestbits] Position by IT for Change and some other NGOs on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Anja, Very very keen to read more about the third way. "Politics of Justice" hmmmm… very interesting. Can't wait to discuss and hear more on this next week :) Best wishes and regards Shahzad From: Anja Kovacs Date: Friday, August 30, 2013 11:23 PM To: Valeria Betancourt Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> " Subject: Re: [bestbits] Position by IT for Change and some other NGOs on enhanced cooperation Dear all, While the Internet Democracy Project is not a member of APC, and though we do have differences of opinion with APC (e.g. on how severe the threat of backgtracking on the Tunis agenda is), we broadly agree with APC's views on the IT for Change statement as outlined by Valeria. We will not be able to sign the IT for Change statement. It is oftentimes made to seem as if there are only two options where Internet governance arrangements are concerned: the status quo and a more centralised form of governance, the latter often (though not always) imagined as involving greater government control. We believe that there is a third way, and one that has far greater potential for a politics of justice, which is that of distributed governance. We will be submitting a submission to the WGEC along these lines. Best regards, Anja On 30 August 2013 20:02, Valeria Betancourt wrote: > Dear all, > > We are busy compiling an APC's network response and we will submit our own > statement. We will also endorse the Best Bits statement, to which we > contributed to. > > While we appreciate the effort that has gone into it and many of the points > raised, APC will not endorse the IT for Change statement. APC members are > independent so while some individual APC members might endorse it, APC as an > organisation won't. Some of the main reasons why we have made that decision > are explained at the end of this message. We thought it is useful to share our > thinking in these spacea as a contribution to the debate. > > Best, > > Valeria > ------------------------ > > * The basic case for "global governance of the Internet" is simply not made. > The evidence for the proposed new mechanisms is weak, laden with polemic, and > with a political bias that is not corrected by balanced, > judicious weighing of options nor informed by practical experience (this in > relation to ICANN and the technical community in particular). > > * The statement takes government and an internet-centric approach to policy > making and suggests that a global internet policy making framework convention > and new body is desirable. This overlooks and would > undermine the many other approaches to policy making currently mandated by > international law including rights based, environmental, and development among > others. we have seen in the intellectual property field, for example, what > happens when UN bodies are set up with topic specific mandates for global > related policy issues. > > * To place the internet as the centre for public policy making is a grave > conceptual error in our view -rather a better conceptual approach is to focus > on internet related aspects of policy issues (such as health, education, > discrimination, access, telecommunciations policy and so on). Even better, to > put people at the centre of policy making. We must never forget that the > internet does not exist in a parallel dimension. Nor can internet policy. > Creating a new UN body to focus on internet policy and identifying which > issues it should deal with is not going to be sustainable, or effective. The > internet touches on so many issues that no single policy space could ever > effectively deal with them all. > > * The imposition of a new global internet policy framework determined and > agreed by governments - and therefore being a top down and central mechanism - > contradicts the bottom-up multi-stakeholder principles of > policy making and end to end principles of internet architecture: it's just > wrong. This is not to say that multi-stakeholder policy processes are not > flawed and still producing outcomes that reflect the interest of those with > power and resources. But creating new frameworks and bodies will not address > this automatically. > > * Most international agreements set MINIMUM standards because governments > generally can only agree on the lowest common denominator - apart from > generally resulting in inadequate policy, it also risks back- tracking on the > existing points of agreement in the Tunis Agenda. > > * The statement proposes a new framework convention similar to the convention > on climate change. Such conventions are inevitably negotiated and agreed by > governments and not multi-stakeholder. in addition, the > inequalities between States (a key source of friction in current arrangements) > will not be solved by the creation of new mechanisms which the same States > need to agree on - inevitably the politics simply transfer, Rather than > propose a new convention (most take between 5-10 years to negotiate, assuming > agreement can be reached), it would be better to empower and strengthen > existing mechanisms - more ideas on > that separately. APC proposed a framework convention of this nature > immediately after Tunis in 2005. But after our work on the 'code of good > practice' for internet governance during which we looked closely at > environmental and climate change policy processes, and our experience in > observing governments in the CSTD when they try to negotiate an annual > resolution on WSIS follow up we decided against this. > > * Finally, the focus on global internet public policy undermines the role of > national and regional IGFs and policy making processes many of which have > quite different politics and are still evolving to suit their conditions. Not > all these processes are inclusive, or even legitimate, but they are not going > to be fixed from above by new agreements negotiated by governments. > > * On balance, then, we think more work is needed to develop options which suit > civil society and empower civil society as stakeholders in policy making and > that systematically try to consolidate current achievements with regard to > human rights on the internet in, for example, the Human Rights Council. > > > On 28/08/2013, at 11:51, parminder wrote: > >> >> Apologies for cross posting >> >> Dear All >> >> IT for Change and some other NGOs plan to forward the following >> position to the UN Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. Preceding the >> position statement is a covering letter seeking support. You are welcome >> to support this position any time before 12 noon GMT on 31st Aug. We >> are happy to provide any additional information/ clarification etc. Also >> happy to otherwise discuss this position, and its different elements. We >> are motivated by the need to come up with precise and clear >> institutional options at this stage. Politics of inertia and not doing >> anything just serves the status quo. These may not be the best >> institutional options, and we are ready to enter into discussion with >> other groups on what instead would be the better options. But, again, >> not doing anything is, in our opinion, would be detrimental to global >> public interest. >> >> The web link to this position is at >> http://www.itforchange.net/civil_society_input_to_the_UN_Working_Group_for_gl >> obal_governance_of_the_Internet . >> >> parminder >> >> >> Covering letter / Background >> >> In May 2012, more than 60 civil society organisations and several >> individuals participated in a campaign for 'democratising the global >> governance of the Internet >> >> '. A joint letter signed by the participants of this campaign inter alia >> asked for setting up a UN Working Group towards this objective. Such a >> Working Group was set up and has now asked for public inputs to formulate >> its recommendations. >> >> In our joint letter, we had proposed some outlines for reforming the >> current global governance architecture of the Internet. Time has come now >> to make more clear and specific recommendations of the actual >> institutional mechanism that we need. With most governments more worried >> about their narrow geopolitical interests and relationships with >> individual countries, it falls upon the civil society to be bold and >> forward looking and put precise proposals on the table that can then be >> taken forward by state actors. >> >> In a post-Snowden world, there is deep discomfort among almost all >> countries, other than the US, with the manner in which the global Internet >> is run and is evolving. The need for some global norms, principles, rules, >> and necessary governance mechanisms for the global Internet is being felt >> now as never before. The Internet can no longer remain anchored to the >> political and business interests of one country, or to serving global >> capital, as it is at present. As a global commons, it is our collective >> democratic right and responsibility to participate in the governance of >> the Internet, so that it can become a vehicle for greater prosperity, >> equity and social justice for all. >> >> We seek your support to join us in proposing the enclosed document as >> an input to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. The Working Group >> has sought public inputs through a questionnaire which can be seen at >> http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD.aspx . The most important question is at >> number 8, which seeks input with regard to precise mechanism(s) that are >> required. Our response will mostly address this all-important question. >> (You are also encouraged to, separately, give a fuller response to the >> questionnaire on your behalf or on behalf of your organization.) We will >> also like to give wide media publicity to this civil society statement . >> >> We will be glad if you can send your response to us before the >> 30th of August. We are of course happy to respond to any clarification or >> additional information that you may want to seek in the above regard. >> Please also circulate this to others who you think may want to participate >> in this initiative. The global Internet governance space seems to be >> dominated by those who push for neoliberal models of governance. We must >> therefore have as many voices heard as possible. >> >> (The statement is cut pasted below this email and may also be seen >> here >> > lobal_governance_of_the_Internet> ) >> >> With best regard, >> >> Parminder >> >> >> Parminder Jeet Singh >> >> >> IT for Change >> In special consultative status with the United Nations ECOSOC >> www.ITforChange.net >> T: 00-91-80-26654134 | T: 00-91-80-26536890 | Fax: 00-91-80-41461055 >> >> A civil society input to the UN Working Group looking at >> >> institutional mechanisms for global governance of the Internet >> >> (Please write to itfc @itforchange.net >> before 29th Aug if you will like to >> endorse this statement) >> >> >> Why global governance of the Internet? >> >> Internet governance is seen largely in terms of national sovereignty and >> security or as pertaining to free speech and privacy. We are of the view >> that there exist many other equally important issues for global >> Internet governance that arise from the whole gamut of rights and >> aspirations of people – social, economic, cultural, political and >> developmental. The relationship of the global Internet to cultural >> diversity is one example. The Internet increasingly determines not only >> the global flows of information but also of cultures, and their >> commodification. No social process is exempt from the influence of the >> Internet – from education to health and governance. Social systems at >> national and local levels are being transformed under the influence of >> the global Internet. >> >> Instead of decentralizing power, the current structure of the global >> Internet tends to centralize control in the hands of a small number of >> companies. Some of these companies have near-monopoly power over key >> areas of economic and social significance. Therefore, regulation of >> global Internet business through pertinent competition law, consumer >> law, open interoperability standards, etc, is becoming a pressing need. >> Increasing statist controls need to be similarly resisted. With the >> emergent paradigm of cloud computing presenting the looming prospect of >> remote management of our digital lives from different 'power centres' >> across the world, it is inconceivable that we can do without appropriate >> democratic governance of the global Internet. Post-Snowden, as many >> countries have begun to contemplate and even embark upon measures for >> 'digital sovereignty', the only way to preserve a global Internet >> is through formulating appropriate global norms, principles and rules >> that will underpin its governance. >> >> Background of this civil society input >> >> A group of over 60 civil society organizations and several individuals, >> made a statement on 'Democratizing the global governance of >> the Internet >> ' >> to the open consultations on 'enhanced cooperation'1 called by the >> Chair of the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development >> (CSTD) on May 18th, 2012, in Geneva. The statement inter alia sought the >> setting up of a CSTD Working Group to address this issue. We are happy >> to note that such a Working Group has been set up and has now called for >> public inputs to make its recommendations. This document is an input to >> the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC) on the behalf of the >> undersigned . >> >> In the aforementioned statement >> >> of May 2012, the civil society signatories had called for the following >> institutional developments to take place in the global Internet >> governance architecture: >> >> Our demands with respect to 'global' Internet Governance espouse >> a simple and obvious democratic logic. On the technical governance >> side, the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and >> logical infrastructure, at present with the US government, should >> be transferred to an appropriate, democratic and participative, >> multi-lateral body, without disturbing the existing distributed >> architecture of technical governance of the Internet in any >> significant way. (However, improvements in the technical >> governance systems are certainly needed.) On the side of larger >> Internet related public policy-making on global social, economic, >> cultural and political issues, the OECD-based model of global >> policy making, as well as the default application of US laws, >> should be replaced by a new UN-based democratic mechanism. Any >> such new arrangement should be based on the principle of >> subsidiarity, and be innovative in terms of its mandate, >> structure, and functions, to be adequate to the unique >> requirements of global Internet governance. It must be fully >> participative of all stakeholders, promoting the democratic and >> innovative potential of the Internet. >> >> As the WGEC deliberates on concrete ways to move forward, the time is >> ripe to propose clear and specific institutional mechanisms for >> democratizing the global governance of the Internet. We have, therefore, >> expanded the above demands into specific mechanisms that should be set >> in place for this purpose. >> >> New global governance mechanisms are needed >> >> We are of the view that it would be useful to have two distinct >> mechanisms – one that looks at the global Internet-related public >> policy issues in various social, economic, cultural and political >> domains, and another that should undertake oversight of the technical >> and operational functions related to the Internet (basically, >> replacing the current unilateral oversight of the ICANN2 by the US >> government). This will require setting up appropriate new global >> governance bodies as well as a framework of international law to >> facilitate their work, as follows. >> >> A new UN body for Internet-related public policy issues: >> An anchor global institution for taking up and addressing various public >> policy issues pertaining to the Internet in an ongoing manner is >> urgently required. It can be a committee attached to the UN General >> Assembly or a more elaborate and relatively autonomous set up linked >> loosely to the UN (as a specialized UN body). It should have a very >> strong and institutionalized public consultative mechanism, in the form >> of stakeholder advisory groups that are selected through formal >> processes by different stakeholder constituencies, ensuring adequate >> representativeness. (OECD's Committee on Computer, Information and >> Communication Policy and >> India's recent proposal for a UN >> >> Committee on >> Internet-related Policies >> are two useful, and >> somewhat similar, models that can be looked at.) >> >> This 'new body' will stay abreast of global Internet-related issues; >> where necessary, develop international level public policies in the >> concerned areas; seek appropriate harmonization of national level >> policies, and; facilitate required treaties, conventions and agreements. >> It will also have the necessary means to undertake studies and >> present analyses in different policy areas. >> >> Most Internet-related public policy issues are of a cross-cutting >> nature, and involve overlaps with mandates of other existing global >> governance bodies, like WIPO, UNESCO, WTO, UNDP, UNCTAD, ITU and so on. >> Due to this reason, the proposed new 'body' will establish appropriate >> relationships with all these other existing bodies, including directing >> relevant public policy issues to them, receiving their inputs and >> comments, and itself contributing specific Internet-related perspectives >> to issues under the purview of these other bodies. >> >> >> >> A new 'Internet Technical Oversight and Advisory Board': This >> board will replace the US government's current oversight role over the >> technical and operational functions performed by ICANN. The membership of >> this oversight board can be of a techno-political nature, i.e. >> consisting of people with specialized expertise but who also have >> appropriate political backing, ascertained through a democratic >> process. For instance, the board can be made of 10/15 members, with >> 2/3 members each from five geographic regions (as understood in the UN >> system). These members can perhaps be selected through an >> appropriate process by the relevant technical standards bodies and/or >> country domain name bodies of all the countries of the respective >> region. (Other mechanisms for constituting the techno-political >> membership of this board can also be considered.) >> >> The Internet technical oversight and advisory board will seek to ensure >> that the various technical and operational functions related to the >> global Internet are undertaken by the relevant organizations as per >> international law and public policy principles developed by the >> concerned international bodies. With regard to ICANN, the role of this >> board will more or less be exactly the same as exercised by the US >> government in its oversight over ICANN. As for the decentralized >> Internet standards development mechanisms, like the Internet Engineering >> Task Force, these self organizing systems based on voluntary adoption of >> standards will continue to work as at present. The new board will have a >> very light touch and non-binding role with regard to them. It will bring >> in imperatives from, and advise these technical standards bodies on, >> international public policies, international law and norms being >> developed by various relevant bodies. >> >> For this board to be able to fulfill its oversight mandate, ICANN must >> become an international organization, without changing its existing >> multistakeholder character in any substantial manner. It would enter >> into a host country agreement with the US government (if ICANN has to >> continue to be headquartered in the US). It would have full immunity >> from US law and executive authority, and be guided solely by >> international law, and be incorporated under it. Supervision of the >> authoritative root zone server must also be transferred to this >> oversight broad. The board will exercise this role with the help of an >> internationalized ICANN. >> >> This board will also advise the afore-mentioned new public policy body >> on technical matters pertaining to the Internet policy making, as well >> as take public policy inputs from it. >> >> Framework Convention on the Internet: An appropriate international >> legal framework will be required sooner than later for the above bodies >> to function properly. Accordingly, one of the early tasks of the >> proposed 'new body' dealing with Internet-related public policy issues, >> discussed above, will be to help negotiate a 'Framework Convention on >> the Internet' (somewhat like the Framework Convention on Climate >> Change >> > Change> ). Governance of the Internet concerns different kinds of issues >> that are ever-evolving. It is, therefore, preferable to formulate an >> enabling legal structure as a 'framework convention' rather than as a >> specific treaty or convention that addresses only a bounded set of >> issues. It may also be easier to initially agree to a series of >> principles, protocols and processes that can then frame further >> agreements, treaties etc on more specific issues. >> >> Such a Framework Convention will thus enable appropriate and ongoing >> global policy responses to various opportunities and challenges that the >> fast-evolving phenomenon of the Internet throws up. It will also >> formalize the basic architecture of the global governance of the >> Internet; inter alia recognizing and legitimizing the existing role and >> functions of the various bodies currently involved with managing the >> technical and logical infrastructure of the Internet, including the >> ICANN, Regional Internet Registries, Internet technical standards bodies >> and so on. >> >> Appropriate mechanisms for crisis response and dispute resolution in >> relation to the global Internet, and the social activity dependent on >> it, will also be required to be set up. >> >> Relationship with the IGF >> >> The UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was established as a >> multistakeholder 'policy dialogue forum' by the World Summit on the >> Information Society. The proposed global Internet policy mechanism, >> especially the new UN based body, will maintain a close relationship >> with the IGF. IGF affords a very new kind of participative mechanism for >> policy making, whereby the participation realm is institutionalized, and >> relatively independent of the policy making structures. The IGF should >> preferably pre-discuss issues that are taken up by this new policy body >> and present diverse perspectives for its consideration. A good part of >> the agenda for this new body can emerge from the IGF. Whenever possible, >> draft proposals to be adopted by this new body should be shared with the >> IGF. >> >> To perform such a participation enhancing role, the IGF must be >> adequately strengthened and reformed, especially to address the >> dominance of Northern corporatist interests in its current working. It >> must be supported with public funds, and insulated from any funding >> system that can bring in perverse influences on its agenda and outcomes. >> Other required processes must also be put in place to ensure that the >> IGF indeed brings in constituencies that are typically >> under-represented, rather than provide further political clout to the >> already dominant. >> >> A participative body is only as good as the policy making mechanisms >> that feed off it. To that extent, the meaningfulness and effectiveness >> of the IGF itself requires a strong policy development mechanism, as >> suggested in this document, to be linked to it. Investing in the IGF is >> useful only if its outputs and contributions lead to something concrete. >> >> Funding >> >> An innovative way to fund the proposed new global Internet policy >> mechanisms, and also the IGF, is to tap into the collections made by the >> relevant bodies from allocation of names and numbers resources >> pertaining to the global Internet (like the fee that ICANN collects >> annually from each domain name owner). These accruals now run into >> millions of dollars every year and could be adequate to fund a large >> part of the needed mechanisms for democratic governance of the global >> Internet. >> >> In the end, we may add that there is nothing really very novel in the >> above proposal for setting up new mechanisms for global governance of >> the Internet. Similar models, for instance, were proposed in the report >> of the Working Group on Internet Governance that was set up during the >> World Summit on the Information Society, back in 2004. >> >> We hope that the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation will fulfill its >> high mandate to lead the world towards the path of democratic >> governance of the global commons of the Internet. >> >> >> >> 1The outcome documents of the World Summit on the Information >> Society, held in 2005, employed this as a placeholder term giving >> the mandate for further exploration of the necessary mechanisms for >> global governance of the Internet. >> >> >> >> >> 2Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the US based >> non-profit that manages much of technical and logical >> infrastructural functions related to the Internet. >> >> >> > > > ------------- > Valeria Betancourt > Directora / Manager > Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and > Information Policy Programme > Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for > Progressive Communications, APC > http://www.apc.org > > > > > > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shahzad at bytesforall.pk Sat Aug 31 02:15:04 2013 From: shahzad at bytesforall.pk (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 11:15:04 +0500 Subject: [bestbits] Call for sign on CWG-Internet statement2 (Was Call for comments/signatures: Draft Statement on Rejection of Proposal to Open CWG- Internet) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Andrew, it happened to us also couple of times but third attempt and it was done. However, the issue need to be rectified as many people like us may be on smaller bandwidth. Best wishes Shahzad From: Andrew Puddephatt Date: Saturday, August 31, 2013 12:24 AM To: "anriette at apc.org" , "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call for sign on CWG-Internet statement2 (Was Call for comments/signatures: Draft Statement on Rejection of Proposal to Open CWG- Internet) I'm still having trouble - when I press the endorsement button it hangs. So this is paranoia - I'm trying to do this from the US - Andrew Puddephatt, Director Global Partners Digital Development House, 56-64 Leonard St, EC2A 4LT, UK Office 44 (0)207 549 0350 Mobile: +44 (0)771 339 9597 andrew at g p-digital.org www.global-partners.co.uk On 30/08/2013 17:53, "Anriette Esterhuysen" wrote: > Hi all.. it also happened to me but then I got the confirmation email > immediately after. It is working. > > Anriette > > On 30/08/2013 18:42, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: >> I'm also having trouble signing ­ the website appears to be hung once I >> press the endorsement button >> Andrew Puddephatt, Director Global Partners Digital >> Development House, 56-64 Leonard St, EC2A 4LT, UK >> Office 44 (0)207 549 0350 >> Mobile: +44 (0)771 339 9597 >> andrew at gp-digital.org >> www.global-partners.co.uk >> >> From: Anne Jellema >> > >> Date: Friday, 30 August 2013 16:48 >> To: Deborah Brown > >> Cc: Nnenna Nwakanma >, >> "" >> > >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call for sign on CWG-Internet statement2 (Was >> Call for comments/signatures: Draft Statement on Rejection of Proposal >> to Open CWG- Internet) >> >> Thanks Deborah and everyone else who contributed to drafting. Web >> Foundation has signed (I hope so anyway - the website hung as I was >> submitting the form). >> Best >> Anne >> >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Deborah Brown >> > wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> Please find the revised statement on the ITU Council's rejection of >> proposals to open participation in the Council Working Group on >> International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet): >> http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet-2/ >> >> The text takes into account edits in the pad >> (https://pad.riseup.net/p/CWG-Internet) as of Monday, 19 August. Thanks >> to all who contributed to the editing process. >> >> Please indicate whether you would like to endorse this statement by end >> of day *2 September*. >> >> In terms of outreach on the statement, Nnenna suggested targeting >> specific Council members. I think is a good idea and I'm interested in >> hearing others' thoughts on this. I've pasted the list of members of the >> ITU Council below. >> >> Source: http://www.itu.int/en/council/Pages/members.aspx >> Council Membership (2010-2014) >> >> * Region A (Americas): 9 seats >> Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, Cuba, Mexico, Paraguay, United >> States, Venezuela >> >> * Region B (Western Europe): 8 seats >> France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey >> >> * Region C (Eastern Europe and Northern Asia): 5 seats >> Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation >> >> * Region D (Africa): 13 seats >> Algeria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Mali, Morocco, >> Nigeria, Senegal, Rwanda, South Africa, Tunisia >> >> * Region E (Asia and Australasia): 13 seats >> Australia, Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea (Republic >> of), Kuwait, Malaysia, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, United Arab >> Emirates >> >> Best, >> Deborah >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 5:51 AM, Nnenna Nwakanma >> > wrote: >> I have done a few edits. >> However, I do recall that during WCIT in Dubai, >> There was a face-to-face meeting with Hamadoun Touré on the openness >> issue. So that "effort" has been on. >> I also recall that HT did say that countries were playing double >> standards: speaking "openness" in public spaces and kicking against >> openness in council. >> >> Should we also specifically target some council members? Like send the >> letter to HT and also send copies to key council members? >> >> Just a thought >> >> N >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Tapani Tarvainen >> > wrote: >> Ditto for Effi. >> >> -- >> Tapani Tarvainen >> >> On Aug 12 18:20, Anriette Esterhuysen >> (anriette at apc.org) wrote: >> >>> Dear Joana and all >>> >>> I like this and am pretty sure APC will support, but I will run it by >>> members and staff. >>> >>> I am not entirely sure this last paragraph is necessary. I think to >>> some >>> extent it detracts from the main message in the letter which is about >>> opening the CWG. >>> >>> "We also take this opportunity to renew our call for the ITU to >>> continue >>> to coordinate itseffortswith that of relevant >>> /multistakeholder/Internet >>> governance bodies, taking advantage of those bodies¹ expertise and not >>> attempting to duplicate their functions. These bodies include those >>> devoted to technical issues (such as ICANN, the IETF and the RIRs) and >>> those dealing primarily with non-technical issues (such as the Internet >>> Governance Forum)." >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 12/08/2013 17:12, Joana Varon wrote: >>>> Dear people, >>>> >>>> As you may know, the ITU Council has rejected proposals to open >>>> participation in the Council Working Group on International >>>> Internet-Related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet). >>>> >>>> That happened in disregard of our previous >>>> request, >>>> of contributions from some Member States >>>> >>>> >>> es.wcitleaks.org/public/S13-CL-C-0069!!MSW-E.pdf> >>>> and >>>> of a statement from the Secretary General at the closing session of >>>> WTPF, >>>> where we called for adopting an IEG model of participation within >>>> other >>>> meetings of the organization. >>>> >>>> The CWG-Internet is a particularly relevant WG, as the Brazilian >>>> proposal >>>> on the role of States shall be discussed. Also a very important topic >>>> in a >>>> context where "Snowden conjecture" seams to be causing reactions for a >>>> State centric internet governance (at least that's my perception). >>>> >>>> Therefore, Deborah, Matthew, Gene, Carolina and I have drafted a >>>> response >>>> to submit to ITU. Please, find it bellow, just like the link for the >>>> editable pad: >>>> >>>> https://pad.riseup.net/p/CWG-Internet >>>> >>>> Your comments are more then welcome. *The plan is to leave it open >>>> until >>>> next Monday, 19th.* Hope you find it useful. >>>> >>>> All the best >>>> >>>> Joana >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>> www.apc.org >>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>> south africa >>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Deborah Brown >> Senior Policy Analyst >> Access | AccessNow.org >> E. deborah at accessnow.org >> @deblebrown >> PGP 0x5EB4727D >> >> >> >> -- >> Anne Jellema >> Chief Executive Officer >> Cape Town, RSA >> mob +27 61 036 9652 >> tel +27 21 788 4585 >> Skype anne.jellema >> @afjellema >> >> World Wide Web Foundation | 1889 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, USA >> | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: >> @webfoundation >> > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at ella.com Sat Aug 31 03:13:43 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 03:13:43 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Call for sign on CWG-Internet statement2 (Was Call for comments/signatures: Draft Statement on Rejection of Proposal to Open CWG- Internet) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 30 Aug 2013, at 15:24, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > when I press the endorsement button it hangs. i have seen that behavior too. i think it hangs until you respond to the email check. it does seem a mis-feature. avri From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Aug 31 04:15:26 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 15:15:26 +0700 Subject: [bestbits] Position by IT for Change and some other NGOs on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001cea622$43b02800$cb107800$@gmail.com> Anja and all, I think in the context of BB (and thinking a bit about the agenda) we should probably look to agree (if that is possible) that the issue of mechanisms for global Internet governance (post-Snowden) recognize the need for some means to rein in those who would, without external oversight or recourse, use the Internet for surveillance globally. Therefore, the question is a pragmatic one--what would be the most effective means for achieving appropriate structures of governance and what mechanisms would be most likely to be realizable in the current political context all of this within a context directed to ensure maximum freedom of expression online and the use of the Internet for economic and social development. If we can agree on this then the question of the nature of the mechanism, whether inter-governmental, multi-stakeholder, INGO based or whatever becomes a pragmatic matter rather than a "principled" issue. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Shahzad Ahmad Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2013 1:11 PM To: Anja Kovacs; Valeria Betancourt Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Position by IT for Change and some other NGOs on enhanced cooperation Dear Anja, Very very keen to read more about the third way. "Politics of Justice" hmmmm… very interesting. Can't wait to discuss and hear more on this next week :) Best wishes and regards Shahzad From: Anja Kovacs Date: Friday, August 30, 2013 11:23 PM To: Valeria Betancourt Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >" Subject: Re: [bestbits] Position by IT for Change and some other NGOs on enhanced cooperation Dear all, While the Internet Democracy Project is not a member of APC, and though we do have differences of opinion with APC (e.g. on how severe the threat of backgtracking on the Tunis agenda is), we broadly agree with APC's views on the IT for Change statement as outlined by Valeria. We will not be able to sign the IT for Change statement. It is oftentimes made to seem as if there are only two options where Internet governance arrangements are concerned: the status quo and a more centralised form of governance, the latter often (though not always) imagined as involving greater government control. We believe that there is a third way, and one that has far greater potential for a politics of justice, which is that of distributed governance. We will be submitting a submission to the WGEC along these lines. Best regards, Anja On 30 August 2013 20:02, Valeria Betancourt wrote: Dear all, We are busy compiling an APC's network response and we will submit our own statement. We will also endorse the Best Bits statement, to which we contributed to. While we appreciate the effort that has gone into it and many of the points raised, APC will not endorse the IT for Change statement. APC members are independent so while some individual APC members might endorse it, APC as an organisation won't. Some of the main reasons why we have made that decision are explained at the end of this message. We thought it is useful to share our thinking in these spacea as a contribution to the debate. Best, Valeria ------------------------ * The basic case for "global governance of the Internet" is simply not made. The evidence for the proposed new mechanisms is weak, laden with polemic, and with a political bias that is not corrected by balanced, judicious weighing of options nor informed by practical experience (this in relation to ICANN and the technical community in particular). * The statement takes government and an internet-centric approach to policy making and suggests that a global internet policy making framework convention and new body is desirable. This overlooks and would undermine the many other approaches to policy making currently mandated by international law including rights based, environmental, and development among others. we have seen in the intellectual property field, for example, what happens when UN bodies are set up with topic specific mandates for global related policy issues. * To place the internet as the centre for public policy making is a grave conceptual error in our view -rather a better conceptual approach is to focus on internet related aspects of policy issues (such as health, education, discrimination, access, telecommunciations policy and so on). Even better, to put people at the centre of policy making. We must never forget that the internet does not exist in a parallel dimension. Nor can internet policy. Creating a new UN body to focus on internet policy and identifying which issues it should deal with is not going to be sustainable, or effective. The internet touches on so many issues that no single policy space could ever effectively deal with them all. * The imposition of a new global internet policy framework determined and agreed by governments - and therefore being a top down and central mechanism - contradicts the bottom-up multi-stakeholder principles of policy making and end to end principles of internet architecture: it's just wrong. This is not to say that multi-stakeholder policy processes are not flawed and still producing outcomes that reflect the interest of those with power and resources. But creating new frameworks and bodies will not address this automatically. * Most international agreements set MINIMUM standards because governments generally can only agree on the lowest common denominator - apart from generally resulting in inadequate policy, it also risks back- tracking on the existing points of agreement in the Tunis Agenda. * The statement proposes a new framework convention similar to the convention on climate change. Such conventions are inevitably negotiated and agreed by governments and not multi-stakeholder. in addition, the inequalities between States (a key source of friction in current arrangements) will not be solved by the creation of new mechanisms which the same States need to agree on - inevitably the politics simply transfer, Rather than propose a new convention (most take between 5-10 years to negotiate, assuming agreement can be reached), it would be better to empower and strengthen existing mechanisms - more ideas on that separately. APC proposed a framework convention of this nature immediately after Tunis in 2005. But after our work on the 'code of good practice' for internet governance during which we looked closely at environmental and climate change policy processes, and our experience in observing governments in the CSTD when they try to negotiate an annual resolution on WSIS follow up we decided against this. * Finally, the focus on global internet public policy undermines the role of national and regional IGFs and policy making processes many of which have quite different politics and are still evolving to suit their conditions. Not all these processes are inclusive, or even legitimate, but they are not going to be fixed from above by new agreements negotiated by governments. * On balance, then, we think more work is needed to develop options which suit civil society and empower civil society as stakeholders in policy making and that systematically try to consolidate current achievements with regard to human rights on the internet in, for example, the Human Rights Council. On 28/08/2013, at 11:51, parminder wrote: Apologies for cross posting Dear All IT for Change and some other NGOs plan to forward the following position to the UN Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. Preceding the position statement is a covering letter seeking support. You are welcome to support this position any time before 12 noon GMT on 31st Aug. We are happy to provide any additional information/ clarification etc. Also happy to otherwise discuss this position, and its different elements. We are motivated by the need to come up with precise and clear institutional options at this stage. Politics of inertia and not doing anything just serves the status quo. These may not be the best institutional options, and we are ready to enter into discussion with other groups on what instead would be the better options. But, again, not doing anything is, in our opinion, would be detrimental to global public interest. The web link to this position is at http://www.itforchange.net/civil_society_input_to_the_UN_Working_Group_for_global_governance_of_the_Internet . parminder Covering letter / Background In May 2012, more than 60 civil society organisations and several individuals participated in a campaign for 'democratising the global governance of the Internet '. A joint letter signed by the participants of this campaign inter alia asked for setting up a UN Working Group towards this objective. Such a Working Group was set up and has now asked for public inputs to formulate its recommendations. In our joint letter, we had proposed some outlines for reforming the current global governance architecture of the Internet. Time has come now to make more clear and specific recommendations of the actual institutional mechanism that we need. With most governments more worried about their narrow geopolitical interests and relationships with individual countries, it falls upon the civil society to be bold and forward looking and put precise proposals on the table that can then be taken forward by state actors. In a post-Snowden world, there is deep discomfort among almost all countries, other than the US, with the manner in which the global Internet is run and is evolving. The need for some global norms, principles, rules, and necessary governance mechanisms for the global Internet is being felt now as never before. The Internet can no longer remain anchored to the political and business interests of one country, or to serving global capital, as it is at present. As a global commons, it is our collective democratic right and responsibility to participate in the governance of the Internet, so that it can become a vehicle for greater prosperity, equity and social justice for all. We seek your support to join us in proposing the enclosed document as an input to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. The Working Group has sought public inputs through a questionnaire which can be seen at http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD.aspx . The most important question is at number 8, which seeks input with regard to precise mechanism(s) that are required. Our response will mostly address this all-important question. (You are also encouraged to, separately, give a fuller response to the questionnaire on your behalf or on behalf of your organization.) We will also like to give wide media publicity to this civil society statement . We will be glad if you can send your response to us before the 30th of August. We are of course happy to respond to any clarification or additional information that you may want to seek in the above regard. Please also circulate this to others who you think may want to participate in this initiative. The global Internet governance space seems to be dominated by those who push for neoliberal models of governance. We must therefore have as many voices heard as possible. (The statement is cut pasted below this email and may also be seen here ) With best regard, Parminder Parminder Jeet Singh _____ IT for Change In special consultative status with the United Nations ECOSOC www.ITforChange.net T: 00-91-80-26654134 | T: 00-91-80-26536890 | Fax: 00-91-80-41461055 A civil society input to the UN Working Group looking at institutional mechanisms for global governance of the Internet (Please write to itfc @itforchange.net before 29th Aug if you will like to endorse this statement) Why global governance of the Internet? Internet governance is seen largely in terms of national sovereignty and security or as pertaining to free speech and privacy. We are of the view that there exist many other equally important issues for global Internet governance that arise from the whole gamut of rights and aspirations of people – social, economic, cultural, political and developmental. The relationship of the global Internet to cultural diversity is one example. The Internet increasingly determines not only the global flows of information but also of cultures, and their commodification. No social process is exempt from the influence of the Internet – from education to health and governance. Social systems at national and local levels are being transformed under the influence of the global Internet. Instead of decentralizing power, the current structure of the global Internet tends to centralize control in the hands of a small number of companies. Some of these companies have near-monopoly power over key areas of economic and social significance. Therefore, regulation of global Internet business through pertinent competition law, consumer law, open interoperability standards, etc, is becoming a pressing need. Increasing statist controls need to be similarly resisted. With the emergent paradigm of cloud computing presenting the looming prospect of remote management of our digital lives from different 'power centres' across the world, it is inconceivable that we can do without appropriate democratic governance of the global Internet. Post-Snowden, as many countries have begun to contemplate and even embark upon measures for 'digital sovereignty', the only way to preserve a global Internet is through formulating appropriate global norms, principles and rules that will underpin its governance. Background of this civil society input A group of over 60 civil society organizations and several individuals, made a statement on 'Democratizing the global governance of the Internet ' to the open consultations on 'enhanced cooperation'1 called by the Chair of the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) on May 18th, 2012, in Geneva. The statement inter alia sought the setting up of a CSTD Working Group to address this issue. We are happy to note that such a Working Group has been set up and has now called for public inputs to make its recommendations. This document is an input to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC) on the behalf of the undersigned . In the aforementioned statement of May 2012, the civil society signatories had called for the following institutional developments to take place in the global Internet governance architecture: Our demands with respect to 'global' Internet Governance espouse a simple and obvious democratic logic. On the technical governance side, the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical infrastructure, at present with the US government, should be transferred to an appropriate, democratic and participative, multi-lateral body, without disturbing the existing distributed architecture of technical governance of the Internet in any significant way. (However, improvements in the technical governance systems are certainly needed.) On the side of larger Internet related public policy-making on global social, economic, cultural and political issues, the OECD-based model of global policy making, as well as the default application of US laws, should be replaced by a new UN-based democratic mechanism. Any such new arrangement should be based on the principle of subsidiarity, and be innovative in terms of its mandate, structure, and functions, to be adequate to the unique requirements of global Internet governance. It must be fully participative of all stakeholders, promoting the democratic and innovative potential of the Internet. As the WGEC deliberates on concrete ways to move forward, the time is ripe to propose clear and specific institutional mechanisms for democratizing the global governance of the Internet. We have, therefore, expanded the above demands into specific mechanisms that should be set in place for this purpose. New global governance mechanisms are needed We are of the view that it would be useful to have two distinct mechanisms – one that looks at the global Internet-related public policy issues in various social, economic, cultural and political domains, and another that should undertake oversight of the technical and operational functions related to the Internet (basically, replacing the current unilateral oversight of the ICANN2 by the US government). This will require setting up appropriate new global governance bodies as well as a framework of international law to facilitate their work, as follows. A new UN body for Internet-related public policy issues: An anchor global institution for taking up and addressing various public policy issues pertaining to the Internet in an ongoing manner is urgently required. It can be a committee attached to the UN General Assembly or a more elaborate and relatively autonomous set up linked loosely to the UN (as a specialized UN body). It should have a very strong and institutionalized public consultative mechanism, in the form of stakeholder advisory groups that are selected through formal processes by different stakeholder constituencies, ensuring adequate representativeness. (OECD's Committee on Computer, Information and Communication Policy and India's recent proposal for a UN Committee on Internet-related Policies are two useful, and somewhat similar, models that can be looked at.) This 'new body' will stay abreast of global Internet-related issues; where necessary, develop international level public policies in the concerned areas; seek appropriate harmonization of national level policies, and; facilitate required treaties, conventions and agreements. It will also have the necessary means to undertake studies and present analyses in different policy areas. Most Internet-related public policy issues are of a cross-cutting nature, and involve overlaps with mandates of other existing global governance bodies, like WIPO, UNESCO, WTO, UNDP, UNCTAD, ITU and so on. Due to this reason, the proposed new 'body' will establish appropriate relationships with all these other existing bodies, including directing relevant public policy issues to them, receiving their inputs and comments, and itself contributing specific Internet-related perspectives to issues under the purview of these other bodies. A new 'Internet Technical Oversight and Advisory Board': This board will replace the US government's current oversight role over the technical and operational functions performed by ICANN. The membership of this oversight board can be of a techno-political nature, i.e. consisting of people with specialized expertise but who also have appropriate political backing, ascertained through a democratic process. For instance, the board can be made of 10/15 members, with 2/3 members each from five geographic regions (as understood in the UN system). These members can perhaps be selected through an appropriate process by the relevant technical standards bodies and/or country domain name bodies of all the countries of the respective region. (Other mechanisms for constituting the techno-political membership of this board can also be considered.) The Internet technical oversight and advisory board will seek to ensure that the various technical and operational functions related to the global Internet are undertaken by the relevant organizations as per international law and public policy principles developed by the concerned international bodies. With regard to ICANN, the role of this board will more or less be exactly the same as exercised by the US government in its oversight over ICANN. As for the decentralized Internet standards development mechanisms, like the Internet Engineering Task Force, these self organizing systems based on voluntary adoption of standards will continue to work as at present. The new board will have a very light touch and non-binding role with regard to them. It will bring in imperatives from, and advise these technical standards bodies on, international public policies, international law and norms being developed by various relevant bodies. For this board to be able to fulfill its oversight mandate, ICANN must become an international organization, without changing its existing multistakeholder character in any substantial manner. It would enter into a host country agreement with the US government (if ICANN has to continue to be headquartered in the US). It would have full immunity from US law and executive authority, and be guided solely by international law, and be incorporated under it. Supervision of the authoritative root zone server must also be transferred to this oversight broad. The board will exercise this role with the help of an internationalized ICANN. This board will also advise the afore-mentioned new public policy body on technical matters pertaining to the Internet policy making, as well as take public policy inputs from it. Framework Convention on the Internet: An appropriate international legal framework will be required sooner than later for the above bodies to function properly. Accordingly, one of the early tasks of the proposed 'new body' dealing with Internet-related public policy issues, discussed above, will be to help negotiate a 'Framework Convention on the Internet' (somewhat like the Framework Convention on Climate Change ). Governance of the Internet concerns different kinds of issues that are ever-evolving. It is, therefore, preferable to formulate an enabling legal structure as a 'framework convention' rather than as a specific treaty or convention that addresses only a bounded set of issues. It may also be easier to initially agree to a series of principles, protocols and processes that can then frame further agreements, treaties etc on more specific issues. Such a Framework Convention will thus enable appropriate and ongoing global policy responses to various opportunities and challenges that the fast-evolving phenomenon of the Internet throws up. It will also formalize the basic architecture of the global governance of the Internet; inter alia recognizing and legitimizing the existing role and functions of the various bodies currently involved with managing the technical and logical infrastructure of the Internet, including the ICANN, Regional Internet Registries, Internet technical standards bodies and so on. Appropriate mechanisms for crisis response and dispute resolution in relation to the global Internet, and the social activity dependent on it, will also be required to be set up. Relationship with the IGF The UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was established as a multistakeholder 'policy dialogue forum' by the World Summit on the Information Society. The proposed global Internet policy mechanism, especially the new UN based body, will maintain a close relationship with the IGF. IGF affords a very new kind of participative mechanism for policy making, whereby the participation realm is institutionalized, and relatively independent of the policy making structures. The IGF should preferably pre-discuss issues that are taken up by this new policy body and present diverse perspectives for its consideration. A good part of the agenda for this new body can emerge from the IGF. Whenever possible, draft proposals to be adopted by this new body should be shared with the IGF. To perform such a participation enhancing role, the IGF must be adequately strengthened and reformed, especially to address the dominance of Northern corporatist interests in its current working. It must be supported with public funds, and insulated from any funding system that can bring in perverse influences on its agenda and outcomes. Other required processes must also be put in place to ensure that the IGF indeed brings in constituencies that are typically under-represented, rather than provide further political clout to the already dominant. A participative body is only as good as the policy making mechanisms that feed off it. To that extent, the meaningfulness and effectiveness of the IGF itself requires a strong policy development mechanism, as suggested in this document, to be linked to it. Investing in the IGF is useful only if its outputs and contributions lead to something concrete. Funding An innovative way to fund the proposed new global Internet policy mechanisms, and also the IGF, is to tap into the collections made by the relevant bodies from allocation of names and numbers resources pertaining to the global Internet (like the fee that ICANN collects annually from each domain name owner). These accruals now run into millions of dollars every year and could be adequate to fund a large part of the needed mechanisms for democratic governance of the global Internet. In the end, we may add that there is nothing really very novel in the above proposal for setting up new mechanisms for global governance of the Internet. Similar models, for instance, were proposed in the report of the Working Group on Internet Governance that was set up during the World Summit on the Information Society, back in 2004. We hope that the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation will fulfill its high mandate to lead the world towards the path of democratic governance of the global commons of the Internet. 1The outcome documents of the World Summit on the Information Society, held in 2005, employed this as a placeholder term giving the mandate for further exploration of the necessary mechanisms for global governance of the Internet. 2Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the US based non-profit that manages much of technical and logical infrastructural functions related to the Internet. ------------- Valeria Betancourt Directora / Manager Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and Information Policy Programme Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for Progressive Communications, APC http://www.apc.org -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew at gp-digital.org Sat Aug 31 05:24:42 2013 From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 10:24:42 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Call for sign on CWG-Internet statement2 (Was Call for comments/signatures: Draft Statement on Rejection of Proposal to Open CWG- Internet) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: That's exactly what happened - and the confirmation e-mail got stuck in my spam filter Andrew Puddephatt, Director Global Partners Digital Development House, 56-64 Leonard St, EC2A 4LT, UK Office 44 (0)207 549 0350 Mobile: +44 (0)771 339 9597 andrew at g p-digital.org www.global-partners.co.uk On 31/08/2013 08:13, "Avri Doria" wrote: > >On 30 Aug 2013, at 15:24, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > >> when I press the endorsement button it hangs. > > >i have seen that behavior too. > >i think it hangs until you respond to the email check. > >it does seem a mis-feature. > >avri > From anja at internetdemocracy.in Sat Aug 31 05:44:41 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 15:14:41 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Position by IT for Change and some other NGOs on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <000001cea622$43b02800$cb107800$@gmail.com> References: <000001cea622$43b02800$cb107800$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Michael and all, On 31 August 2013 13:45, michael gurstein wrote: > Anja and all,**** > > ** ** > > I think in the context of BB (and thinking a bit about the agenda) we > should probably look to agree (if that is possible) that the issue of > mechanisms for global Internet governance (post-Snowden) recognize the need > for some means to rein in those who would, without external oversight or > recourse, use the Internet for surveillance globally. Therefore, the > question is a pragmatic one--what would be the most effective means for > achieving appropriate structures of governance and what mechanisms would be > most likely to be realizable in the current political context all of this > within a context directed to ensure maximum freedom of expression online > and the use of the Internet for economic and social development.**** > > ** ** > > If we can agree on this then the question of the nature of the mechanism, > whether inter-governmental, multi-stakeholder, INGO based or whatever > becomes a pragmatic matter rather than a "principled" issue. > Not if you believe, as I do, that what is proposed here can be quite harmful and contributes to the fast closing down of space to try out other things (not in the least because it ties in so well with what some governments want). Best, Anja > **** > > ** ** > > M**** > > ** ** > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: > bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Shahzad Ahmad > *Sent:* Saturday, August 31, 2013 1:11 PM > *To:* Anja Kovacs; Valeria Betancourt > *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Position by IT for Change and some other NGOs > on enhanced cooperation**** > > ** ** > > Dear Anja,**** > > ** ** > > Very very keen to read more about the third way. "Politics of Justice" > hmmmm… very interesting. **** > > ** ** > > Can't wait to discuss and hear more on this next week :)**** > > ** ** > > Best wishes and regards**** > > Shahzad**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From: *Anja Kovacs > *Date: *Friday, August 30, 2013 11:23 PM > *To: *Valeria Betancourt > *Cc: *"bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>" > *Subject: *Re: [bestbits] Position by IT for Change and some other NGOs > on enhanced cooperation**** > > ** ** > > Dear all,**** > > While the Internet Democracy Project is not a member of APC, and though we > do have differences of opinion with APC (e.g. on how severe the threat of > backgtracking on the Tunis agenda is), we broadly agree with APC's views on > the IT for Change statement as outlined by Valeria. We will not be able to > sign the IT for Change statement. **** > > It is oftentimes made to seem as if there are only two options where > Internet governance arrangements are concerned: the status quo and a more > centralised form of governance, the latter often (though not always) > imagined as involving greater government control. We believe that there is > a third way, and one that has far greater potential for a politics of > justice, which is that of distributed governance. We will be submitting a > submission to the WGEC along these lines. **** > > ** ** > > Best regards,**** > > Anja**** > > ** ** > > On 30 August 2013 20:02, Valeria Betancourt wrote:**** > > Dear all, **** > > ** ** > > We are busy compiling an APC's network response and we will submit our own > statement. We will also endorse the Best Bits statement, to which we > contributed to. **** > > ** ** > > While we appreciate the effort that has gone into it and many of the > points raised, APC will not endorse the IT for Change statement. APC > members are independent so while some individual APC members might endorse > it, APC as an organisation won't. Some of the main reasons why we have > made that decision are explained at the end of this message. We thought it > is useful to share our thinking in these spacea as a contribution to the > debate. **** > > ** ** > > Best, **** > > ** ** > > Valeria **** > > ------------------------**** > > ** ** > > * The basic case for "global governance of the Internet" is simply > not made. The evidence for the proposed new mechanisms is weak, laden > with polemic, and with a political bias that is not corrected by balanced, > **** > > judicious weighing of options nor informed by practical experience (this > in relation to ICANN and the technical community in particular). > > * The statement takes government and an internet-centric approach > to policy making and suggests that a global internet policy > making framework convention and new body is desirable. This overlooks and > would > undermine the many other approaches to policy making currently mandated by > international law including rights based, environmental, and development > among others. we have seen in the intellectual property field, for example, > what happens when UN bodies are set up with topic specific mandates for > global related policy issues. > > * To place the internet as the centre for public policy making is a grave > conceptual error in our view -rather a better conceptual approach is to > focus on internet related aspects of policy issues (such as health, > education, discrimination, access, telecommunciations policy and so on). > Even better, to put people at the centre of policy making. We must never > forget that the internet does not exist in a parallel dimension. Nor can > internet policy. Creating a new UN body to focus on internet policy and > identifying which issues it should deal with is not going to be > sustainable, or effective. The internet touches on so many issues that no > single policy space could ever effectively deal with them all. > > * The imposition of a new global internet policy framework determined and > agreed by governments - and therefore being a top down and > central mechanism - contradicts the bottom-up multi-stakeholder principles > of > policy making and end to end principles of internet architecture: > it's just wrong. This is not to say that multi-stakeholder policy > processes are not flawed and still producing outcomes that reflect the > interest of those with power and resources. But creating new frameworks > and bodies will not address this automatically. > > * Most international agreements set MINIMUM standards because governments > generally can only agree on the lowest common denominator - apart from > generally resulting in inadequate policy, it also risks back- tracking on > the existing points of agreement in the Tunis Agenda. > > * The statement proposes a new framework convention similar to > the convention on climate change. Such conventions are inevitably > negotiated and agreed by governments and not multi-stakeholder. in > addition, the > inequalities between States (a key source of friction in > current arrangements) will not be solved by the creation of new mechanisms > which the same States need to agree on - inevitably the politics > simply transfer, Rather than propose a new convention (most take between > 5-10 years to negotiate, assuming agreement can be reached), it would > be better to empower and strengthen existing mechanisms - more ideas on > that separately. APC proposed a framework convention of this > nature immediately after Tunis in 2005. But after our work on the 'code > of good practice' for internet governance during which we looked closely at > environmental and climate change policy processes, and our experience in > observing governments in the CSTD when they try to negotiate an annual > resolution on WSIS follow up we decided against this. > > * Finally, the focus on global internet public policy undermines the role > of national and regional IGFs and policy making processes many of which > have quite different politics and are still evolving to suit > their conditions. Not all these processes are inclusive, or even > legitimate, but they are not going to be fixed from above by new > agreements negotiated by governments. > > * On balance, then, we think more work is needed to develop options which > suit civil society and empower civil society as stakeholders in policy > making and that systematically try to consolidate current achievements with > regard to human rights on the internet in, for example, the Human Rights > Council.**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > On 28/08/2013, at 11:51, parminder wrote:**** > > > > **** > > *Apologies for cross posting* > > Dear All > > IT for Change and some other NGOs plan to forward the following position > to the UN Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. Preceding the position > statement is a covering letter seeking support. You are *welcome to > support this position any time before 12 noon GMT on 31st Aug*. We are > happy to provide any additional information/ clarification etc. Also happy > to otherwise discuss this position, and its different elements. We are > motivated by the need to come up with precise and clear institutional > options at this stage. Politics of inertia and not doing anything just > serves the status quo. These may not be the best institutional options, and > we are ready to enter into discussion with other groups on what instead > would be the better options. But, again, not doing anything is, in our > opinion, would be detrimental to global public interest. > > The web link to this position is at > http://www.itforchange.net/civil_society_input_to_the_UN_Working_Group_for_global_governance_of_the_Internet. > > parminder > > > *Covering letter / Background > * > In May 2012, more than 60 civil society organisations and several > individuals participated in a campaign for 'democratising the global > governance of the Internet'. > A joint letter signed by the participants of this campaign *inter alia*asked for setting up a UN Working Group towards this objective. Such a > Working Group was set up and has now asked for public inputs to formulate > its recommendations. > > In our joint letter, we had proposed some outlines for reforming the > current global governance architecture of the Internet. Time has come now > to make more clear and specific recommendations of the actual institutional > mechanism that we need. With most governments more worried about their > narrow geopolitical interests and relationships with individual countries, > it falls upon the civil society to be bold and forward looking and put > precise proposals on the table that can then be taken forward by state > actors. > > In a post-Snowden world, there is deep discomfort among almost all > countries, other than the US, with the manner in which the global Internet > is run and is evolving. The need for some global norms, principles, rules, > and necessary governance mechanisms for the global Internet is being felt > now as never before. The Internet can no longer remain anchored to the > political and business interests of one country, or to serving global > capital, as it is at present. As a global commons, it is our collective > democratic right and responsibility to participate in the governance of the > Internet, so that it can become a vehicle for greater prosperity, equity > and social justice for all. > > We seek your support to join us in proposing the enclosed document as an > input to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. The Working Group has > sought public inputs through a questionnaire which can be seen at > http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD.aspx . The most important question is at > number 8, which seeks input with regard to precise mechanism(s) that are > required. Our response will mostly address this all-important question. > (You are also encouraged to, separately, give a fuller response to the > questionnaire on your behalf or on behalf of your organization.) We will > also like to give wide media publicity to this civil society statement . > > We will be glad if you can send your response to us *before the 30th of > August*. We are of course happy to respond to any clarification or > additional information that you may want to seek in the above regard. > Please also circulate this to others who you think may want to participate > in this initiative. The global Internet governance space seems to be > dominated by those who push for neoliberal models of governance. We must > therefore have as many voices heard as possible. > > (The statement is cut pasted below this email and may also be seen here) > > With best regard, > > Parminder > > > *Parminder Jeet Singh***** > ------------------------------ > > *IT for Change* > In special consultative status with the United Nations ECOSOC > www.ITforChange.net > *T: 00-91-80-26654134** | **T: 00-91-80-26536890** **| **Fax: > 00-91-80-41461055***** > > *A civil society input to the UN Working Group looking at ***** > > *institutional mechanisms for global governance of the Internet ***** > > *(Please write to itfc @itforchange.netbefore 29th Aug if you will like to endorse this statement) > ***** > > * > Why global governance of the Internet?***** > > Internet governance is seen largely in terms of national sovereignty and > security or as pertaining to free speech and privacy. We are of the view > that there exist many other equally important issues for global Internet > governance that arise from the whole gamut of rights and aspirations of > people – social, economic, cultural, political and developmental. The > relationship of the global Internet to cultural diversity is one example. > The Internet increasingly determines not only the global flows of > information but also of cultures, and their commodification. No social > process is exempt from the influence of the Internet – from education to > health and governance. Social systems at national and local levels are > being transformed under the influence of the global Internet.**** > > Instead of decentralizing power, the current structure of the global > Internet tends to centralize control in the hands of a small number of > companies. Some of these companies have near-monopoly power over key areas > of economic and social significance. Therefore, regulation of global > Internet business through pertinent competition law, consumer law, open > interoperability standards, etc, is becoming a pressing need. Increasing > statist controls need to be similarly resisted. With the emergent paradigm > of cloud computing presenting the looming prospect of remote management of > our digital lives from different 'power centres' across the world, it is > inconceivable that we can do without appropriate democratic governance of > the global Internet. Post-Snowden, as many countries have begun to > contemplate and even embark upon measures for 'digital sovereignty', the > only way to preserve a *global *Internet is through formulating > appropriate *global* norms, principles and rules that will underpin its > governance. **** > > *Background of this civil society input***** > > A group of over 60 civil society organizations and several individuals, > made a statement on *'Democratizing the global governance of the Internet > '* to the open consultations on 'enhanced cooperation'1 called by the > Chair of the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) > on May 18th, 2012, in Geneva. The statement *inter alia* sought the > setting up of a CSTD Working Group to address this issue. We are happy to > note that such a Working Group has been set up and has now called for > public inputs to make its recommendations. This document is an input to the > Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC) on the behalf of the > undersigned . **** > > In the aforementioned statementof May 2012, the civil society signatories had called for the following > institutional developments to take place in the global Internet governance > architecture:**** > > *Our demands with respect to 'global' Internet Governance espouse a > simple and obvious democratic logic. On the technical governance side, the > oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical infrastructure, > at present with the US government, should be transferred to an appropriate, > democratic and participative, multi-lateral body, without disturbing the > existing distributed architecture of technical governance of the Internet > in any significant way. (However, improvements in the technical governance > systems are certainly needed.) On the side of larger Internet related > public policy-making on global social, economic, cultural and political > issues, the OECD-based model of global policy making, as well as the > default application of US laws, should be replaced by a new UN-based > democratic mechanism. Any such new arrangement should be based on the > principle of subsidiarity, and be innovative in terms of its mandate, > structure, and functions, to be adequate to the unique requirements of > global Internet governance. It must be fully participative of all > stakeholders, promoting the democratic and innovative potential of the* *Internet. > ***** > > As the WGEC deliberates on concrete ways to move forward, the time is ripe > to propose clear and specific institutional mechanisms for democratizing > the global governance of the Internet. We have, therefore, expanded the > above demands into specific mechanisms that should be set in place for this > purpose. **** > > *New global governance mechanisms are needed***** > > We are of the view that it would be useful to have two distinct mechanisms > – one that looks at the global Internet-related public policy issues in > various social, economic, cultural and political domains, and another that > should undertake oversight of the technical and operational functions > related to the Internet (basically, replacing the current unilateral > oversight of the ICANN2 by the US government). This will require setting > up appropriate new global governance bodies as well as a framework of > international law to facilitate their work, as follows.**** > > *A new UN body for Internet-related public policy issues:** *An anchor > global institution for taking up and addressing various public policy > issues pertaining to the Internet in an ongoing manner is urgently > required. It can be a committee attached to the UN General Assembly or a > more elaborate and relatively autonomous set up linked loosely to the UN > (as a specialized UN body). It should have a very strong and > institutionalized public consultative mechanism, in the form of stakeholder > advisory groups that are selected through formal processes by different > stakeholder constituencies, ensuring adequate representativeness. (OECD's > *Committee on Computer, Information and Communication Policy*and India's recent proposal for a > *UN* > *Committee on > Internet-related Policies* > are two useful, and > somewhat similar, models that can be looked at.)**** > > This 'new body' will stay abreast of global Internet-related issues; where > necessary, develop international level public policies in the concerned > areas; seek appropriate harmonization of national level policies, and; > facilitate required treaties, conventions and agreements. It will also have > the necessary means to undertake studies and present analyses in different > policy areas. **** > > Most Internet-related public policy issues are of a cross-cutting nature, > and involve overlaps with mandates of other existing global governance > bodies, like WIPO, UNESCO, WTO, UNDP, UNCTAD, ITU and so on. Due to this > reason, the proposed new 'body' will establish appropriate relationships > with all these other existing bodies, including directing relevant public > policy issues to them, receiving their inputs and comments, and itself > contributing specific Internet-related perspectives to issues under the > purview of these other bodies. **** > > ** ** > > *A new 'Internet Technical Oversight and Advisory Board':* This board > will replace the US government's current oversight role over the technical > and operational functions performed by ICANN. The membership of this > oversight board can be of a techno-political nature, *i.e.* consisting of > people with specialized expertise but who also have appropriate political > backing, ascertained through a democratic process. For instance, the board > can be made of 10/15 members, with 2/3 members each from five geographic > regions (as understood in the UN system). These members can perhaps be > selected through an appropriate process by the relevant technical standards > bodies and/or country domain name bodies of all the countries of the > respective region. (Other mechanisms for constituting the techno-political > membership of this board can also be considered.)**** > > The Internet technical oversight and advisory board will seek to ensure > that the various technical and operational functions related to the global > Internet are undertaken by the relevant organizations as per international > law and public policy principles developed by the concerned international > bodies. With regard to ICANN, the role of this board will more or less be > exactly the same as exercised by the US government in its oversight over > ICANN. As for the decentralized Internet standards development mechanisms, > like the Internet Engineering Task Force, these self organizing systems > based on voluntary adoption of standards will continue to work as at > present. The new board will have a very light touch and non-binding role > with regard to them. It will bring in imperatives from, and advise these > technical standards bodies on, international public policies, international > law and norms being developed by various relevant bodies. **** > > For this board to be able to fulfill its oversight mandate, ICANN must > become an international organization, without changing its existing > multistakeholder character in any substantial manner. It would enter into a > host country agreement with the US government (if ICANN has to continue to > be headquartered in the US). It would have full immunity from US law and > executive authority, and be guided solely by international law, and be > incorporated under it. Supervision of the authoritative root zone server > must also be transferred to this oversight broad. The board will exercise > this role with the help of an internationalized ICANN. **** > > This board will also advise the afore-mentioned new public policy body on > technical matters pertaining to the Internet policy making, as well as take > public policy inputs from it. **** > > *Framework Convention on the Internet:** *An appropriate international > legal framework will be required sooner than later for the above bodies to > function properly. Accordingly, one of the early tasks of the proposed 'new > body' dealing with Internet-related public policy issues, discussed above, > will be to help negotiate a 'Framework Convention on the Internet' > (somewhat like the *Framework Convention on Climate Change > )*. Governance of the Internet concerns different kinds of issues that > are ever-evolving. It is, therefore, preferable to formulate an enabling > legal structure as a 'framework convention' rather than as a specific > treaty or convention that addresses only a bounded set of issues. It may > also be easier to initially agree to a series of principles, protocols and > processes that can then frame further agreements, treaties etc on more > specific issues. **** > > Such a Framework Convention will thus enable appropriate and ongoing > global policy responses to various opportunities and challenges that the > fast-evolving phenomenon of the Internet throws up. It will also formalize > the basic architecture of the global governance of the Internet; *inter > alia* recognizing and legitimizing the existing role and functions of the > various bodies currently involved with managing the technical and logical > infrastructure of the Internet, including the ICANN, Regional Internet > Registries, Internet technical standards bodies and so on. **** > > Appropriate mechanisms for crisis response and dispute resolution in > relation to the global Internet, and the social activity dependent on it, > will also be required to be set up.**** > > *Relationship with the IGF***** > > The UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was established as a > multistakeholder 'policy dialogue forum' by the World Summit on the > Information Society. The proposed global Internet policy mechanism, > especially the new UN based body, will maintain a close relationship with > the IGF. IGF affords a very new kind of participative mechanism for policy > making, whereby the participation realm is institutionalized, and > relatively independent of the policy making structures. The IGF should > preferably pre-discuss issues that are taken up by this new policy body and > present diverse perspectives for its consideration. A good part of the > agenda for this new body can emerge from the IGF. Whenever possible, draft > proposals to be adopted by this new body should be shared with the IGF. ** > ** > > To perform such a participation enhancing role, the IGF must be adequately > strengthened and reformed, especially to address the dominance of Northern > corporatist interests in its current working. It must be supported with > public funds, and insulated from any funding system that can bring in > perverse influences on its agenda and outcomes. Other required processes > must also be put in place to ensure that the IGF indeed brings in > constituencies that are typically under-represented, rather than provide > further political clout to the already dominant. **** > > A participative body is only as good as the policy making mechanisms that > feed off it. To that extent, the meaningfulness and effectiveness of the > IGF itself requires a strong policy development mechanism, as suggested in > this document, to be linked to it. Investing in the IGF is useful only if > its outputs and contributions lead to something concrete. **** > > *Funding***** > > An innovative way to fund the proposed new global Internet policy > mechanisms, and also the IGF, is to tap into the collections made by the > relevant bodies from allocation of names and numbers resources pertaining > to the global Internet (like the fee that ICANN collects annually from each > domain name owner). These accruals now run into millions of dollars every > year and could be adequate to fund a large part of the needed mechanisms > for democratic governance of the global Internet. **** > > In the end, we may add that there is nothing really very novel in the > above proposal for setting up new mechanisms for global governance of the > Internet. Similar models, for instance, were proposed in the report of the > Working Group on Internet Governance that was set up during the World > Summit on the Information Society, back in 2004. **** > > We hope that the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation will fulfill its > high mandate to lead the world towards the path of democratic governance of > the global commons of the Internet.**** > > 1The outcome documents of the World Summit on the Information Society, > held in 2005, employed this as a placeholder term giving the mandate for > further exploration of the necessary mechanisms for global governance of > the Internet. **** > > 2Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the US based > non-profit that manages much of technical and logical infrastructural > functions related to the Internet. **** > > ** ** > > -------------**** > > Valeria Betancourt**** > > Directora / Manager**** > > Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and > Information Policy Programme**** > > Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for**** > > Progressive Communications, APC**** > > http://www.apc.org**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in**** > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jefsey at jefsey.com Sat Aug 31 09:38:19 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 15:38:19 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Position by IT for Change and some other NGOs on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <000001cea622$43b02800$cb107800$@gmail.com> References: <000001cea622$43b02800$cb107800$@gmail.com> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Aug 10 22:18:04 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 07:48:04 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Programme for Best Bits annual meeting In-Reply-To: <36DD99DF-3B81-4184-8F47-D1C6DD9C4451@ciroap.org> References: <36DD99DF-3B81-4184-8F47-D1C6DD9C4451@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <5206F45C.9070100@itforchange.net> Thanks to the steering committee for this great start.... I havent much to say about day 1. Maybe a few things, but that later... Abut day 2 I think we would do well if we try not to look very ITU centric ( and I can assure, we do)... Last year was different with the WCIT in the offing, but this year I dont see why a session should focus on ITU. As to saying that Snowden or NSA revelations can become a sub item of this ITU discussion, quite the opposite is what I think would be in order.. Lets be honest, and do justice to the people of the world in whose name we assemble, work and expend monies.... Internet governance to the world right now is completely focussed on the Snowden affair. Not only among the laity, but even the politically well informed and articulate. It is bad enough that the IGF wont largely be about NSA revelations (even to the extent that Kenya IGF was about the India's CIRP proposal) although I will be happy to be pleasantly surprised. But I cant see how a civil society meeting can afford to be not about it. This is my basic proposition.. I think we need to have a session on something very roughly like the 'The global Internet after Snowden - What will balkanise the Internet and what can keep it sufficiently global' - and if possible come out with a statement about it. At the time of formation of BB, we had promised ourselves a positive agenda , and flogging ITU over a day once again is not what I think takes us towards that. (Disclaimer: I have long held that the ITU is not the right place for most global IG work.) People are interested to know in which directions would post Snowden global Internet go. And we should discuss this. Lets cut the chaff and go directly to what is/ are the issue(s) of global governance of the Internet today. For instance - what are the global ethics, norms, principles and legal frameworks for trans-border flow of data, information and digital services? Who should develop ( ensure their compliance) and how? And wh- at is the meaning of ownership of our digital lives, and how statist and corporatist controls play with such rightful ownership. That is what people right now most want to know... Do we have anything to say to them, and perhaps say on the behalf of them? parminder On Saturday 10 August 2013 09:06 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Since the good news that the 2013 IGF will be going ahead after all, > it's time to revise and finalise the programme for our annual meeting > in Bali. The interim steering group has been talking about this, and > here was their suggestion for topics (the descriptions are mine though): > > *Day 1* > > 1) Best Bits itself: goals, structure, processes, fundraising, > interactions with other groups, etc. The interim steering group is > working on a documents with our brainstorming about all this, which we > will share soon. The purpose of this session is to reach a consensus > that we are heading in the right direction (or not), and to provide a > mandate to carry out proposals that will help us grow and become > stronger and more sustainable. > > 2) Global Internet governance principles and Enhanced Cooperation. As > you know, there are groups at the IGF MAG and the CSTD discussing > these issues, but until now there has been no strong unified civil > society position about the evolution of Internet governance > arrangements, and this equivocation has played into the wrong hands. > We have been largely split between groups that are averse to any > changes, and those with proposals for changes that are seen as > radical. The purpose of this session (as I see it, anyway) is to get > together behind a shared position that can become a solid base for > advocacy. We already have a working group arguing over these issues > (in a good way), which will report back to this main list soon. > > *Day 2* > > 3) The ITU processes, up to the ITU Plenipotentiary in 2014 and the > WSIS+10 review. What is coming up? What is our long term strategy? > Have we responded adequately to the ITU's most recent refusal to open > up the Council Working Group on Internet Policy to stakeholders? If > we still don't see change at the Plenipotentiary, what then - do we > disengage? > > 4) The NSA surveillance issue may become a sub-item of the ITU > discussion, given that there are countries that may bring this debate > to the ITU. But it will also include an update on the Human Rights > Council, stateside developments, how this has altered the Internet > governance landscape in the long term, and general strategy going forward. > > There's also a lot of other work to be done between now and then, > including work on the website (so that you can actually register for > the meeting!) and on fundraising (to help pay for it). I'll be > posting more about that very soon. > > Meanwhile your comments are invited on the programme... > > -- > > *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 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge > hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @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: From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Aug 11 01:21:40 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 12:21:40 +0700 Subject: [bestbits] Programme for Best Bits annual meeting In-Reply-To: <5206F45C.9070100@itforchange.net> References: <36DD99DF-3B81-4184-8F47-D1C6DD9C4451@ciroap.org> <5206F45C.9070100@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <05ac01ce9652$b3e83f70$1bb8be50$@gmail.com> +1 M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2013 9:18 AM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Programme for Best Bits annual meeting Thanks to the steering committee for this great start.... I havent much to say about day 1. Maybe a few things, but that later... Abut day 2 I think we would do well if we try not to look very ITU centric ( and I can assure, we do)... Last year was different with the WCIT in the offing, but this year I dont see why a session should focus on ITU. As to saying that Snowden or NSA revelations can become a sub item of this ITU discussion, quite the opposite is what I think would be in order.. Lets be honest, and do justice to the people of the world in whose name we assemble, work and expend monies.... Internet governance to the world right now is completely focussed on the Snowden affair. Not only among the laity, but even the politically well informed and articulate. It is bad enough that the IGF wont largely be about NSA revelations (even to the extent that Kenya IGF was about the India's CIRP proposal) although I will be happy to be pleasantly surprised. But I cant see how a civil society meeting can afford to be not about it. This is my basic proposition.. I think we need to have a session on something very roughly like the 'The global Internet after Snowden - What will balkanise the Internet and what can keep it sufficiently global' - and if possible come out with a statement about it. At the time of formation of BB, we had promised ourselves a positive agenda , and flogging ITU over a day once again is not what I think takes us towards that. (Disclaimer: I have long held that the ITU is not the right place for most global IG work.) People are interested to know in which directions would post Snowden global Internet go. And we should discuss this. Lets cut the chaff and go directly to what is/ are the issue(s) of global governance of the Internet today. For instance - what are the global ethics, norms, principles and legal frameworks for trans-border flow of data, information and digital services? Who should develop ( ensure their compliance) and how? And wh- at is the meaning of ownership of our digital lives, and how statist and corporatist controls play with such rightful ownership. That is what people right now most want to know... Do we have anything to say to them, and perhaps say on the behalf of them? parminder On Saturday 10 August 2013 09:06 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: Since the good news that the 2013 IGF will be going ahead after all, it's time to revise and finalise the programme for our annual meeting in Bali. The interim steering group has been talking about this, and here was their suggestion for topics (the descriptions are mine though): Day 1 1) Best Bits itself: goals, structure, processes, fundraising, interactions with other groups, etc. The interim steering group is working on a documents with our brainstorming about all this, which we will share soon. The purpose of this session is to reach a consensus that we are heading in the right direction (or not), and to provide a mandate to carry out proposals that will help us grow and become stronger and more sustainable. 2) Global Internet governance principles and Enhanced Cooperation. As you know, there are groups at the IGF MAG and the CSTD discussing these issues, but until now there has been no strong unified civil society position about the evolution of Internet governance arrangements, and this equivocation has played into the wrong hands. We have been largely split between groups that are averse to any changes, and those with proposals for changes that are seen as radical. The purpose of this session (as I see it, anyway) is to get together behind a shared position that can become a solid base for advocacy. We already have a working group arguing over these issues (in a good way), which will report back to this main list soon. Day 2 3) The ITU processes, up to the ITU Plenipotentiary in 2014 and the WSIS+10 review. What is coming up? What is our long term strategy? Have we responded adequately to the ITU's most recent refusal to open up the Council Working Group on Internet Policy to stakeholders? If we still don't see change at the Plenipotentiary, what then - do we disengage? 4) The NSA surveillance issue may become a sub-item of the ITU discussion, given that there are countries that may bring this debate to the ITU. But it will also include an update on the Human Rights Council, stateside developments, how this has altered the Internet governance landscape in the long term, and general strategy going forward. There's also a lot of other work to be done between now and then, including work on the website (so that you can actually register for the meeting!) and on fundraising (to help pay for it). I'll be posting more about that very soon. Meanwhile your comments are invited on the programme... -- 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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @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: From nb at bollow.ch Sun Aug 11 19:07:53 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 01:07:53 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Programme for Best Bits annual meeting In-Reply-To: <05ac01ce9652$b3e83f70$1bb8be50$@gmail.com> References: <36DD99DF-3B81-4184-8F47-D1C6DD9C4451@ciroap.org> <5206F45C.9070100@itforchange.net> <05ac01ce9652$b3e83f70$1bb8be50$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20130812010753.223200ef@quill> +1 Greetings, Norbert Michael Gurstein wrote: > +1 > > > > M > > > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder > Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2013 9:18 AM > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Programme for Best Bits annual meeting > > > > > Thanks to the steering committee for this great start.... > > I havent much to say about day 1. Maybe a few things, but that > later... > > Abut day 2 > > I think we would do well if we try not to look very ITU centric ( and > I can assure, we do)... Last year was different with the WCIT in the > offing, but this year I dont see why a session should focus on ITU. > > As to saying that Snowden or NSA revelations can become a sub item of > this ITU discussion, quite the opposite is what I think would be in > order.. > > Lets be honest, and do justice to the people of the world in whose > name we assemble, work and expend monies.... Internet governance to > the world right now is completely focussed on the Snowden affair. Not > only among the laity, but even the politically well informed and > articulate. > > It is bad enough that the IGF wont largely be about NSA revelations > (even to the extent that Kenya IGF was about the India's CIRP > proposal) although I will be happy to be pleasantly surprised. But I > cant see how a civil society meeting can afford to be not about it. > This is my basic proposition.. > > I think we need to have a session on something very roughly like the > 'The global Internet after Snowden - What will balkanise the Internet > and what can keep it sufficiently global' - and if possible come out > with a statement about it. > > At the time of formation of BB, we had promised ourselves a positive > agenda , and flogging ITU over a day once again is not what I think > takes us towards that. (Disclaimer: I have long held that the ITU is > not the right place for most global IG work.) > > People are interested to know in which directions would post Snowden > global Internet go. And we should discuss this. > > Lets cut the chaff and go directly to what is/ are the issue(s) of > global governance of the Internet today. For instance - what are the > global ethics, norms, principles and legal frameworks for > trans-border flow of data, information and digital services? Who > should develop ( ensure their compliance) and how? > > And wh- at is the meaning of ownership of our digital lives, and how > statist and corporatist controls play with such rightful ownership. > > That is what people right now most want to know... Do we have > anything to say to them, and perhaps say on the behalf of them? > > parminder > > > > > > On Saturday 10 August 2013 09:06 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > Since the good news that the 2013 IGF will be going ahead after all, > it's time to revise and finalise the programme for our annual meeting > in Bali. The interim steering group has been talking about this, and > here was their suggestion for topics (the descriptions are mine > though): > > Day 1 > > > > 1) Best Bits itself: goals, structure, processes, fundraising, > interactions with other groups, etc. The interim steering group is > working on a documents with our brainstorming about all this, which > we will share soon. The purpose of this session is to reach a > consensus that we are heading in the right direction (or not), and to > provide a mandate to carry out proposals that will help us grow and > become stronger and more sustainable. > > > > 2) Global Internet governance principles and Enhanced Cooperation. > As you know, there are groups at the IGF MAG and the CSTD discussing > these issues, but until now there has been no strong unified civil > society position about the evolution of Internet governance > arrangements, and this equivocation has played into the wrong hands. > We have been largely split between groups that are averse to any > changes, and those with proposals for changes that are seen as > radical. The purpose of this session (as I see it, anyway) is to get > together behind a shared position that can become a solid base for > advocacy. We already have a working group arguing over these issues > (in a good way), which will report back to this main list soon. > > > > Day 2 > > 3) The ITU processes, up to the ITU Plenipotentiary in 2014 and the > WSIS+10 review. What is coming up? What is our long term strategy? > Have we responded adequately to the ITU's most recent refusal to open > up the Council Working Group on Internet Policy to stakeholders? If > we still don't see change at the Plenipotentiary, what then - do we > disengage? > > > 4) The NSA surveillance issue may become a sub-item of the ITU > discussion, given that there are countries that may bring this debate > to the ITU. But it will also include an update on the Human Rights > Council, stateside developments, how this has altered the Internet > governance landscape in the long term, and general strategy going > forward. > > There's also a lot of other work to be done between now and then, > including work on the website (so that you can actually register for > the meeting!) and on fundraising (to help pay for it). I'll be > posting more about that very soon. > > Meanwhile your comments are invited on the programme... > From mishi at softwarefreedom.org Sun Aug 11 23:30:44 2013 From: mishi at softwarefreedom.org (Mishi Choudhary) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 23:30:44 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Programme for Best Bits annual meeting In-Reply-To: <20130812010753.223200ef@quill> References: <36DD99DF-3B81-4184-8F47-D1C6DD9C4451@ciroap.org> <5206F45C.9070100@itforchange.net> <05ac01ce9652$b3e83f70$1bb8be50$@gmail.com> <20130812010753.223200ef@quill> Message-ID: <520856E4.7010601@softwarefreedom.org> Hi, An emphasis on development of legal norms for flow of data in view of the Big Data initiatives of various companies and governments and how does one deal with the private interests, who speak the same language either too late in the process or only as a mere sham will be greatly helpful. Also, is it possible to steer some of the civil society discussions or funds towards working business models or proof of concepts that can present an alternative to big company commodity services like email or social networking? On 08/11/2013 07:07 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > +1 > > Greetings, > Norbert > > Michael Gurstein wrote: >> +1 >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder >> Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2013 9:18 AM >> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Programme for Best Bits annual meeting >> >> >> >> >> Thanks to the steering committee for this great start.... >> >> I havent much to say about day 1. Maybe a few things, but that >> later... >> >> Abut day 2 >> >> I think we would do well if we try not to look very ITU centric ( and >> I can assure, we do)... Last year was different with the WCIT in the >> offing, but this year I dont see why a session should focus on ITU. >> >> As to saying that Snowden or NSA revelations can become a sub item of >> this ITU discussion, quite the opposite is what I think would be in >> order.. >> >> Lets be honest, and do justice to the people of the world in whose >> name we assemble, work and expend monies.... Internet governance to >> the world right now is completely focussed on the Snowden affair. Not >> only among the laity, but even the politically well informed and >> articulate. >> >> It is bad enough that the IGF wont largely be about NSA revelations >> (even to the extent that Kenya IGF was about the India's CIRP >> proposal) although I will be happy to be pleasantly surprised. But I >> cant see how a civil society meeting can afford to be not about it. >> This is my basic proposition.. >> >> I think we need to have a session on something very roughly like the >> 'The global Internet after Snowden - What will balkanise the Internet >> and what can keep it sufficiently global' - and if possible come out >> with a statement about it. >> >> At the time of formation of BB, we had promised ourselves a positive >> agenda , and flogging ITU over a day once again is not what I think >> takes us towards that. (Disclaimer: I have long held that the ITU is >> not the right place for most global IG work.) >> >> People are interested to know in which directions would post Snowden >> global Internet go. And we should discuss this. >> >> Lets cut the chaff and go directly to what is/ are the issue(s) of >> global governance of the Internet today. For instance - what are the >> global ethics, norms, principles and legal frameworks for >> trans-border flow of data, information and digital services? Who >> should develop ( ensure their compliance) and how? >> >> And wh- at is the meaning of ownership of our digital lives, and how >> statist and corporatist controls play with such rightful ownership. >> >> That is what people right now most want to know... Do we have >> anything to say to them, and perhaps say on the behalf of them? >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> >> >> On Saturday 10 August 2013 09:06 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> Since the good news that the 2013 IGF will be going ahead after all, >> it's time to revise and finalise the programme for our annual meeting >> in Bali. The interim steering group has been talking about this, and >> here was their suggestion for topics (the descriptions are mine >> though): >> >> Day 1 >> >> >> >> 1) Best Bits itself: goals, structure, processes, fundraising, >> interactions with other groups, etc. The interim steering group is >> working on a documents with our brainstorming about all this, which >> we will share soon. The purpose of this session is to reach a >> consensus that we are heading in the right direction (or not), and to >> provide a mandate to carry out proposals that will help us grow and >> become stronger and more sustainable. >> >> >> >> 2) Global Internet governance principles and Enhanced Cooperation. >> As you know, there are groups at the IGF MAG and the CSTD discussing >> these issues, but until now there has been no strong unified civil >> society position about the evolution of Internet governance >> arrangements, and this equivocation has played into the wrong hands. >> We have been largely split between groups that are averse to any >> changes, and those with proposals for changes that are seen as >> radical. The purpose of this session (as I see it, anyway) is to get >> together behind a shared position that can become a solid base for >> advocacy. We already have a working group arguing over these issues >> (in a good way), which will report back to this main list soon. >> >> >> >> Day 2 >> >> 3) The ITU processes, up to the ITU Plenipotentiary in 2014 and the >> WSIS+10 review. What is coming up? What is our long term strategy? >> Have we responded adequately to the ITU's most recent refusal to open >> up the Council Working Group on Internet Policy to stakeholders? If >> we still don't see change at the Plenipotentiary, what then - do we >> disengage? >> >> >> 4) The NSA surveillance issue may become a sub-item of the ITU >> discussion, given that there are countries that may bring this debate >> to the ITU. But it will also include an update on the Human Rights >> Council, stateside developments, how this has altered the Internet >> governance landscape in the long term, and general strategy going >> forward. >> >> There's also a lot of other work to be done between now and then, >> including work on the website (so that you can actually register for >> the meeting!) and on fundraising (to help pay for it). I'll be >> posting more about that very soon. >> >> Meanwhile your comments are invited on the programme... >> -- Warm Regards Mishi Choudhary, Esq. Director-International Practice Software Freedom Law Center 1995 Broadway Floor 17 New York, NY-10023 (tel) 212-461-1912 (fax) 212-580-0898 www.softwarefreedom.org Executive Director SFLC.IN K-9, Second Floor Jangpura Extn. New Delhi-110014 (tel) +91-11-43587126 (fax) +91-11-24323530 www.sflc.in From joana at varonferraz.com Thu Aug 1 02:20:08 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 03:20:08 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] CWG Internet - Online Consultation: deadline for submissions extended to Oct 10 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Just to add the issues of the consultation. - Issue 1: Consultation on effectively countering and combatting spam. The Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues invites all stakeholders to provide input on international public policy issues related to *effectively countering and combatting spam.* - *Issue 2*: Consultation on international public policy issues concerning IPv4 addresses. The Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues invites all stakeholders to provide input on international public policy issues related to *(a) unused legacy IPv4 addresses, and (b) inter-region transfers of IPv4 addresses.* - *Issue 3*: Consultation on developmental aspects of the Internet. The Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues invites all stakeholders to provide input on international public policy issues related to *developmental aspects of the Internet.* No consultation on the "Role of States on IG"..which might be good... Well, maybe it's because this list of open consultations was set in January...as far as know, the Brazilian proposal about it would be debated at this CWG-Internet... Does anyone have news about this? best joana -- Joana Varon Ferraz Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) @joana_varon On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Lea Kaspar wrote: > Dear all,**** > > ** ** > > Something that might be of interest to this group - the ITU have decided > to extend the deadline for content submissions to their three International > Internet Public Policy CWG consultations to *10 October 2013.* For more > info, see: http://www.itu.int/en/council/Pages/consultation.aspx **** > > ** ** > > Best,**** > > *Lea Kaspar** *| *GLOBAL PARTNERS* DIGITAL **** > > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT**** > > T +44 (0)20 7549 0337 | M +44 (0)7583 929 216 | Skype: l.kaspar > *gp-digital.org***** > > ** ** > -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nashton at consensus.pro Mon Aug 12 00:54:52 2013 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 22:54:52 -0600 Subject: [bestbits] Programme for Best Bits annual meeting In-Reply-To: <5206F45C.9070100@itforchange.net> References: <36DD99DF-3B81-4184-8F47-D1C6DD9C4451@ciroap.org> <5206F45C.9070100@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <55e79a46-2128-43e6-a602-63631c320b55@email.android.com> For what it is worth: ITU activities and the WSIS+10 review are actually separate things - and the WSIS+10 Review is a bigger thing by far than the ITU's activities, as WSIS is UN-system-wide and the ITU is just one agency. Given that the WSIS+10 review and the MDG review both take place in 2015, there's an obvious opportunity. parminder wrote: > >Thanks to the steering committee for this great start.... > >I havent much to say about day 1. Maybe a few things, but that later... > >Abut day 2 > >I think we would do well if we try not to look very ITU centric ( and I > >can assure, we do)... Last year was different with the WCIT in the >offing, but this year I dont see why a session should focus on ITU. > >As to saying that Snowden or NSA revelations can become a sub item of >this ITU discussion, quite the opposite is what I think would be in >order.. > >Lets be honest, and do justice to the people of the world in whose name > >we assemble, work and expend monies.... Internet governance to the >world >right now is completely focussed on the Snowden affair. Not only among >the laity, but even the politically well informed and articulate. > >It is bad enough that the IGF wont largely be about NSA revelations >(even to the extent that Kenya IGF was about the India's CIRP proposal) > >although I will be happy to be pleasantly surprised. But I cant see how > >a civil society meeting can afford to be not about it. This is my basic > >proposition.. > >I think we need to have a session on something very roughly like the >'The global Internet after Snowden - What will balkanise the Internet >and what can keep it sufficiently global' - and if possible come out >with a statement about it. > >At the time of formation of BB, we had promised ourselves a positive >agenda , and flogging ITU over a day once again is not what I think >takes us towards that. (Disclaimer: I have long held that the ITU is >not >the right place for most global IG work.) > >People are interested to know in which directions would post Snowden >global Internet go. And we should discuss this. > >Lets cut the chaff and go directly to what is/ are the issue(s) of >global governance of the Internet today. For instance - what are the >global ethics, norms, principles and legal frameworks for trans-border >flow of data, information and digital services? Who should develop ( >ensure their compliance) and how? > >And wh- at is the meaning of ownership of our digital lives, and how >statist and corporatist controls play with such rightful ownership. > >That is what people right now most want to know... Do we have anything >to say to them, and perhaps say on the behalf of them? > >parminder > > > > >On Saturday 10 August 2013 09:06 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> Since the good news that the 2013 IGF will be going ahead after all, >> it's time to revise and finalise the programme for our annual meeting > >> in Bali. The interim steering group has been talking about this, and > >> here was their suggestion for topics (the descriptions are mine >though): >> >> *Day 1* >> >> 1) Best Bits itself: goals, structure, processes, fundraising, >> interactions with other groups, etc. The interim steering group is >> working on a documents with our brainstorming about all this, which >we >> will share soon. The purpose of this session is to reach a consensus > >> that we are heading in the right direction (or not), and to provide a > >> mandate to carry out proposals that will help us grow and become >> stronger and more sustainable. >> >> 2) Global Internet governance principles and Enhanced Cooperation. >As >> you know, there are groups at the IGF MAG and the CSTD discussing >> these issues, but until now there has been no strong unified civil >> society position about the evolution of Internet governance >> arrangements, and this equivocation has played into the wrong hands. >> We have been largely split between groups that are averse to any >> changes, and those with proposals for changes that are seen as >> radical. The purpose of this session (as I see it, anyway) is to get > >> together behind a shared position that can become a solid base for >> advocacy. We already have a working group arguing over these issues >> (in a good way), which will report back to this main list soon. >> >> *Day 2* >> >> 3) The ITU processes, up to the ITU Plenipotentiary in 2014 and the >> WSIS+10 review. What is coming up? What is our long term strategy? >> Have we responded adequately to the ITU's most recent refusal to >open >> up the Council Working Group on Internet Policy to stakeholders? If >> we still don't see change at the Plenipotentiary, what then - do we >> disengage? >> >> 4) The NSA surveillance issue may become a sub-item of the ITU >> discussion, given that there are countries that may bring this debate > >> to the ITU. But it will also include an update on the Human Rights >> Council, stateside developments, how this has altered the Internet >> governance landscape in the long term, and general strategy going >forward. >> >> There's also a lot of other work to be done between now and then, >> including work on the website (so that you can actually register for >> the meeting!) and on fundraising (to help pay for it). I'll be >> posting more about that very soon. >> >> Meanwhile your comments are invited on the programme... >> >> -- >> >> *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 >> >> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement >knowledge >> hub | >http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org >> | >> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice >> . Don't >> print this email unless necessary. >> - Sent from my handheld thingie; please forgive linguistic mangling and brevity. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Mon Aug 12 11:12:04 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 12:12:04 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Call for comments/signatures: Draft Statement on Rejection of Proposal to Open CWG- Internet Message-ID: Dear people, As you may know, the ITU Council has rejected proposals to open participation in the Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet). That happened in disregard of our previous request, of contributions from some Member States and of a statement from the Secretary General at the closing session of WTPF, where we called for adopting an IEG model of participation within other meetings of the organization. The CWG-Internet is a particularly relevant WG, as the Brazilian proposal on the role of States shall be discussed. Also a very important topic in a context where "Snowden conjecture" seams to be causing reactions for a State centric internet governance (at least that's my perception). Therefore, Deborah, Matthew, Gene, Carolina and I have drafted a response to submit to ITU. Please, find it bellow, just like the link for the editable pad: https://pad.riseup.net/p/CWG-Internet Your comments are more then welcome. *The plan is to leave it open until next Monday, 19th.* Hope you find it useful. All the best Joana -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon ---- DRAFT Statement on Rejection of Proposal to Open CWG- Internet We, the undersigned members of civil society, regret that at its June 2013 session, the ITU Council rejected proposals to open participation in the Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet) to other stakeholders, including civil society. Members of civil society submitted a proposal, endorsed by 41 organizations and individuals from all geographic regions, that would have made possible civil society participation in CWG-Internet based on an improved Informal Experts Group (IEG) model, which enabled non-ITU members to contribute to WTPF-13 At a minimum, it was expected that the ITU Council would embrace the IEG model, which, though imperfect, introduced a degree of multistakeholder participation in the ITU’s work, and as such was recognized by participants in the WTPF as improving the quality of the meeting’s outcome. Indeed Secretary-General Touré called for adopting an IEG model of participation in CWG-Internet’s work as did the contributions from Polandand the United States . The ITU Council’s rejection of these calls for greater openness marks a significant and disappointing step backward. The aforementioned proposal outlined reasonable and achievable steps to improve multistakeholder participation at CWG-Internet, based on the IEG model. Specifically, it recommended: - Outlining clear procedures for inviting stakeholders to Council Working Groups, at least 90 days prior to the relevant meeting dates. - Issuing clear procedures for all stakeholders to submit official documents for consideration. - Establishing mechanisms for remote participation, allowing not only remote participants to follow the debate, but also to request the floor. We viewed the relative success of the IEG model as a signal that the ITU was committed to the multistakeholder framework of internet governance as established by the Tunis Agenda. We view its rejection of this model for CWG-Internet as a sign that it is not. While the Secretary-General has indicated that he will “carry out or facilitate informal consultations with stakeholders...and [to bring] the essence of these discussions to the Council Working Group on this issue for information” any such informal consultations should not be equated with multistakeholder participation. We also take this opportunity to renew our call for the ITU to continue to coordinate its with that of relevant multistakeholder Internet governance bodies, taking advantage of those bodies’ expertise and not attempting to duplicate their functions. These bodies include those devoted to technical issues (such as ICANN, the IETF and the RIRs) and those dealing primarily with non-technical issues (such as the Internet Governance Forum). * * ** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anriette at apc.org Mon Aug 12 12:20:42 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 18:20:42 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Call for comments/signatures: Draft Statement on Rejection of Proposal to Open CWG- Internet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52090B5A.2020502@apc.org> Dear Joana and all I like this and am pretty sure APC will support, but I will run it by members and staff. I am not entirely sure this last paragraph is necessary. I think to some extent it detracts from the main message in the letter which is about opening the CWG. "We also take this opportunity to renew our call for the ITU to continue to coordinate itseffortswith that of relevant /multistakeholder/Internet governance bodies, taking advantage of those bodies’ expertise and not attempting to duplicate their functions. These bodies include those devoted to technical issues (such as ICANN, the IETF and the RIRs) and those dealing primarily with non-technical issues (such as the Internet Governance Forum)." Anriette On 12/08/2013 17:12, Joana Varon wrote: > Dear people, > > As you may know, the ITU Council has rejected proposals to open > participation in the Council Working Group on International > Internet-Related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet). > > That happened in disregard of our previous > request, > of contributions from some Member States > > and > of a statement from the Secretary General at the closing session of WTPF, > where we called for adopting an IEG model of participation within other > meetings of the organization. > > The CWG-Internet is a particularly relevant WG, as the Brazilian proposal > on the role of States shall be discussed. Also a very important topic in a > context where "Snowden conjecture" seams to be causing reactions for a > State centric internet governance (at least that's my perception). > > Therefore, Deborah, Matthew, Gene, Carolina and I have drafted a response > to submit to ITU. Please, find it bellow, just like the link for the > editable pad: > > https://pad.riseup.net/p/CWG-Internet > > Your comments are more then welcome. *The plan is to leave it open until > next Monday, 19th.* Hope you find it useful. > > All the best > > Joana > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Aug 13 04:47:25 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 16:47:25 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Nominees to High Level meeting in Bali on "Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles" Message-ID: <5209F29D.2050406@ciroap.org> As some of you may know from other lists, the Indonesian government is preparing a High Level Meeting ahead of the Bali IGF, on the topic "Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles". Whilst we don't have a lot of information about it, "Cyber Ethics" is usually a reference to user responsibilities, which is used as a counterbalance to demands for user rights. Therefore it is important that civil society voices are represented there. Whilst the claim was initially made that civil society would be represented through nominees put forward by the International Chamber of Commerce (!), this thankfully turned out to be untrue, and so we now have an opportunity to put forward some names. As we as Best Bits don't yet have an agreed procedure for doing this, we will just be facilitating the process for anyone who would like to contribute their name for consideration by the organisers - but you will be representing your own organisation or yourself. So far the following have agreed to be put forward: * Shahzad Ahmad from Bytes for All, Pakistan * Joana Varon Ferraz, Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS/FGV), Brazil * Anja Kovacs, Internet Democracy Project, India * Sana Saleem from Bolobhi, Pakistan * Matthew Shears, Center for Democracy and Technology, USA If you have an active interest on this topic and would also like to be included in the slate of nominees, please let us know so that we can make sure you are included. Note that there is no guarantee as to who will be chosen, nor do we know the criteria that will be used, or exactly the capacity in which you will participate in the event. -- *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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 261 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Aug 13 04:54:38 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 16:54:38 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Programme for Best Bits annual meeting In-Reply-To: <5206F45C.9070100@itforchange.net> References: <36DD99DF-3B81-4184-8F47-D1C6DD9C4451@ciroap.org> <5206F45C.9070100@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5209F44E.7070106@ciroap.org> Thanks for the good suggestions, including a couple that have come off-list. To respond to a couple of those, it was suggested that we could have parallel sessions. This was how we originally had last year's draft programme too, but it turned out not to be manageable because some people strongly wanted to contribute to both streams. So I feel that although it's an easy solution, it's perhaps not the best one. The other question is whether ITU be featured or whether it be part of a broader treatment of the WSIS+10 review process, and that surveillance should become more of a headline topic. As the latest mail from Joana indicates, there are still issues for us to address at the ITU so I don't think that removing it from the agenda is necessary, nor that this has been suggested. So I think that the comments can be taken on board by moving surveillance into the prime time slot (morning of the second day), and broadening the topic of the ITU session to include the WSIS+10 review process and civil society's participation in that. For example, the supposed Multistakeholder Preparatory Platform (MPP) for WSIS+10 has been anything but, so far. Can we proceed along those lines? The other question is, are there any outputs that we want to produce from these two sessions? From the first day's session we have some pretty clear deliverables to work on (even though there is much work yet to do towards them), but what about the surveillance and ITU/WSIS+10 sessions? -- *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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 261 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From mshears at cdt.org Tue Aug 13 05:21:00 2013 From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 10:21:00 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Programme for Best Bits annual meeting In-Reply-To: <5209F44E.7070106@ciroap.org> References: <36DD99DF-3B81-4184-8F47-D1C6DD9C4451@ciroap.org> <5206F45C.9070100@itforchange.net> <5209F44E.7070106@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <5209FA7C.1040200@cdt.org> Jeremy, all Many thanks for this and organizing the meeting. Unless I've missed it in the mail trail, I would like to suggest an additional output of the Bestbits meeting and that would be a statement to the IGF, MAG, UNDESA, etc., that could be released on the second day of Bestbits about the imperative of addressing funding consistency and transparency and other issues related to the future of the IGF. I agree that the the ITU and WSIS+10 should be a combined session. Certainly CDT has been fully engaged on ITU matters over the past 12 months+ but it is now time to step back and assess where we collectively are vis-a-vis the entirety of the governance/WSIS space. We have been thwarted on some fronts and had successes on others but it is time perhaps to think more strategically about how we promote multistakeholderism/governance without using up our limited resources through attrition. There is a trajectory through WTDC/WSIS HLM and Plenipot, and we should consider where and how we can engage most effectively and efficiently. Matthew On 13/08/2013 09:54, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Thanks for the good suggestions, including a couple that have come > off-list. > > To respond to a couple of those, it was suggested that we could have > parallel sessions. This was how we originally had last year's draft > programme too, but it turned out not to be manageable because some > people strongly wanted to contribute to both streams. So I feel that > although it's an easy solution, it's perhaps not the best one. > > The other question is whether ITU be featured or whether it be part of > a broader treatment of the WSIS+10 review process, and that > surveillance should become more of a headline topic. As the latest > mail from Joana indicates, there are still issues for us to address at > the ITU so I don't think that removing it from the agenda is > necessary, nor that this has been suggested. > > So I think that the comments can be taken on board by moving > surveillance into the prime time slot (morning of the second day), and > broadening the topic of the ITU session to include the WSIS+10 review > process and civil society's participation in that. For example, the > supposed Multistakeholder Preparatory Platform (MPP) for WSIS+10 has > been anything but, so far. > > Can we proceed along those lines? The other question is, are there > any outputs that we want to produce from these two sessions? From the > first day's session we have some pretty clear deliverables to work on > (even though there is much work yet to do towards them), but what > about the surveillance and ITU/WSIS+10 sessions? > > -- > > *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 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge > hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > -- Matthew Shears Director and Representative Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) mshears at cdt.org +44 (0) 771 247 2987 Skype: mshears -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Aug 13 05:27:17 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 17:27:17 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Programme for Best Bits annual meeting In-Reply-To: <5209FA7C.1040200@cdt.org> References: <36DD99DF-3B81-4184-8F47-D1C6DD9C4451@ciroap.org> <5206F45C.9070100@itforchange.net> <5209F44E.7070106@ciroap.org> <5209FA7C.1040200@cdt.org> Message-ID: <5209FBF5.3020709@ciroap.org> On 13/08/13 17:21, matthew shears wrote: > Unless I've missed it in the mail trail, I would like to suggest an > additional output of the Bestbits meeting and that would be a > statement to the IGF, MAG, UNDESA, etc., that could be released on the > second day of Bestbits about the imperative of addressing funding > consistency and transparency and other issues related to the future of > the IGF. Yes, important topics. We could include this as a sub-theme and deliverable for "Enhanced Cooperation" on day 1, with preparatory drafting beforehand. Thanks Matthew. -- *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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 261 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Aug 13 09:54:22 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 09:54:22 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Programme for Best Bits annual meeting In-Reply-To: <5209FBF5.3020709@ciroap.org> References: <36DD99DF-3B81-4184-8F47-D1C6DD9C4451@ciroap.org> <5206F45C.9070100@itforchange.net> <5209F44E.7070106@ciroap.org> <5209FA7C.1040200@cdt.org> <5209FBF5.3020709@ciroap.org> Message-ID: +1 great idea Sent from my iPhone On Aug 13, 2013, at 5:27 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 13/08/13 17:21, matthew shears wrote: >> Unless I've missed it in the mail trail, I would like to suggest an additional output of the Bestbits meeting and that would be a statement to the IGF, MAG, UNDESA, etc., that could be released on the second day of Bestbits about the imperative of addressing funding consistency and transparency and other issues related to the future of the IGF. > > Yes, important topics. We could include this as a sub-theme and deliverable for "Enhanced Cooperation" on day 1, with preparatory drafting beforehand. > > Thanks Matthew. > > -- > 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 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From william.drake at uzh.ch Tue Aug 13 10:05:56 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 10:05:56 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Programme for Best Bits annual meeting In-Reply-To: <5209FA7C.1040200@cdt.org> References: <36DD99DF-3B81-4184-8F47-D1C6DD9C4451@ciroap.org> <5206F45C.9070100@itforchange.net> <5209F44E.7070106@ciroap.org> <5209FA7C.1040200@cdt.org> Message-ID: +1 On Aug 13, 2013, at 5:21 AM, matthew shears wrote: > I agree that the the ITU and WSIS+10 should be a combined session. Certainly CDT has been fully engaged on ITU matters over the past 12 months+ but it is now time to step back and assess where we collectively are vis-a-vis the entirety of the governance/WSIS space. We have been thwarted on some fronts and had successes on others but it is time perhaps to think more strategically about how we promote multistakeholderism/governance without using up our limited resources through attrition. There is a trajectory through WTDC/WSIS HLM and Plenipot, and we should consider where and how we can engage most effectively and efficiently. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anne at webfoundation.org Tue Aug 13 10:16:18 2013 From: anne at webfoundation.org (Anne Jellema) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 16:16:18 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Programme for Best Bits annual meeting In-Reply-To: <5206F45C.9070100@itforchange.net> References: <36DD99DF-3B81-4184-8F47-D1C6DD9C4451@ciroap.org> <5206F45C.9070100@itforchange.net> Message-ID: This is great, Parminder. I leave it to others to comment on whether it should be the sole focus of CSO discussions at Bali, or one strand among others - but it is definitely something that Best Bits and Web We Want could plan together, as it's an excellent fit with the Web We Want mission of consolidating and promoting a positive vision for the future of the open Web. Beyond coming out with a statement ... even better would be coming out with an action plan! cheers Anne On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 4:18 AM, parminder wrote: > > Thanks to the steering committee for this great start.... > > I havent much to say about day 1. Maybe a few things, but that later... > > Abut day 2 > > I think we would do well if we try not to look very ITU centric ( and I > can assure, we do)... Last year was different with the WCIT in the offing, > but this year I dont see why a session should focus on ITU. > > As to saying that Snowden or NSA revelations can become a sub item of this > ITU discussion, quite the opposite is what I think would be in order.. > > Lets be honest, and do justice to the people of the world in whose name we > assemble, work and expend monies.... Internet governance to the world right > now is completely focussed on the Snowden affair. Not only among the laity, > but even the politically well informed and articulate. > > It is bad enough that the IGF wont largely be about NSA revelations (even > to the extent that Kenya IGF was about the India's CIRP proposal) although > I will be happy to be pleasantly surprised. But I cant see how a civil > society meeting can afford to be not about it. This is my basic > proposition.. > > I think we need to have a session on something very roughly like the 'The > global Internet after Snowden - What will balkanise the Internet and what > can keep it sufficiently global' - and if possible come out with a > statement about it. > > At the time of formation of BB, we had promised ourselves a positive > agenda , and flogging ITU over a day once again is not what I think takes > us towards that. (Disclaimer: I have long held that the ITU is not the > right place for most global IG work.) > > People are interested to know in which directions would post Snowden > global Internet go. And we should discuss this. > > Lets cut the chaff and go directly to what is/ are the issue(s) of global > governance of the Internet today. For instance - what are the global > ethics, norms, principles and legal frameworks for trans-border flow of > data, information and digital services? Who should develop ( ensure their > compliance) and how? > > And wh- at is the meaning of ownership of our digital lives, and how > statist and corporatist controls play with such rightful ownership. > > That is what people right now most want to know... Do we have anything to > say to them, and perhaps say on the behalf of them? > > parminder > > > > > On Saturday 10 August 2013 09:06 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > Since the good news that the 2013 IGF will be going ahead after all, it's > time to revise and finalise the programme for our annual meeting in Bali. > The interim steering group has been talking about this, and here was their > suggestion for topics (the descriptions are mine though): > > *Day 1* > > 1) Best Bits itself: goals, structure, processes, fundraising, > interactions with other groups, etc. The interim steering group is working > on a documents with our brainstorming about all this, which we will share > soon. The purpose of this session is to reach a consensus that we are > heading in the right direction (or not), and to provide a mandate to carry > out proposals that will help us grow and become stronger and more > sustainable. > > 2) Global Internet governance principles and Enhanced Cooperation. As > you know, there are groups at the IGF MAG and the CSTD discussing these > issues, but until now there has been no strong unified civil society > position about the evolution of Internet governance arrangements, and this > equivocation has played into the wrong hands. We have been largely split > between groups that are averse to any changes, and those with proposals for > changes that are seen as radical. The purpose of this session (as I see > it, anyway) is to get together behind a shared position that can become a > solid base for advocacy. We already have a working group arguing over > these issues (in a good way), which will report back to this main list soon. > > *Day 2* > > 3) The ITU processes, up to the ITU Plenipotentiary in 2014 and the > WSIS+10 review. What is coming up? What is our long term strategy? Have > we responded adequately to the ITU's most recent refusal to open up the > Council Working Group on Internet Policy to stakeholders? If we still > don't see change at the Plenipotentiary, what then - do we disengage? > > 4) The NSA surveillance issue may become a sub-item of the ITU discussion, > given that there are countries that may bring this debate to the ITU. But > it will also include an update on the Human Rights Council, stateside > developments, how this has altered the Internet governance landscape in the > long term, and general strategy going forward. > > There's also a lot of other work to be done between now and then, > including work on the website (so that you can actually register for the > meeting!) and on fundraising (to help pay for it). I'll be posting more > about that very soon. > > Meanwhile your comments are invited on the programme... > > -- > > *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 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub > | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > -- Anne Jellema Chief Executive Officer Cape Town, RSA mob +27 61 036 9652 tel +27 21 788 4585 Skype anne.jellema @afjellema World Wide Web Foundation | 1889 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mshears at cdt.org Thu Aug 1 04:56:26 2013 From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears) Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 09:56:26 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Last day for sign-ons to the letter on NSA surveillance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51FA22BA.8080405@cdt.org> Dear all Today, Thursday, is the last day for sign-ons to the letter to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board on the NSA's surveillance programs. This is an important opportunity for global civil society to voice its concerns on the NSA's programs and their inconsistency with international human rights. The letter is on the Best Bits website here: http://bestbits.net/pclob/ Please share this sign-on opportunity with your civil society partners, and do consider communicating this initiative to media and government contacts. /*Please note that when you endorse the letter on the Best Bits website, you will receive a confirmation email, which may land in your spam box. You must click on the link in that email, before your endorsement displays on the site./ Many thanks. Matthew -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew at gp-digital.org Tue Aug 13 10:59:18 2013 From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 15:59:18 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Nominees to High Level meeting in Bali on "Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles" In-Reply-To: <5209F29D.2050406@ciroap.org> Message-ID: I'm happy with this group Andrew Puddephatt, Director Global Partners Digital Development House, 56-64 Leonard St, EC2A 4LT, UK Office 44 (0)207 549 0350 Mobile: +44 (0)771 339 9597 andrew at gp-digital.org www.global-partners.co.uk From: Jeremy Malcolm > Date: Tuesday, 13 August 2013 09:47 To: "" > Subject: [bestbits] Nominees to High Level meeting in Bali on "Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles" As some of you may know from other lists, the Indonesian government is preparing a High Level Meeting ahead of the Bali IGF, on the topic "Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles". Whilst we don't have a lot of information about it, "Cyber Ethics" is usually a reference to user responsibilities, which is used as a counterbalance to demands for user rights. Therefore it is important that civil society voices are represented there. Whilst the claim was initially made that civil society would be represented through nominees put forward by the International Chamber of Commerce (!), this thankfully turned out to be untrue, and so we now have an opportunity to put forward some names. As we as Best Bits don't yet have an agreed procedure for doing this, we will just be facilitating the process for anyone who would like to contribute their name for consideration by the organisers - but you will be representing your own organisation or yourself. So far the following have agreed to be put forward: * Shahzad Ahmad from Bytes for All, Pakistan * Joana Varon Ferraz, Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS/FGV), Brazil * Anja Kovacs, Internet Democracy Project, India * Sana Saleem from Bolobhi, Pakistan * Matthew Shears, Center for Democracy and Technology, USA If you have an active interest on this topic and would also like to be included in the slate of nominees, please let us know so that we can make sure you are included. Note that there is no guarantee as to who will be chosen, nor do we know the criteria that will be used, or exactly the capacity in which you will participate in the event. -- 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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nnenna75 at gmail.com Tue Aug 13 11:30:19 2013 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 15:30:19 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Nominees to High Level meeting in Bali on "Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles" In-Reply-To: References: <5209F29D.2050406@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Hi people Have we heard from MAG members who contacted the Indonesian organisers as yet? I am interested, in my personal capacity, and if need be to add an institutional stamp, then I will say Africa IGF. Cheers Nnenna On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > I'm happy with this group > > *Andrew Puddephatt, Director** Global Partners Digital ***** > > *Development House, 56-64 Leonard St, EC2A 4LT, UK*** > > *Office **44 (0)207 549 0350*** > > *Mobile: +44 (0)771 339 9597*** > > *andrew at g p-digital.org** > www.global-partners.co.uk***** > ** > > > From: Jeremy Malcolm > Date: Tuesday, 13 August 2013 09:47 > To: "" > Subject: [bestbits] Nominees to High Level meeting in Bali on "Global > Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles" > > As some of you may know from other lists, the Indonesian government is > preparing a High Level Meeting ahead of the Bali IGF, on the topic "Global > Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles". Whilst we don't have a lot of > information about it, "Cyber Ethics" is usually a reference to user > responsibilities, which is used as a counterbalance to demands for user > rights. > > Therefore it is important that civil society voices are represented > there. Whilst the claim was initially made that civil society would be > represented through nominees put forward by the International Chamber of > Commerce (!), this thankfully turned out to be untrue, and so we now have > an opportunity to put forward some names. > > As we as Best Bits don't yet have an agreed procedure for doing this, we > will just be facilitating the process for anyone who would like to > contribute their name for consideration by the organisers - but you will be > representing your own organisation or yourself. So far the following have > agreed to be put forward: > > - Shahzad Ahmad from Bytes for All, Pakistan > - Joana Varon Ferraz, Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS/FGV), > Brazil > - Anja Kovacs, Internet Democracy Project, India > - Sana Saleem from Bolobhi, Pakistan > - Matthew Shears, Center for Democracy and Technology, USA > > If you have an active interest on this topic and would also like to be > included in the slate of nominees, please let us know so that we can make > sure you are included. Note that there is no guarantee as to who will be > chosen, nor do we know the criteria that will be used, or exactly the > capacity in which you will participate in the event. > > -- > > *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 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub > | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Aug 13 11:31:45 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 12:31:45 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Nominees to High Level meeting in Bali on "Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <520A5161.9030105@cafonso.ca> +1 --c.a. On 08/13/2013 11:59 AM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > I'm happy with this group > Andrew Puddephatt, Director Global Partners Digital > Development House, 56-64 Leonard St, EC2A 4LT, UK > Office 44 (0)207 549 0350 > Mobile: +44 (0)771 339 9597 > andrew at gp-digital.org www.global-partners.co.uk > > From: Jeremy Malcolm > > Date: Tuesday, 13 August 2013 09:47 > To: "" > > Subject: [bestbits] Nominees to High Level meeting in Bali on "Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles" > > As some of you may know from other lists, the Indonesian government is preparing a High Level Meeting ahead of the Bali IGF, on the topic "Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles". Whilst we don't have a lot of information about it, "Cyber Ethics" is usually a reference to user responsibilities, which is used as a counterbalance to demands for user rights. > > Therefore it is important that civil society voices are represented there. Whilst the claim was initially made that civil society would be represented through nominees put forward by the International Chamber of Commerce (!), this thankfully turned out to be untrue, and so we now have an opportunity to put forward some names. > > As we as Best Bits don't yet have an agreed procedure for doing this, we will just be facilitating the process for anyone who would like to contribute their name for consideration by the organisers - but you will be representing your own organisation or yourself. So far the following have agreed to be put forward: > > * Shahzad Ahmad from Bytes for All, Pakistan > * Joana Varon Ferraz, Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS/FGV), Brazil > * Anja Kovacs, Internet Democracy Project, India > * Sana Saleem from Bolobhi, Pakistan > * Matthew Shears, Center for Democracy and Technology, USA > > If you have an active interest on this topic and would also like to be included in the slate of nominees, please let us know so that we can make sure you are included. Note that there is no guarantee as to who will be chosen, nor do we know the criteria that will be used, or exactly the capacity in which you will participate in the event. > > -- > > 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 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > From valeriab at apc.org Tue Aug 13 12:12:38 2013 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 11:12:38 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Nominees to High Level meeting in Bali on "Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles" In-Reply-To: <520A5161.9030105@cafonso.ca> References: <520A5161.9030105@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <1EBD8B3C-5200-4D49-AE6D-64B8D2AF77CA@apc.org> Sorry to jump in late to the exchange. From the APC, we would like to suggest adding Joy Liddicoat and Nnenna Nwakanma. We are happy with the other suggestions so far. Valeria On 13/08/2013, at 10:31, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > +1 > > --c.a. > > On 08/13/2013 11:59 AM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: >> I'm happy with this group >> Andrew Puddephatt, Director Global Partners Digital >> Development House, 56-64 Leonard St, EC2A 4LT, UK >> Office 44 (0)207 549 0350 >> Mobile: +44 (0)771 339 9597 >> andrew at gp- >> digital.org www.global-partners.co.uk> > >> >> From: Jeremy Malcolm > >> Date: Tuesday, 13 August 2013 09:47 >> To: "" > >> >> Subject: [bestbits] Nominees to High Level meeting in Bali on >> "Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles" >> >> As some of you may know from other lists, the Indonesian government >> is preparing a High Level Meeting ahead of the Bali IGF, on the >> topic "Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles". Whilst >> we don't have a lot of information about it, "Cyber Ethics" is >> usually a reference to user responsibilities, which is used as a >> counterbalance to demands for user rights. >> >> Therefore it is important that civil society voices are represented >> there. Whilst the claim was initially made that civil society >> would be represented through nominees put forward by the >> International Chamber of Commerce (!), this thankfully turned out >> to be untrue, and so we now have an opportunity to put forward some >> names. >> >> As we as Best Bits don't yet have an agreed procedure for doing >> this, we will just be facilitating the process for anyone who would >> like to contribute their name for consideration by the organisers - >> but you will be representing your own organisation or yourself. So >> far the following have agreed to be put forward: >> >> * Shahzad Ahmad from Bytes for All, Pakistan >> * Joana Varon Ferraz, Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS/FGV), >> Brazil >> * Anja Kovacs, Internet Democracy Project, India >> * Sana Saleem from Bolobhi, Pakistan >> * Matthew Shears, Center for Democracy and Technology, USA >> >> If you have an active interest on this topic and would also like to >> be included in the slate of nominees, please let us know so that we >> can make sure you are included. Note that there is no guarantee as >> to who will be chosen, nor do we know the criteria that will be >> used, or exactly the capacity in which you will participate in the >> event. >> >> -- >> >> 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 >> >> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement >> knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org> > | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational> > >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice> >. Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly >> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For >> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >> > ------------- Valeria Betancourt Directora / Manager Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and Information Policy Programme Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for Progressive Communications, APC http://www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From genekimmelman at gmail.com Tue Aug 13 12:15:07 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 12:15:07 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Nominees to High Level meeting in Bali on "Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles" In-Reply-To: <1EBD8B3C-5200-4D49-AE6D-64B8D2AF77CA@apc.org> References: <520A5161.9030105@cafonso.ca> <1EBD8B3C-5200-4D49-AE6D-64B8D2AF77CA@apc.org> Message-ID: Great suggestions! On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Valeria Betancourt wrote: > Sorry to jump in late to the exchange. From the APC, we would like to > suggest adding Joy Liddicoat and Nnenna Nwakanma. We are happy with the > other suggestions so far. > > Valeria > > On 13/08/2013, at 10:31, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > +1 > > --c.a. > > On 08/13/2013 11:59 AM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > > I'm happy with this group > > Andrew Puddephatt, Director Global Partners Digital > > Development House, 56-64 Leonard St, EC2A 4LT, UK > > Office 44 (0)207 549 0350 > > Mobile: +44 (0)771 339 9597 > > andrew at gp-digital.org > www.global-partners.co.uk > > > From: Jeremy Malcolm > >> > > Date: Tuesday, 13 August 2013 09:47 > > To: "" mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> > > Subject: [bestbits] Nominees to High Level meeting in Bali on "Global > Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles" > > > As some of you may know from other lists, the Indonesian government is > preparing a High Level Meeting ahead of the Bali IGF, on the topic "Global > Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles". Whilst we don't have a lot of > information about it, "Cyber Ethics" is usually a reference to user > responsibilities, which is used as a counterbalance to demands for user > rights. > > > Therefore it is important that civil society voices are represented there. > Whilst the claim was initially made that civil society would be > represented through nominees put forward by the International Chamber of > Commerce (!), this thankfully turned out to be untrue, and so we now have > an opportunity to put forward some names. > > > As we as Best Bits don't yet have an agreed procedure for doing this, we > will just be facilitating the process for anyone who would like to > contribute their name for consideration by the organisers - but you will be > representing your own organisation or yourself. So far the following have > agreed to be put forward: > > > * Shahzad Ahmad from Bytes for All, Pakistan > > * Joana Varon Ferraz, Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS/FGV), Brazil > > * Anja Kovacs, Internet Democracy Project, India > > * Sana Saleem from Bolobhi, Pakistan > > * Matthew Shears, Center for Democracy and Technology, USA > > > If you have an active interest on this topic and would also like to be > included in the slate of nominees, please let us know so that we can make > sure you are included. Note that there is no guarantee as to who will be > chosen, nor do we know the criteria that will be used, or exactly the > capacity in which you will participate in the event. > > > -- > > > 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 > > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub > | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > > @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. > > > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended > to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see > http://jere.my/l/8m. > > > > > ------------- > Valeria Betancourt > Directora / Manager > Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and > Information Policy Programme > Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for > Progressive Communications, APC > http://www.apc.org > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nb at bollow.ch Tue Aug 13 12:35:14 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 18:35:14 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Nominees to High Level meeting in Bali on "Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles" In-Reply-To: <5209F29D.2050406@ciroap.org> References: <5209F29D.2050406@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <20130813183514.0d8c8b97@quill> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > As some of you may know from other lists, the Indonesian government is > preparing a High Level Meeting ahead of the Bali IGF, on the topic > "Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles". Whilst we don't > have a lot of information about it, "Cyber Ethics" is usually a > reference to user responsibilities, which is used as a counterbalance > to demands for user rights. [..] > If you have an active interest on this topic and would also like to be > included in the slate of nominees, please let us know so that we can > make sure you are included. I have an active interest in the topic and would like to be included. I also think that we should set up a credible process for selecting civil society nominees for such events. While no civil society organization or network can credibly claim to be representative of civil society in its entirety, it IMO is not a good solution when various organizations and networks each submit a slate of nominees and then saddle the organizers with the problem of consolidating the lists. How about setting up a joint NomCom by inviting members of all the various civil society organizations and networks to volunteer for the NomCom, randomly selecting a reasonably sized group from among these volunteers to form the NomCom, and then tasking this NomCom with publishing a call for expressions of interest and selecting a good civil society delegation (the NomCom members themselves being not eligible)? Greetings, Norbert From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Aug 13 12:38:37 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 00:38:37 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Nominees to High Level meeting in Bali on "Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles" In-Reply-To: <20130813183514.0d8c8b97@quill> References: <5209F29D.2050406@ciroap.org> <20130813183514.0d8c8b97@quill> Message-ID: <6ACCFAD3-3FB9-416B-99FB-4772DDB4E71F@ciroap.org> On 14/08/2013, at 12:35 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > I also think that we should set up a credible process for selecting > civil society nominees for such events. We will have one, but it is not in place yet. > How about setting up a joint NomCom by inviting members of all the > various civil society organizations and networks to volunteer for the > NomCom, randomly selecting a reasonably sized group from among these > volunteers to form the NomCom, and then tasking this NomCom with > publishing a call for expressions of interest and selecting a good > civil society delegation (the NomCom members themselves being not > eligible)? It is a very good plan for the future, but not something that could be accomplished easily in two weeks. -- 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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. From nb at bollow.ch Tue Aug 13 12:44:48 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 18:44:48 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Nominees to High Level meeting in Bali on "Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles" In-Reply-To: <6ACCFAD3-3FB9-416B-99FB-4772DDB4E71F@ciroap.org> References: <5209F29D.2050406@ciroap.org> <20130813183514.0d8c8b97@quill> <6ACCFAD3-3FB9-416B-99FB-4772DDB4E71F@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <20130813184448.5983a1be@quill> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > How about setting up a joint NomCom by inviting members of all the > > various civil society organizations and networks to volunteer for > > the NomCom, randomly selecting a reasonably sized group from among > > these volunteers to form the NomCom, and then tasking this NomCom > > with publishing a call for expressions of interest and selecting a > > good civil society delegation (the NomCom members themselves being > > not eligible)? > > It is a very good plan for the future, but not something that could > be accomplished easily in two weeks. Where does that “two weeks” timeline come from? Greetings, Norbert From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Aug 13 23:17:44 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 11:17:44 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Nominees to High Level meeting in Bali on "Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles" In-Reply-To: <20130813184448.5983a1be@quill> References: <5209F29D.2050406@ciroap.org> <20130813183514.0d8c8b97@quill> <6ACCFAD3-3FB9-416B-99FB-4772DDB4E71F@ciroap.org> <20130813184448.5983a1be@quill> Message-ID: <520AF6D8.50709@ciroap.org> On 14/08/13 00:44, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> How about setting up a joint NomCom by inviting members of all the >>> various civil society organizations and networks to volunteer for >>> the NomCom... >> It is a very good plan for the future, but not something that could >> be accomplished easily in two weeks. > Where does that “two weeks” timeline come from? Actually you're quite right, I'm mixing up the deadline for the CSTD enhanced cooperation questionnaire (which is in two weeks) with the (yet unspecified, but Izumi is finding out) deadline for nominating panelists to the High Level Meeting. So maybe we have longer, but surely not much longer. Establishing (or re-establishing - we had one in WSIS) a high-level mechanism for civil society groups to jointly nominate candidates for positions is very important, I couldn't agree with you more. But it's also ambitious. Noting that thanks to your leadership the IGC has a workshop relevant to this topic planned for Bali ("MS selection processes: accountability and transparency"), it would be better, I feel, to come up with a proposal and present it at that workshop. I wouldn't want to rush it on account of what is probably a minimally important pre-event in Bali. However, if you disagree then by all means put your idea to the IGC then I can put it to the Best Bits interim steering group and we can reach out to the other relevant groups and networks too. If it were me though, I would rather wait. -- *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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 261 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Aug 14 00:09:06 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 09:39:06 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Nominees to High Level meeting in Bali on "Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles" In-Reply-To: <520AF6D8.50709@ciroap.org> References: <5209F29D.2050406@ciroap.org> <20130813183514.0d8c8b97@quill> <6ACCFAD3-3FB9-416B-99FB-4772DDB4E71F@ciroap.org> <20130813184448.5983a1be@quill> <520AF6D8.50709@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <520B02E2.6050205@itforchange.net> in addition to the below issues, we still do not know what the form of the high level meeting is. Is it a real round table kind of forum where people get an opportunity to wiegh in substantially or just a 'mix and make connections' thing which corporates types may still love to do but not many civil society kinds may to be too eager about. Also, is their any drafting process for the likely statement to come out of the HLM. That is crucial. And, the IGF or non IGF status of the meeting? I had asked for these clarifications on the IGC list from a civil society member of the MAG, and await them. My understanding is that initially is was a kind of a 'formal thing without real substance', which was to attract high level participation from governments, esp ministrial level. Kind of peoople who do not come over just to sit in the audience at the IGF. And when ministers come, their retinue of senior officials also come along, and that was supposed to fill in a (really) missing gap at the IG, especially in terms of governmental participation from developing countires. I will be cautious to see this meeting take a character and big role for itself, which could compromise the relatively participative nature of the IGF. Especially of concern is the declaration that comes from this meeting, which at present is the only real 'consumable' doc coming out the IGF environment. So, maybe civil socity may want to think around these issues as well. parminder On Wednesday 14 August 2013 08:47 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 14/08/13 00:44, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>> How about setting up a joint NomCom by inviting members of all the >>>> various civil society organizations and networks to volunteer for >>>> the NomCom... >>> It is a very good plan for the future, but not something that could >>> be accomplished easily in two weeks. >> Where does that “two weeks” timeline come from? > > Actually you're quite right, I'm mixing up the deadline for the CSTD > enhanced cooperation questionnaire (which is in two weeks) with the > (yet unspecified, but Izumi is finding out) deadline for nominating > panelists to the High Level Meeting. So maybe we have longer, but > surely not much longer. > > Establishing (or re-establishing - we had one in WSIS) a high-level > mechanism for civil society groups to jointly nominate candidates for > positions is very important, I couldn't agree with you more. But it's > also ambitious. > > Noting that thanks to your leadership the IGC has a workshop relevant > to this topic planned for Bali ("MS selection processes: > accountability and transparency"), it would be better, I feel, to come > up with a proposal and present it at that workshop. I wouldn't want > to rush it on account of what is probably a minimally important > pre-event in Bali. > > However, if you disagree then by all means put your idea to the IGC > then I can put it to the Best Bits interim steering group and we can > reach out to the other relevant groups and networks too. If it were me > though, I would rather wait. > > -- > > *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 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge > hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ellanso at cdt.org Thu Aug 1 18:51:16 2013 From: ellanso at cdt.org (Emma Llanso) Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 18:51:16 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] PCLOB deadline extended to September 15th Message-ID: <51FAE664.10104@cdt.org> Hi all, At the last minute, the US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board has extended their deadline for public comment until *September 15th*. This means that I'm going to hold off on submitting the joint letter that many of you have signed on to -- the extended deadline gives us a lot more time to solicit signatories for the letter, prepare a media strategy, and encourage organizations to submit their own comments into the proceeding. I continue to think this comment process represents one of the best opportunities for groups and advocates outside the US to make their opinions heard to the US government on the NSA surveillance programs. Thanks again to all of you who've taken the time to engage on this joint letter, and I hope the extended deadline will give more of you the time to consider commenting! Best, Emma -- Emma J. Llansó Policy Counsel Center for Democracy & Technology 1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006 202-407-8818 | @cendemtech | @ellanso -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Wed Aug 14 01:44:08 2013 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 08:44:08 +0300 Subject: [bestbits] Nominees to High Level meeting in Bali on "Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles" In-Reply-To: <5209F29D.2050406@ciroap.org> References: <5209F29D.2050406@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <20130814054408.GB24804@thorion.it.jyu.fi> On Aug 13 16:47, Jeremy Malcolm (jeremy at ciroap.org) wrote: > the Indonesian government is > preparing a High Level Meeting ahead of the Bali IGF, on the topic > "Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles". [...] > If you have an active interest on this topic and would also like to be > included in the slate of nominees, please let us know so that we can > make sure you are included. I (and Effi) have active interest and I'd like to be included. On Aug 13 18:35, Norbert Bollow (nb at bollow.ch) wrote: > I also think that we should set up a credible process for selecting > civil society nominees for such events. It would be nice, yes. > While no civil society organization or network can credibly claim to be > representative of civil society in its entirety, it IMO is not a good > solution when various organizations and networks each submit a slate of > nominees and then saddle the organizers with the problem of > consolidating the lists. True. In this particular case I expect exactly that will happen, as I don't see how we could get a proper process in place in time. We'll see how it works out. > How about setting up a joint NomCom by inviting members of all the > various civil society organizations and networks to volunteer for the > NomCom Just finding all civil society organizations is hard enough, let alone getting them to agree... we'd need to get this NomCom somehow officially blessed by the IGF or something. But if we can get enough support for it, i.e., sufficiently large number of CS organizations, it could work. -- Tapani Tarvainen From anne at webfoundation.org Wed Aug 14 02:14:07 2013 From: anne at webfoundation.org (Anne Jellema) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 08:14:07 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Call for comments/signatures: Draft Statement on Rejection of Proposal to Open CWG- Internet In-Reply-To: <52090B5A.2020502@apc.org> References: <52090B5A.2020502@apc.org> Message-ID: Happy to add Web Foundation to the list of signatories. Thanks Anne On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear Joana and all > > I like this and am pretty sure APC will support, but I will run it by > members and staff. > > I am not entirely sure this last paragraph is necessary. I think to some > extent it detracts from the main message in the letter which is about > opening the CWG. > > "We also take this opportunity to renew our call for the ITU to continue > to coordinate its efforts with that of relevant *multistakeholder*Internet governance bodies, taking advantage of those bodies’ expertise and > not attempting to duplicate their functions. These bodies include those > devoted to technical issues (such as ICANN, the IETF and the RIRs) and > those dealing primarily with non-technical issues (such as the Internet > Governance Forum)." > > Anriette > > > > > > On 12/08/2013 17:12, Joana Varon wrote: > > Dear people, > > As you may know, the ITU Council has rejected proposals to open > participation in the Council Working Group on International > Internet-Related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet). > > That happened in disregard of our previous > request , > of contributions from some Member States > > and > of a statement from the Secretary General at the closing session of WTPF, > where we called for adopting an IEG model of participation within other > meetings of the organization. > > The CWG-Internet is a particularly relevant WG, as the Brazilian proposal > on the role of States shall be discussed. Also a very important topic in a > context where "Snowden conjecture" seams to be causing reactions for a > State centric internet governance (at least that's my perception). > > Therefore, Deborah, Matthew, Gene, Carolina and I have drafted a response > to submit to ITU. Please, find it bellow, just like the link for the > editable pad: > https://pad.riseup.net/p/CWG-Internet > > > Your comments are more then welcome. *The plan is to leave it open until > next Monday, 19th.* Hope you find it useful. > > All the best > > Joana > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communicationswww.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > -- Anne Jellema Chief Executive Officer Cape Town, RSA mob +27 61 036 9652 tel +27 21 788 4585 Skype anne.jellema @afjellema World Wide Web Foundation | 1889 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Wed Aug 14 02:28:36 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 03:28:36 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Call for comments/signatures: Draft Statement on Rejection of Proposal to Open CWG- Internet In-Reply-To: References: <52090B5A.2020502@apc.org> Message-ID: Thanks Anriette, I think you have a point and, if the others agree, I'm ok with removing the mentioned paragraph. We will live it open for comments for a few more days (until Monday) and then post it at BB for further endorsements as always. I'll let you know when it's on. But, if any of you want to endorse through this thread, I'm ok as well. Thanks Anne, you shall receive an email to confirm your endorsement once the letter is posted at the platform. best joana On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 3:14 AM, Anne Jellema wrote: > Happy to add Web Foundation to the list of signatories. > Thanks > Anne > > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > >> Dear Joana and all >> >> I like this and am pretty sure APC will support, but I will run it by >> members and staff. >> >> I am not entirely sure this last paragraph is necessary. I think to some >> extent it detracts from the main message in the letter which is about >> opening the CWG. >> >> "We also take this opportunity to renew our call for the ITU to continue >> to coordinate its efforts with that of relevant *multistakeholder*Internet governance bodies, taking advantage of those bodies’ expertise and >> not attempting to duplicate their functions. These bodies include those >> devoted to technical issues (such as ICANN, the IETF and the RIRs) and >> those dealing primarily with non-technical issues (such as the Internet >> Governance Forum)." >> >> Anriette >> >> >> >> >> >> On 12/08/2013 17:12, Joana Varon wrote: >> >> Dear people, >> >> As you may know, the ITU Council has rejected proposals to open >> participation in the Council Working Group on International >> Internet-Related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet). >> >> That happened in disregard of our previous >> request , >> of contributions from some Member States >> >> >> >> and >> of a statement from the Secretary General at the closing session of WTPF, >> where we called for adopting an IEG model of participation within other >> meetings of the organization. >> >> The CWG-Internet is a particularly relevant WG, as the Brazilian proposal >> on the role of States shall be discussed. Also a very important topic in a >> context where "Snowden conjecture" seams to be causing reactions for a >> State centric internet governance (at least that's my perception). >> >> Therefore, Deborah, Matthew, Gene, Carolina and I have drafted a response >> to submit to ITU. Please, find it bellow, just like the link for the >> editable pad: >> https://pad.riseup.net/p/CWG-Internet >> >> >> Your comments are more then welcome. *The plan is to leave it open until >> next Monday, 19th.* Hope you find it useful. >> >> All the best >> >> Joana >> >> >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> executive director, association for progressive communicationswww.apc.org >> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> south africa >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> >> > > > -- > Anne Jellema > Chief Executive Officer > Cape Town, RSA > mob +27 61 036 9652 > tel +27 21 788 4585 > Skype anne.jellema > @afjellema > > World Wide Web Foundation | 1889 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, USA | > www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) @joana_varon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nnenna75 at gmail.com Wed Aug 14 02:53:51 2013 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 06:53:51 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Call for comments/signatures: Draft Statement on Rejection of Proposal to Open CWG- Internet In-Reply-To: References: <52090B5A.2020502@apc.org> Message-ID: I am in a flurry of activities here but I have "starred" the mail so I can get back to the pad and maybe contribute to the text. Should be done by Thursday N On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 6:28 AM, Joana Varon wrote: > Thanks Anriette, I think you have a point and, if the others agree, I'm > ok with removing the mentioned paragraph. > > We will live it open for comments for a few more days (until Monday) and > then post it at BB for further endorsements as always. I'll let you know > when it's on. > > But, if any of you want to endorse through this thread, I'm ok as well. > Thanks Anne, you shall receive an email to confirm your endorsement once > the letter is posted at the platform. > > best > > joana > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 3:14 AM, Anne Jellema wrote: > >> Happy to add Web Foundation to the list of signatories. >> Thanks >> Anne >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> >>> Dear Joana and all >>> >>> I like this and am pretty sure APC will support, but I will run it by >>> members and staff. >>> >>> I am not entirely sure this last paragraph is necessary. I think to some >>> extent it detracts from the main message in the letter which is about >>> opening the CWG. >>> >>> "We also take this opportunity to renew our call for the ITU to continue >>> to coordinate its efforts with that of relevant *multistakeholder*Internet governance bodies, taking advantage of those bodies’ expertise and >>> not attempting to duplicate their functions. These bodies include those >>> devoted to technical issues (such as ICANN, the IETF and the RIRs) and >>> those dealing primarily with non-technical issues (such as the Internet >>> Governance Forum)." >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 12/08/2013 17:12, Joana Varon wrote: >>> >>> Dear people, >>> >>> As you may know, the ITU Council has rejected proposals to open >>> participation in the Council Working Group on International >>> Internet-Related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet). >>> >>> That happened in disregard of our previous >>> request , >>> of contributions from some Member States >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> and >>> of a statement from the Secretary General at the closing session of WTPF, >>> where we called for adopting an IEG model of participation within other >>> meetings of the organization. >>> >>> The CWG-Internet is a particularly relevant WG, as the Brazilian proposal >>> on the role of States shall be discussed. Also a very important topic in a >>> context where "Snowden conjecture" seams to be causing reactions for a >>> State centric internet governance (at least that's my perception). >>> >>> Therefore, Deborah, Matthew, Gene, Carolina and I have drafted a response >>> to submit to ITU. Please, find it bellow, just like the link for the >>> editable pad: >>> https://pad.riseup.net/p/CWG-Internet >>> >>> >>> Your comments are more then welcome. *The plan is to leave it open until >>> next Monday, 19th.* Hope you find it useful. >>> >>> All the best >>> >>> Joana >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>> executive director, association for progressive communicationswww.apc.org >>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>> south africa >>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Anne Jellema >> Chief Executive Officer >> Cape Town, RSA >> mob +27 61 036 9652 >> tel +27 21 788 4585 >> Skype anne.jellema >> @afjellema >> >> World Wide Web Foundation | 1889 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, USA | >> www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation >> > > > > -- > > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > @joana_varon > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Wed Aug 14 03:57:26 2013 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 10:57:26 +0300 Subject: [bestbits] Call for comments/signatures: Draft Statement on Rejection of Proposal to Open CWG- Internet In-Reply-To: <52090B5A.2020502@apc.org> References: <52090B5A.2020502@apc.org> Message-ID: <20130814075726.GL24804@thorion.it.jyu.fi> Ditto for Effi. -- Tapani Tarvainen On Aug 12 18:20, Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org) wrote: > Dear Joana and all > > I like this and am pretty sure APC will support, but I will run it by > members and staff. > > I am not entirely sure this last paragraph is necessary. I think to some > extent it detracts from the main message in the letter which is about > opening the CWG. > > "We also take this opportunity to renew our call for the ITU to continue > to coordinate itseffortswith that of relevant /multistakeholder/Internet > governance bodies, taking advantage of those bodies’ expertise and not > attempting to duplicate their functions. These bodies include those > devoted to technical issues (such as ICANN, the IETF and the RIRs) and > those dealing primarily with non-technical issues (such as the Internet > Governance Forum)." > > Anriette > > > > > > On 12/08/2013 17:12, Joana Varon wrote: > > Dear people, > > > > As you may know, the ITU Council has rejected proposals to open > > participation in the Council Working Group on International > > Internet-Related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet). > > > > That happened in disregard of our previous > > request, > > of contributions from some Member States > > > > and > > of a statement from the Secretary General at the closing session of WTPF, > > where we called for adopting an IEG model of participation within other > > meetings of the organization. > > > > The CWG-Internet is a particularly relevant WG, as the Brazilian proposal > > on the role of States shall be discussed. Also a very important topic in a > > context where "Snowden conjecture" seams to be causing reactions for a > > State centric internet governance (at least that's my perception). > > > > Therefore, Deborah, Matthew, Gene, Carolina and I have drafted a response > > to submit to ITU. Please, find it bellow, just like the link for the > > editable pad: > > > > https://pad.riseup.net/p/CWG-Internet > > > > Your comments are more then welcome. *The plan is to leave it open until > > next Monday, 19th.* Hope you find it useful. > > > > All the best > > > > Joana > > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > From nnenna75 at gmail.com Wed Aug 14 05:51:05 2013 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 09:51:05 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Call for comments/signatures: Draft Statement on Rejection of Proposal to Open CWG- Internet In-Reply-To: <20130814075726.GL24804@thorion.it.jyu.fi> References: <52090B5A.2020502@apc.org> <20130814075726.GL24804@thorion.it.jyu.fi> Message-ID: I have done a few edits. However, I do recall that during WCIT in Dubai, There was a face-to-face meeting with Hamadoun Touré on the openness issue. So that "effort" has been on. I also recall that HT did say that countries were playing double standards: speaking "openness" in public spaces and kicking against openness in council. Should we also specifically target some council members? Like send the letter to HT and also send copies to key council members? Just a thought N On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > Ditto for Effi. > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > > On Aug 12 18:20, Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org) wrote: > > > Dear Joana and all > > > > I like this and am pretty sure APC will support, but I will run it by > > members and staff. > > > > I am not entirely sure this last paragraph is necessary. I think to some > > extent it detracts from the main message in the letter which is about > > opening the CWG. > > > > "We also take this opportunity to renew our call for the ITU to continue > > to coordinate itseffortswith that of relevant /multistakeholder/Internet > > governance bodies, taking advantage of those bodies’ expertise and not > > attempting to duplicate their functions. These bodies include those > > devoted to technical issues (such as ICANN, the IETF and the RIRs) and > > those dealing primarily with non-technical issues (such as the Internet > > Governance Forum)." > > > > Anriette > > > > > > > > > > > > On 12/08/2013 17:12, Joana Varon wrote: > > > Dear people, > > > > > > As you may know, the ITU Council has rejected proposals to open > > > participation in the Council Working Group on International > > > Internet-Related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet). > > > > > > That happened in disregard of our previous > > > request, > > > of contributions from some Member States > > > < > http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S13-CL-C-0069!!MSW-E.pdf> > > > and > > > of a statement from the Secretary General at the closing session of > WTPF, > > > where we called for adopting an IEG model of participation within other > > > meetings of the organization. > > > > > > The CWG-Internet is a particularly relevant WG, as the Brazilian > proposal > > > on the role of States shall be discussed. Also a very important topic > in a > > > context where "Snowden conjecture" seams to be causing reactions for a > > > State centric internet governance (at least that's my perception). > > > > > > Therefore, Deborah, Matthew, Gene, Carolina and I have drafted a > response > > > to submit to ITU. Please, find it bellow, just like the link for the > > > editable pad: > > > > > > https://pad.riseup.net/p/CWG-Internet > > > > > > Your comments are more then welcome. *The plan is to leave it open > until > > > next Monday, 19th.* Hope you find it useful. > > > > > > All the best > > > > > > Joana > > > > > > > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > > executive director, association for progressive communications > > www.apc.org > > po box 29755, melville 2109 > > south africa > > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jam at globalilluminators.org Wed Aug 14 06:04:52 2013 From: jam at globalilluminators.org (jam at globalilluminators.org) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 06:04:52 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Nominees to High Level meeting in Bali on "Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles" In-Reply-To: <20130814054408.GB24804@thorion.it.jyu.fi> References: <5209F29D.2050406@ciroap.org> <20130814054408.GB24804@thorion.it.jyu.fi> Message-ID: <20130814060452.k38g34j5kwoo0gkc@email.ixwebhosting.com> I agree with Tapani Tarvainen's point of view and also i am interested in this topic and would love to be the part of nominated group. regards -- Farooq Ahmed Jam Executive Director Global Illuminators Contact: +60102546571 E-mail:jam at globalilluminators.org Weblink: www.globalilluminators.org Quoting Tapani Tarvainen : > On Aug 13 16:47, Jeremy Malcolm (jeremy at ciroap.org) wrote: > >> the Indonesian government is >> preparing a High Level Meeting ahead of the Bali IGF, on the topic >> "Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles". > [...] >> If you have an active interest on this topic and would also like to be >> included in the slate of nominees, please let us know so that we can >> make sure you are included. > > I (and Effi) have active interest and I'd like to be included. > > On Aug 13 18:35, Norbert Bollow (nb at bollow.ch) wrote: > >> I also think that we should set up a credible process for selecting >> civil society nominees for such events. > > It would be nice, yes. > >> While no civil society organization or network can credibly claim to be >> representative of civil society in its entirety, it IMO is not a good >> solution when various organizations and networks each submit a slate of >> nominees and then saddle the organizers with the problem of >> consolidating the lists. > > True. In this particular case I expect exactly that will happen, > as I don't see how we could get a proper process in place in time. > We'll see how it works out. > >> How about setting up a joint NomCom by inviting members of all the >> various civil society organizations and networks to volunteer for the >> NomCom > > Just finding all civil society organizations is hard enough, > let alone getting them to agree... we'd need to get this NomCom > somehow officially blessed by the IGF or something. > But if we can get enough support for it, i.e., sufficiently > large number of CS organizations, it could work. > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > From anriette at apc.org Wed Aug 14 06:45:01 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 12:45:01 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] High Level meeting in Bali on "Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles" In-Reply-To: <520B02E2.6050205@itforchange.net> References: <5209F29D.2050406@ciroap.org> <20130813183514.0d8c8b97@quill> <6ACCFAD3-3FB9-416B-99FB-4772DDB4E71F@ciroap.org> <20130813184448.5983a1be@quill> <520AF6D8.50709@ciroap.org> <520B02E2.6050205@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <520B5FAD.9000704@apc.org> Dear all I missed the MAG meeting last week, but will ask for more information about the 'high-level meeting' at today's MAG meeting should Izumi for some reason not be able to make it. Another question I will ask which is relevant is how one can apply for 'flash sessions'. This was proposed as a way for workshop proposals that did not make the final selection to still organise some kind of sharing session during the IGF. What would be very useful at this point for those of us on the MAG would be comments from civil society on the latest programme paper and schedule. http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/Draft%20Programme%20Paper%20Bali%202013.pdf https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/75646284/IGF2013Draft.Schedule.r1.pdf Anriette From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Aug 14 06:58:23 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 19:58:23 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Nominees to High Level meeting in Bali on "Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles" In-Reply-To: <520B02E2.6050205@itforchange.net> References: <5209F29D.2050406@ciroap.org> <20130813183514.0d8c8b97@quill> <6ACCFAD3-3FB9-416B-99FB-4772DDB4E71F@ciroap.org> <20130813184448.5983a1be@quill> <520AF6D8.50709@ciroap.org> <520B02E2.6050205@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Parminder, My understanding of the high-level meeting (I think labelled "ministerial" in Nairobi) is the same as yours: intended a session in a format more familiar to high-level government representatives, get them and their staff to attend and to hopefully stay on. And I understand it worked in Nairobi, it was an effective carrot for both African govt and others to attend the IGF. And I'm OK with that, a pre-meeting that is clearly separate from the IGF is fine whether it's bestbits, the host country's HLM or giganet (etc). But it is problematic when the Baku high-level meeting produces a declaration (however innocuous) that is then made available on the official IGF website in the same space as the Chairman's Summary, the document that's traditionally been to only official output of the IGF process . Also a problem that the UN flag raising ceremony was listed as part of the Baku HLM agenda. Need to be more thoughtful in how these meetings are presented. Anriette - another question for today's MAG call, could you ask why the Baku declaration is available on the IGF website, and why it's presented along side the Chairman's summary? If it were on the host website only, then much less of an issue. This should be fixed for Bali. Further complication this year is that sessions from the IGF proper will be held on day "zero" (regional IGF session, etc.) Pre-meetings begin to mix with sessions of the IGF. Would be good to make a very clear demarcation between what is IGF and what is not IGF (the HLM should not be.) Adam On Aug 14, 2013, at 1:09 PM, parminder wrote: > > in addition to the below issues, we still do not know what the form of the high level meeting is. Is it a real round table kind of forum where people get an opportunity to wiegh in substantially or just a 'mix and make connections' thing which corporates types may still love to do but not many civil society kinds may to be too eager about. > > Also, is their any drafting process for the likely statement to come out of the HLM. That is crucial. > > And, the IGF or non IGF status of the meeting? > > I had asked for these clarifications on the IGC list from a civil society member of the MAG, and await them. > > My understanding is that initially is was a kind of a 'formal thing without real substance', which was to attract high level participation from governments, esp ministrial level. Kind of peoople who do not come over just to sit in the audience at the IGF. And when ministers come, their retinue of senior officials also come along, and that was supposed to fill in a (really) missing gap at the IG, especially in terms of governmental participation from developing countires. I will be cautious to see this meeting take a character and big role for itself, which could compromise the relatively participative nature of the IGF. Especially of concern is the declaration that comes from this meeting, which at present is the only real 'consumable' doc coming out the IGF environment. So, maybe civil socity may want to think around these issues as well. > > parminder > > > On Wednesday 14 August 2013 08:47 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> On 14/08/13 00:44, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> Jeremy Malcolm >>> wrote: >>> >>>>> How about setting up a joint NomCom by inviting members of all the >>>>> various civil society organizations and networks to volunteer for >>>>> the NomCom... >>>>> >>>> It is a very good plan for the future, but not something that could >>>> be accomplished easily in two weeks. >>>> >>> Where does that “two weeks” timeline come from? >>> >> >> Actually you're quite right, I'm mixing up the deadline for the CSTD enhanced cooperation questionnaire (which is in two weeks) with the (yet unspecified, but Izumi is finding out) deadline for nominating panelists to the High Level Meeting. So maybe we have longer, but surely not much longer. >> >> Establishing (or re-establishing - we had one in WSIS) a high-level mechanism for civil society groups to jointly nominate candidates for positions is very important, I couldn't agree with you more. But it's also ambitious. >> >> Noting that thanks to your leadership the IGC has a workshop relevant to this topic planned for Bali ("MS selection processes: accountability and transparency"), it would be better, I feel, to come up with a proposal and present it at that workshop. I wouldn't want to rush it on account of what is probably a minimally important pre-event in Bali. >> >> However, if you disagree then by all means put your idea to the IGC then I can put it to the Best Bits interim steering group and we can reach out to the other relevant groups and networks too. If it were me though, I would rather wait. >> >> -- >> 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 >> >> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Aug 14 07:10:16 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 20:10:16 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] High Level meeting in Bali on "Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles" In-Reply-To: <520B5FAD.9000704@apc.org> References: <5209F29D.2050406@ciroap.org> <20130813183514.0d8c8b97@quill> <6ACCFAD3-3FB9-416B-99FB-4772DDB4E71F@ciroap.org> <20130813184448.5983a1be@quill> <520AF6D8.50709@ciroap.org> <520B02E2.6050205@itforchange.net> <520B5FAD.9000704@apc.org> Message-ID: <28A63291-C148-4E35-B0BD-1F8A1DB4ADA2@glocom.ac.jp> Hi Anriette, Comment of the program and schedule: do not give the ministerial (or is it high level meeting, whatever it's called) preferential place on the pre-meeting agenda. In the Programme Paper make clear that this host country meeting is not part of the official agenda. As the IGF is convened by the UN Secretary General only official meetings should be mentioned in the body of the paper and final schedule, put pre-meetings not organized by the MAG in an annex. Do not list the ministerial (HLM) meeting on the Draft Schedule; particularly as the schedule for day zero also lists the national/regional IGF and capacity building sessions, which are part of the MAG organized event (MAG, for the UN SG). Adam On Aug 14, 2013, at 7:45 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear all > > I missed the MAG meeting last week, but will ask for more information > about the 'high-level meeting' at today's MAG meeting should Izumi for > some reason not be able to make it. > > Another question I will ask which is relevant is how one can apply for > 'flash sessions'. This was proposed as a way for workshop proposals that > did not make the final selection to still organise some kind of sharing > session during the IGF. > > What would be very useful at this point for those of us on the MAG would > be comments from civil society on the latest programme paper and schedule. > > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/Draft%20Programme%20Paper%20Bali%202013.pdf > > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/75646284/IGF2013Draft.Schedule.r1.pdf > > Anriette > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 anriette at apc.org Sun Aug 4 05:49:45 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2013 11:49:45 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] CWG Internet - Online Consultation: deadline for submissions extended to Oct 10 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51FE23B9.3070404@apc.org> Dear Joana Thanks Only news I have about 'Role of States in IG' is that the Brazilians are apparently working with other governments and members of the MAG to have focus on this in the IGF this year. Anriette On 01/08/2013 08:20, Joana Varon wrote: > Just to add the issues of the consultation. > > > - Issue 1: Consultation on effectively countering and combatting spam. > The Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public > Policy Issues invites all stakeholders to provide input on international > public policy issues related to *effectively countering and combatting > spam.* > - *Issue 2*: Consultation on international public policy issues > concerning IPv4 addresses. > The Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public > Policy Issues invites all stakeholders to provide input on international > public policy issues related to *(a) unused legacy IPv4 addresses, and > (b) inter-region transfers of IPv4 addresses.* > - *Issue 3*: Consultation on developmental aspects of the Internet. > The Council Working Group on International Internet-Related Public > Policy Issues invites all stakeholders to provide input on international > public policy issues related to *developmental aspects of the Internet.* > > No consultation on the "Role of States on IG"..which might be good... Well, > maybe it's because this list of open consultations was set in January...as > far as know, the Brazilian proposal about it would be debated at this > CWG-Internet... Does anyone have news about this? > > best > > joana > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 From nb at bollow.ch Wed Aug 14 08:09:18 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 14:09:18 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Nominees to High Level meeting in Bali on "Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles" In-Reply-To: <520AF6D8.50709@ciroap.org> References: <5209F29D.2050406@ciroap.org> <20130813183514.0d8c8b97@quill> <6ACCFAD3-3FB9-416B-99FB-4772DDB4E71F@ciroap.org> <20130813184448.5983a1be@quill> <520AF6D8.50709@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <20130814140918.2fc5b516@quill> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > (yet unspecified, but Izumi is finding out) deadline for nominating > panelists to the High Level Meeting. I think so far we've been talking about who from civil society gets invited as participants to the “High Level Meeting”. It is of course also a highly relevant question who the speakers will be, and how they will be selected. I think that the selection of invitees as participants is the more urgent issue since it affects air travel bookings for all who are not already in Bali anyway for example for the BestBits meeting. > Establishing (or re-establishing - we had one in WSIS) a high-level > mechanism for civil society groups to jointly nominate candidates for > positions is very important, I couldn't agree with you more. But it's > also ambitious. Let's set the goal to put such a mechanism in place in time for the 2014 IGF. > Noting that thanks to your leadership the IGC has a workshop relevant > to this topic planned for Bali ("MS selection processes: > accountability and transparency"), it would be better, I feel, to > come up with a proposal and present it at that workshop. I wouldn't > want to rush it on account of what is probably a minimally important > pre-event in Bali. Good points. Yes, rushing this is probably not a good idea. When rushing things, inevitably some people who should have been included in the discussions will unintentionally be left out, and feel left out, etc. Building trust works better when things don't get rushed. > However, if you disagree then by all means put your idea to the IGC > then I can put it to the Best Bits interim steering group and we can > reach out to the other relevant groups and networks too. If it were > me though, I would rather wait. I have just written to Mr. Moedjiono suggesting an ad-hoc process in which a broad call for expressions of interest would be made, and on the basis of the responses both the Best Bits interim steering group and the IGC coordinators would each suggest a list of civil society delegates for the HLLM. The understanding would be that everyone who is on either list of delegates gets invited (the size of the selection lists would obviously be chosen on the basis of how many people from civil society they're willing to invite), and there would be just enough coordination between the two groups of coordinators to ensure that the two recommendation lists are complementary (i.e. we don't end up losing civil society slots just because some people get two recommendations). Greetings, Norbert From nb at bollow.ch Wed Aug 14 09:22:43 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 15:22:43 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Nominees to High Level meeting in Bali on "Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles" In-Reply-To: <20130814054408.GB24804@thorion.it.jyu.fi> References: <5209F29D.2050406@ciroap.org> <20130814054408.GB24804@thorion.it.jyu.fi> Message-ID: <20130814152243.2af3b426@quill> Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > > How about setting up a joint NomCom by inviting members of all the > > various civil society organizations and networks to volunteer for > > the NomCom > > Just finding all civil society organizations is hard enough, > let alone getting them to agree... we'd need to get this NomCom > somehow officially blessed by the IGF or something. > But if we can get enough support for it, i.e., sufficiently > large number of CS organizations, it could work. As I mentioned in my response to Jeremy I'd like to go ahead with this idea with a target of having something in place in time for the 2014 IGF. As a first step, I'd like to build a “list of civil society networks in the area of Internet Governance”, and I've created an Etherpad for this at http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/civil-society-networks Obviously all of the steering groups etc. of these networks must be invited to participate in the discussions around creating a Joint Civil Society NomCom mechanism, or other credible mechanism that could serve the same purpose. I however don't think that it is appropriate to restrict these dicussions only to people who are on some steering group. Therefore I'd like to broadly circulate a call for expressions of interest for participation in these discussions, in which everyone who is (1) experienced as a civil society participant in Internet governance debates, and is (2) clearly primarily participating as a civil society person, with reasonable independence from industry and government interests is invited tp also participate in these discussions on the basis of a simple expression of interest. In case of any doubts in regard to whether someone expressing interest fulfills the criteria (1) and (2), I envision decisions about application of these to be made group of people which consists of all the people from the various steering groups of civil society networks. Greetings, Norbert From anriette at apc.org Wed Aug 14 10:47:29 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 16:47:29 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] High Level meeting in Bali on "Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles" In-Reply-To: <28A63291-C148-4E35-B0BD-1F8A1DB4ADA2@glocom.ac.jp> References: <5209F29D.2050406@ciroap.org> <20130813183514.0d8c8b97@quill> <6ACCFAD3-3FB9-416B-99FB-4772DDB4E71F@ciroap.org> <20130813184448.5983a1be@quill> <520AF6D8.50709@ciroap.org> <520B02E2.6050205@itforchange.net> <520B5FAD.9000704@apc.org> <28A63291-C148-4E35-B0BD-1F8A1DB4ADA2@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <520B9881.5010901@apc.org> Dear all Response from the Indonesian representative to my question made during the MAG meeting about this high-level ministerial event is as follows: - 3 hours - Participation by invitation only - Will start off with statements from each of the ministers present - This is followed by statements from leaders from business and CS - Then some deliberation and discussion In other words very much like the Nairobi meeting. Iif it is like Nairobi all could participate in the discussion, but ministers were given preference in the speaking order (as is the case in most UN bodies). They are waiting for nominations from non-governmental stakeholders for people to be invited. I raised Adam's other concerns about the governmental pre-event being given higher status than other pre-events. Someone else also added to that saying that for any newcomer it could be quite confusing, as they would assume that all events in the IGF schedule are open to all. Secretariat will consider this in future schedules. That is the sense I got but sound quality was not always that clear. There were other CS observers who can add their reflections. Best Anriette On 14/08/2013 13:10, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi Anriette, > > Comment of the program and schedule: do not give the ministerial (or is it high level meeting, whatever it's called) preferential place on the pre-meeting agenda. In the Programme Paper make clear that this host country meeting is not part of the official agenda. As the IGF is convened by the UN Secretary General only official meetings should be mentioned in the body of the paper and final schedule, put pre-meetings not organized by the MAG in an annex. > > Do not list the ministerial (HLM) meeting on the Draft Schedule; particularly as the schedule for day zero also lists the national/regional IGF and capacity building sessions, which are part of the MAG organized event (MAG, for the UN SG). > > Adam > > > > > > > On Aug 14, 2013, at 7:45 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > >> Dear all >> >> I missed the MAG meeting last week, but will ask for more information >> about the 'high-level meeting' at today's MAG meeting should Izumi for >> some reason not be able to make it. >> >> Another question I will ask which is relevant is how one can apply for >> 'flash sessions'. This was proposed as a way for workshop proposals that >> did not make the final selection to still organise some kind of sharing >> session during the IGF. >> >> What would be very useful at this point for those of us on the MAG would >> be comments from civil society on the latest programme paper and schedule. >> >> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/Draft%20Programme%20Paper%20Bali%202013.pdf >> >> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/75646284/IGF2013Draft.Schedule.r1.pdf >> >> Anriette >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 From anriette at apc.org Wed Aug 14 10:59:53 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 16:59:53 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Nominees to High Level meeting in Bali on "Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles" In-Reply-To: References: <5209F29D.2050406@ciroap.org> <20130813183514.0d8c8b97@quill> <6ACCFAD3-3FB9-416B-99FB-4772DDB4E71F@ciroap.org> <20130813184448.5983a1be@quill> <520AF6D8.50709@ciroap.org> <520B02E2.6050205@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <520B9B69.9080204@apc.org> Dear Adam I am sorry... I missed this question about the Baku declaration. Good question.. but.. counter question... if we want the IGF to become more outcome oriented.. don't we want ALL outcomes from IGF-linked processes to be reflected.. or should that apply only to events that are formally part of the main IGF? I agree that it is good for governments to come to the IGF, and an event like this can help. I participated in the Nairobi event and it was certainly successful, but there was very little dialogue. It was more a case of one government after another showcasing what they are doing. I would really like to see governments have an interactive dialogue with one another at the IGF on internet policy issues. But high-level protocol is a powerful force, and not one that combines easily with interactive dialogue. Anriette On 14/08/2013 12:58, Adam Peake wrote: > Parminder, > > My understanding of the high-level meeting (I think labelled "ministerial" in Nairobi) is the same as yours: intended a session in a format more familiar to high-level government representatives, get them and their staff to attend and to hopefully stay on. And I understand it worked in Nairobi, it was an effective carrot for both African govt and others to attend the IGF. And I'm OK with that, a pre-meeting that is clearly separate from the IGF is fine whether it's bestbits, the host country's HLM or giganet (etc). But it is problematic when the Baku high-level meeting produces a declaration (however innocuous) that is then made available on the official IGF website in the same space as the Chairman's Summary, the document that's traditionally been to only official output of the IGF process . Also a problem that the UN flag raising ceremony was listed as part of the Baku HLM agenda. Need to be more thoughtful in how these meetings are presented. > > Anriette - another question for today's MAG call, could you ask why the Baku declaration is available on the IGF website, and why it's presented along side the Chairman's summary? If it were on the host website only, then much less of an issue. This should be fixed for Bali. > > Further complication this year is that sessions from the IGF proper will be held on day "zero" (regional IGF session, etc.) Pre-meetings begin to mix with sessions of the IGF. Would be good to make a very clear demarcation between what is IGF and what is not IGF (the HLM should not be.) > > Adam > > > On Aug 14, 2013, at 1:09 PM, parminder wrote: > >> in addition to the below issues, we still do not know what the form of the high level meeting is. Is it a real round table kind of forum where people get an opportunity to wiegh in substantially or just a 'mix and make connections' thing which corporates types may still love to do but not many civil society kinds may to be too eager about. >> >> Also, is their any drafting process for the likely statement to come out of the HLM. That is crucial. >> >> And, the IGF or non IGF status of the meeting? >> >> I had asked for these clarifications on the IGC list from a civil society member of the MAG, and await them. >> >> My understanding is that initially is was a kind of a 'formal thing without real substance', which was to attract high level participation from governments, esp ministrial level. Kind of peoople who do not come over just to sit in the audience at the IGF. And when ministers come, their retinue of senior officials also come along, and that was supposed to fill in a (really) missing gap at the IG, especially in terms of governmental participation from developing countires. I will be cautious to see this meeting take a character and big role for itself, which could compromise the relatively participative nature of the IGF. Especially of concern is the declaration that comes from this meeting, which at present is the only real 'consumable' doc coming out the IGF environment. So, maybe civil socity may want to think around these issues as well. >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Wednesday 14 August 2013 08:47 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> On 14/08/13 00:44, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>> Jeremy Malcolm >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> How about setting up a joint NomCom by inviting members of all the >>>>>> various civil society organizations and networks to volunteer for >>>>>> the NomCom... >>>>>> >>>>> It is a very good plan for the future, but not something that could >>>>> be accomplished easily in two weeks. >>>>> >>>> Where does that “two weeks” timeline come from? >>>> >>> Actually you're quite right, I'm mixing up the deadline for the CSTD enhanced cooperation questionnaire (which is in two weeks) with the (yet unspecified, but Izumi is finding out) deadline for nominating panelists to the High Level Meeting. So maybe we have longer, but surely not much longer. >>> >>> Establishing (or re-establishing - we had one in WSIS) a high-level mechanism for civil society groups to jointly nominate candidates for positions is very important, I couldn't agree with you more. But it's also ambitious. >>> >>> Noting that thanks to your leadership the IGC has a workshop relevant to this topic planned for Bali ("MS selection processes: accountability and transparency"), it would be better, I feel, to come up with a proposal and present it at that workshop. I wouldn't want to rush it on account of what is probably a minimally important pre-event in Bali. >>> >>> However, if you disagree then by all means put your idea to the IGC then I can put it to the Best Bits interim steering group and we can reach out to the other relevant groups and networks too. If it were me though, I would rather wait. >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >>> >>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >>> >>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>> >>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >>> >>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 From deborah at accessnow.org Wed Aug 14 11:40:36 2013 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 11:40:36 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Reminder 14 Sept deadline sign on to PCLOB letter In-Reply-To: <52026F71.2040100@cdt.org> References: <51FAE664.10104@cdt.org> <52026F71.2040100@cdt.org> Message-ID: <40B83E13-4590-478E-BCA9-0E45308C640D@accessnow.org> Dear all, A gentle reminder that the deadline for signing on to the PCLOB submission is end of the day *Wednesday 14 September*. As Matthew noted below the site will remain open for sign on, but the plan is to submit the letter with the list of endorsements later this week. Best, Deborah Sent from my iPhone On Aug 7, 2013, at 12:01 PM, matthew shears wrote: > Dear all > > Just to follow-on from Emma's last note. Given the extension to September 15th, we have been deliberating when to file the letter with the PCLOB. We could wait until the new deadline but fear that the letter and its newsworthiness may be overcome by other events. Knowing what is the best time to file is a little tricky, but those of us who have been shepherding this along believe that despite the extension we should file sooner than later. We therefore propose that the letter be filed with the PCLOB next week which gives us a little more time to get additional signatures (we have been reaching out directly to organisations that have not signed up) and to work the press both in the US and internationally. Our proposal is that we submit end-of-day Wednesday 14 August while working media opportunities/placements through the end of that week. We propose leaving the letter on the site and open to further sign-ons through September 15th - submitting the letter next week does not preclude an update to PCLOB on the letter's status. > > So, for those organisations that wish to sign-on but haven't done so please do. And for those that have signed-on please go out to your networks and see if your partner organisations will consider joining this effort. Sign-ons by Wednesday are preferable - but welcome anytime through September 15. If you have suggestions as to media and news activities/connections please do let us know. > > Letter is here: http://bestbits.net/pclob/ > > Many thanks for your support for this important letter. > > Matthew > > On 01/08/2013 23:51, Emma Llanso wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> At the last minute, the US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board has extended their deadline for public comment until September 15th. This means that I'm going to hold off on submitting the joint letter that many of you have signed on to -- the extended deadline gives us a lot more time to solicit signatories for the letter, prepare a media strategy, and encourage organizations to submit their own comments into the proceeding. >> >> I continue to think this comment process represents one of the best opportunities for groups and advocates outside the US to make their opinions heard to the US government on the NSA surveillance programs. Thanks again to all of you who've taken the time to engage on this joint letter, and I hope the extended deadline will give more of you the time to consider commenting! >> >> Best, >> Emma >> >> -- >> Emma J. Llansó >> Policy Counsel >> Center for Democracy & Technology >> 1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100 >> Washington, DC 20006 >> 202-407-8818 | @cendemtech | @ellanso > > -- > > Matthew Shears > Director and Representative > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) > mshears at cdt.org > +44 (0) 771 247 2987 > Skype: mshears -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Wed Aug 14 12:00:28 2013 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 12:00:28 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] CORRECTION 14 Aug deadline sign on to PCLOB letter In-Reply-To: <40B83E13-4590-478E-BCA9-0E45308C640D@accessnow.org> References: <51FAE664.10104@cdt.org> <52026F71.2040100@cdt.org> <40B83E13-4590-478E-BCA9-0E45308C640D@accessnow.org> Message-ID: <1BE904B9-EB01-40B1-AB25-50FEF54D80D6@accessnow.org> Please note that the deadline is actually today *Wednesday 14 August* for endorsing the PCLOB letter. Apologies for the confusion! Best, Deborah Sent from my iPhone On Aug 14, 2013, at 11:40 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > Dear all, A gentle reminder that the deadline for signing on to the PCLOB submission is end of the day *Wednesday 14 September*. As Matthew noted below the site will remain open for sign on, but the plan is to submit the letter with the list of endorsements later this week. > > Best, > Deborah > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Aug 7, 2013, at 12:01 PM, matthew shears wrote: > >> Dear all >> >> Just to follow-on from Emma's last note. Given the extension to September 15th, we have been deliberating when to file the letter with the PCLOB. We could wait until the new deadline but fear that the letter and its newsworthiness may be overcome by other events. Knowing what is the best time to file is a little tricky, but those of us who have been shepherding this along believe that despite the extension we should file sooner than later. We therefore propose that the letter be filed with the PCLOB next week which gives us a little more time to get additional signatures (we have been reaching out directly to organisations that have not signed up) and to work the press both in the US and internationally. Our proposal is that we submit end-of-day Wednesday 14 August while working media opportunities/placements through the end of that week. We propose leaving the letter on the site and open to further sign-ons through September 15th - submitting the letter next week does not preclude an update to PCLOB on the letter's status. >> >> So, for those organisations that wish to sign-on but haven't done so please do. And for those that have signed-on please go out to your networks and see if your partner organisations will consider joining this effort. Sign-ons by Wednesday are preferable - but welcome anytime through September 15. If you have suggestions as to media and news activities/connections please do let us know. >> >> Letter is here: http://bestbits.net/pclob/ >> >> Many thanks for your support for this important letter. >> >> Matthew >> >> On 01/08/2013 23:51, Emma Llanso wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> At the last minute, the US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board has extended their deadline for public comment until September 15th. This means that I'm going to hold off on submitting the joint letter that many of you have signed on to -- the extended deadline gives us a lot more time to solicit signatories for the letter, prepare a media strategy, and encourage organizations to submit their own comments into the proceeding. >>> >>> I continue to think this comment process represents one of the best opportunities for groups and advocates outside the US to make their opinions heard to the US government on the NSA surveillance programs. Thanks again to all of you who've taken the time to engage on this joint letter, and I hope the extended deadline will give more of you the time to consider commenting! >>> >>> Best, >>> Emma >>> >>> -- >>> Emma J. Llansó >>> Policy Counsel >>> Center for Democracy & Technology >>> 1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100 >>> Washington, DC 20006 >>> 202-407-8818 | @cendemtech | @ellanso >> >> -- >> >> Matthew Shears >> Director and Representative >> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights >> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) >> mshears at cdt.org >> +44 (0) 771 247 2987 >> Skype: mshears -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Aug 14 12:13:04 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 01:13:04 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Nominees to High Level meeting in Bali on "Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles" In-Reply-To: <520B9B69.9080204@apc.org> References: <5209F29D.2050406@ciroap.org> <20130813183514.0d8c8b97@quill> <6ACCFAD3-3FB9-416B-99FB-4772DDB4E71F@ciroap.org> <20130813184448.5983a1be@quill> <520AF6D8.50709@ciroap.org> <520B02E2.6050205@itforchange.net> <520B9B69.9080204@apc.org> Message-ID: <093676F2-05AD-409D-BA87-B3776BD70A7B@glocom.ac.jp> Hi Anriette, Thanks for asking those questions and more. Comments below. On Aug 14, 2013, at 11:59 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear Adam > > I am sorry... I missed this question about the Baku declaration. > > Good question.. but.. counter question... if we want the IGF to become > more outcome oriented.. don't we want ALL outcomes from IGF-linked > processes to be reflected.. or should that apply only to events that are > formally part of the main IGF? > I think we'd quite soon face the same situation as we kind of see now with open forums when they become quasi-workshops. What I mean is, we are trying to create a fair and transparent process for the IGF adhering to various principles, side events would perhaps side-step those processes and principles. So for now my answer is we do not want ALL outcomes from IGF-linked processes to be reflected. Not until we know what we're dealing with and have principle-based processes in place, > I agree that it is good for governments to come to the IGF, and an event > like this can help. I participated in the Nairobi event and it was > certainly successful, but there was very little dialogue. It was more a > case of one government after another showcasing what they are doing. > From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Aug 14 17:01:35 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 17:01:35 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [governance] FW: RE: [fellowships-alumni] "...Internet Governance is Our Shared Responsibility." By Vint G. Cerf, Patrick S. Ryan... In-Reply-To: <1376504017.35716.BPMail_high_noncarrier@web125105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1376504017.35716.BPMail_high_noncarrier@web125105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2309772 Internet Governance is Our Shared Responsibility Vint G. Cerf *affiliation not provided to SSRN* Patrick S. Ryan Catholic University of Leuven (KUL) - Interdisciplinary Center for Law and Information Technology (ICRI); Google Inc.; University of Colorado at Boulder, Interdisciplinary Telecommunications Program Max Senges Senges Google, Inc. August 13, 2013 *I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society, 10 ISJLP ___ (2014) (www.is-journal.org)* *Abstract: * This essay looks at the the different roles that multistakeholder institutions play in the Internet governance ecosystem. We propose a model for thinking of Internet governance within the context of the Internet's layered model. We use the example of the negotiations in Dubai in 2102 at the World Conference on International Telecommunications as an illustration for why it is important for different institutions within the governance system to focus on their respective areas of expertise (e.g., the ITU, ICANN, and IGF). Several areas of conflict (a "tussle") are reviewed, such as the desire to promote more broadband infrastructure, a topic that is in the remit of the International Telecommunications Union, but also the recurring desire of countries like Russia and China to use the ITU to regulate content and restrict free expression on the Internet through onerous cybersecurity and spam provisions. We conclude that it is folly to try and regulate all these areas through an international treaty, and encourage further development of mechanisms for global debate like the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). *Number of Pages in PDF File:* 34 *Keywords:* Internet governance, ITU, ICANN, IGF, layered model *JEL Classification:* k1, k23, l5, r50, g18, l96, O00, 03, 033, 038 Accepted Paper Series -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 shawna at apc.org Wed Aug 14 19:25:44 2013 From: shawna at apc.org (Shawna Finnegan) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 18:25:44 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Facebook's secret censorship deal with the Pakistan government In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <520C11F8.5000603@apc.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Shahzad and all, I apologize for my late reply. Thank you for sharing this article. Simon makes some very good points. In particular, the way internet intermediaries respond to government requests that clearly violate the human rights of marginalized groups: "Here’s a question to all companies operating online services: how are you going to respond when a Russian police agency either demands personal information on gay activists, or presents a takedown request of pages that promote gay issues? [..] In this case – and in the face of any reasonable ethical scrutiny – the “lawful authority” model would entirely collapse. If companies agree to such requests from Russia they would violate the core principles of human rights. If they don’t comply, it becomes clear their model is based on a frame of reference beyond the stated respect for local law and culture that companies promote so vigorously." At the end of the article Simon suggests that companies sign on to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. What do others think of this idea? Perhaps not a great business strategy, but it would be an important indication of which companies are serious in their commitment to respect and protect human rights. Of course, depending on how those rights are interpreted, that could put companies at odds with governments in many countries, including the US. Shawna On 13-08-07 12:05 AM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > Folks, > > While we are still compiling some more information to be shared > with GNI and Facebook, Simon Davies (Privacy Surgeon) shared this > piece with us. > > He writes "It¹s time for companies to become champions of rights > instead of government stooges". > > http://www.privacysurgeon.org/blog/incision/its-time-for-companies-to-become > > - -champions-of-rights-instead-of-government-stooges/ > > Thought it will be of interest to you. > > Best wishes and regards Shahzad > > > From: David Sullivan Date: > Wednesday, July 31, 2013 2:27 AM To: > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Facebook's > secret censorship deal with the Pakistan government > > Hi all, > > Just want to make sure that the Best Bits Network receives GNI's > response to the Bytes for All open letter, which we've posted on > our website and is available here: > http://globalnetworkinitiative.org/news/gni-responds-bytes-all-pakistan > > All the best, David > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQGcBAEBAgAGBQJSDBH3AAoJEAZqUsH4P1GKn98MAIZX0g28uQUD3lfmn6qeV4Lv UOH+MwkdXwRqU71+A0LDRyqMEzdr9mPkDFmQHQCxhwbAPK8oFM+v4vUzMrXKCitP +ac8Rwlm+9mrQzk4h1KWAmXgdvXyYZbNS51YLFz8F/c4cXDXc6jzXOTJi9hBBF9n VO4lDT7CpDgzZvcUYtaDlXh8Qvqd+STyxpIzsgygQSIVIIE3MVTx6cT1KiHMlK98 8H6qF13IeUlGNIfn/zq1XP4Ftgb7mrABiHXMKeHH+Ny0z2M9SHgNnWlWGMvfIUPY n+dJYcTNDBG1146elSLYjMllS9nL/pH0hhJJhU0Bez6F74Ai+e55P+F1XWENLG8j 5JD2wFN+6yKIrKlyu+qZZ2mMtxDeRTSi3EM8AgsgKfV90igVfA1+S0ZWRTAassQu W3FJzRaLjg2NXubwMq64q6bURs0daAkUOGUTrrhop+7FDG+jfTq1jXMymqrpzKfE 0J529EPUOPTXqof9uCfdgBMyHl9OI9C+19ThrNES6g== =xD2J -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From shahzad at bytesforall.pk Thu Aug 15 02:41:31 2013 From: shahzad at bytesforall.pk (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 11:41:31 +0500 Subject: [bestbits] Facebook's secret censorship deal with the Pakistan government In-Reply-To: <520C11F8.5000603@apc.org> Message-ID: …And while this thread is discussing companies being more responsible towards its users, here comes a very interesting piece and yet again from Guardian and this time about Google :) Google: don't expect privacy when sending to Gmail http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/aug/14/google-gmail-users-privacy -email-lawsuit Chaotic! Best wishes and regards Shahzad From: Shawna Finnegan Date: Thursday, August 15, 2013 4:25 AM To: Subject: Re: [bestbits] Facebook's secret censorship deal with the Pakistan government -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Shahzad and all, I apologize for my late reply. Thank you for sharing this article. Simon makes some very good points. In particular, the way internet intermediaries respond to government requests that clearly violate the human rights of marginalized groups: "Here’s a question to all companies operating online services: how are you going to respond when a Russian police agency either demands personal information on gay activists, or presents a takedown request of pages that promote gay issues? [..] In this case ­ and in the face of any reasonable ethical scrutiny ­ the “lawful authority” model would entirely collapse. If companies agree to such requests from Russia they would violate the core principles of human rights. If they don’t comply, it becomes clear their model is based on a frame of reference beyond the stated respect for local law and culture that companies promote so vigorously." At the end of the article Simon suggests that companies sign on to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. What do others think of this idea? Perhaps not a great business strategy, but it would be an important indication of which companies are serious in their commitment to respect and protect human rights. Of course, depending on how those rights are interpreted, that could put companies at odds with governments in many countries, including the US. Shawna On 13-08-07 12:05 AM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > Folks, > > While we are still compiling some more information to be shared > with GNI and Facebook, Simon Davies (Privacy Surgeon) shared this > piece with us. > > He writes "It¹s time for companies to become champions of rights > instead of government stooges". > > http://www.privacysurgeon.org/blog/incision/its-time-for-companies-to-become > > - -champions-of-rights-instead-of-government-stooges/ > > Thought it will be of interest to you. > > Best wishes and regards Shahzad > > > From: David Sullivan Date: > Wednesday, July 31, 2013 2:27 AM To: > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Facebook's > secret censorship deal with the Pakistan government > > Hi all, > > Just want to make sure that the Best Bits Network receives GNI's > response to the Bytes for All open letter, which we've posted on > our website and is available here: > http://globalnetworkinitiative.org/news/gni-responds-bytes-all-pakistan > > All the best, David > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQGcBAEBAgAGBQJSDBH3AAoJEAZqUsH4P1GKn98MAIZX0g28uQUD3lfmn6qeV4Lv UOH+MwkdXwRqU71+A0LDRyqMEzdr9mPkDFmQHQCxhwbAPK8oFM+v4vUzMrXKCitP +ac8Rwlm+9mrQzk4h1KWAmXgdvXyYZbNS51YLFz8F/c4cXDXc6jzXOTJi9hBBF9n VO4lDT7CpDgzZvcUYtaDlXh8Qvqd+STyxpIzsgygQSIVIIE3MVTx6cT1KiHMlK98 8H6qF13IeUlGNIfn/zq1XP4Ftgb7mrABiHXMKeHH+Ny0z2M9SHgNnWlWGMvfIUPY n+dJYcTNDBG1146elSLYjMllS9nL/pH0hhJJhU0Bez6F74Ai+e55P+F1XWENLG8j 5JD2wFN+6yKIrKlyu+qZZ2mMtxDeRTSi3EM8AgsgKfV90igVfA1+S0ZWRTAassQu W3FJzRaLjg2NXubwMq64q6bURs0daAkUOGUTrrhop+7FDG+jfTq1jXMymqrpzKfE 0J529EPUOPTXqof9uCfdgBMyHl9OI9C+19ThrNES6g== =xD2J -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Aug 5 05:15:11 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2013 14:45:11 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Extension of deadline for the WGEC questionnaire In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51FF6D1F.4080509@itforchange.net> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Extension of deadline for the WGEC questionnaire Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 09:59:18 +0200 From: WGEC Reply-To: UN CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation To: WGEC at LIST.UNICC.ORG Dear All, On behalf of the Chair of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, we are happy to share with you that the deadline for submitting responses to the WGEC questionnaire has been extended to 31 August 2013. Best regards, CSTD Secretariat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shahzad at bytesforall.pk Thu Aug 15 03:16:10 2013 From: shahzad at bytesforall.pk (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 12:16:10 +0500 Subject: [bestbits] Google, Gmail, Privacy & world's most private search engine In-Reply-To: Message-ID: While most of you would have already seen this piece from Guardian today about Gmail. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/aug/14/google-gmail-users-privacy -email-lawsuit A friend in Europe have just shared this new information about "world's most private search engine". Anyone evaluated it? IXQUICK SEARCH ENGINE https://ixquick.com/eng/aboutixquick/ Best wishes and regards Shahzad -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kichango at gmail.com Thu Aug 15 04:20:59 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 08:20:59 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Google, Gmail, Privacy & world's most private search engine In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I have been using IXQUICK after reading reviews about it and a couple other search engines such as Duck Duck Something Something, etc. Can't say I have technologically evaluated it, though. Regards, Mawaki On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 7:16 AM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > While most of you would have already seen this piece from Guardian today > about Gmail. > > > http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/aug/14/google-gmail-users-privacy-email-lawsuit > > A friend in Europe have just shared this new information about "world's > most private search engine". > > Anyone evaluated it? > > IXQUICK SEARCH ENGINE > > https://ixquick.com/eng/aboutixquick/ > > Best wishes and regards > > Shahzad > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nnenna75 at gmail.com Thu Aug 15 09:14:48 2013 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 13:14:48 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] UPDATE: Africa Internet Governance 2013. Message-ID: CONFIRMED: Africa Internet Governance Forum 2013: Month: September Dates: 24 - 26 City: Nairobi Country: Kenya Contact: *nnenna75 at gmail.com * #*AFIGF * **** Apologies for cross posting**** ** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Aug 15 10:05:45 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 22:05:45 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] WSIS+10 High Level Event Multistakeholder Preparatory Platform launched Message-ID: <4BB8F025-9DA1-49E0-A57D-B91A75C287BB@ciroap.org> Belatedly, the Multistakeholder Preparatory Platform for the 2014 WSIS+10 High Level Event has just been launched online. This is for taking stock of the implementation of the WSIS outcomes, and developing targets and Indicators for an open and inclusive information/knowledge society for all beyond 2015. The website is: http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/mpp/ Through this process, stakeholders will seek to develop multistakeholder consensus on two outcome documents for the WSIS+10 event. To make a submission you can download Word documents that are on the above site - online forms will be available soon. A deadline is not yet, so far as I can see, specified. Some individuals and organisations will be interested in sending their own submissions. I'm less sure about whether there is value or interest in doing a joint submission. Certainly, this falls outside Internet governance per se and includes broader ICT4D themes. But we can discuss whether there is enough mutual interest in collaborating on a submission. -- 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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Aug 15 10:41:02 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 10:41:02 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: WSIS Flash Issue No 28 - July-August 2013 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: WSIS Team Date: Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:01 AM Subject: WSIS Flash Issue No 28 - July-August 2013 To: carolina rossini You are subscribed as carolina.rossini at gmail.com | View this email online [image: WSIS Flash] [image: WSIS High-Level Event] <#1408253604b5bbca_hlevent> [image: WSIS Stocktaking]<#1408253604b5bbca_wsisStocktaking> [image: Global Repository] <#1408253604b5bbca_repository> [image: Global Events Calendar] <#1408253604b5bbca_calendar> [image: Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development] <#1408253604b5bbca_partnership> [image: UNGIS]<#1408253604b5bbca_ungis> July - August 2013, Geneva, Switzerland Message from the WSIS Team Dear WSIS Stakeholders, Continuing our online and offline dialogues, since the WSIS Forum 2013, on the WSIS Review Process and the future of the WSIS Process beyond 2015 several crucial questions arise. In building the vision of the WSIS Process beyond 2015: in the past ten years, what are the main achievements in the area of the information society, in particular in the implementation of the WSIS Action Lines; what are the key challenges that need to be addressed in the next 10 years; and what is the key role that ICTs can play in the post 2015 Development Agenda? The WSIS+10 High-Level Event, an extended version of the WSIS Forum (13-17 April 2014, Sharm el-Sheikh), will address these questions and also assess progress made in the implementation of the WSIS outcomes related to the WSIS Action Lines under mandates of the participating agencies, while providing a platform for multistakeholder coordination of the implementation of the WSIS outcomes, with involvement and participation of all WSIS action line facilitators, other UN agencies and all WSIS stakeholders. The WSIS+10 High-Level Event will review the WSIS Outcomes (2003 and 2005) related to the Action Lines with a view to developing proposals on a new vision beyond 2015, potentially also exploring new targets. The meeting will be organized taking into account decisions of the 68th Session of the UN General Assembly. The preparatory processwill comprise of an Open Consultation Process consisting of six phases, including three physical meetings and online consultations. This open and inclusive open consultation process will result in: - Draft outcome documents for consideration by the WSIS+10 High-Level Event, by 1st March 2014 - Draft WSIS+10 Statement on Implementation of WSIS Outcomes - Draft WSIS+10 Vision for WSIS Beyond 2015 under mandates of the participating agencies (Please see the Official Submission Form #1 on the Outcome Documents of the WSIS+10 High-Level Event) - Multistakeholder guidance on the Thematic Aspects and Innovations on the Format of the WSIS +10 High Level Event. (Please see the Official Submission Form #2 on the Thematic Aspects and Innovations on the Format) We look forward to your active participation in the open consultation process . Best Regards, WSIS Team WSIS+10 High-Level Event The WSIS+10 High-Level Eventwill be held from 13 to 17 April 2014 in Sharm el-Sheikh. This event will be an extended version of the WSIS Forum. It is designed to review the progress made in the implementation of the WSIS outcomes under the mandates of participating agencies, and to take stock of achievements in the last 10 years based on reports of WSIS Stakeholders, including those submitted by countries, Action Line Facilitators and other stakeholders. The WSIS+10 High-Level Event will review the WSIS Outcomes (2003 and 2005) related to the WSIS Action Lines with the view of developing proposals on a new vision beyond 2015, potentially including new targets. This process will take into account the decisions of the 68th Session of the UN General Assembly. [image: WSIS+10 High-Level Event] Invitation Letter: Invitation to Contribute to the Open Consultation Process The preparatory processis an open and inclusive consultation among WSIS Stakeholders (governments, private sector, civil society, international organizations and relevant regional organizations) focused on: developing multistakeholder consensus on two draft Outcome Documents, to be developed during the open consultation process by 1 March 2014 and submitted for consideration by the WSIS+10 High-Level Event; the thematic aspects and innovations on the format of the Event. The Open Consultation Process for the WSIS+10 High-Level Eventis structured in six phases as follows: - Phase One: July 2013 - Initiation of the Open Consultation Process: Official Submissions Submission Forms: 1. Official Submission Form #1 on the Outcome Documents of the WSIS+10 High-Level Event 2. Official Submission Form #2 on the Thematic Aspects and Innovations on the Format - Phase Two: 7-8 October 2013 - First Physical Meeting, Room C, ITU Headquarters, Geneva (Remote Participation will be available) - Phase Three: 16-17 December 2013 - Second Physical Meeting (Remote Participation will be available) - Phase Four: 17-18 February 2014 - Third Physical Meeting (Remote Participation will be available) - Phase Five: 1 March 2014 - Outcomes of the open consultation published. - Phase Six: 12 March 2014 - Final Brief on the WSIS+10 High-Level Event (Remote Participation will be available) WSIS Stocktaking New call for update and new entries. Contribute to the WSIS Stocktaking Report 2014. During the WSIS process in 2004, stakeholders expressed their view that the public stocktaking database of WSIS-related implementation activities ( www.wsis.org/stocktaking), structured according to the 11 WSIS Action Lines (Geneva Plan of Action), should be further maintained under the stewardship of ITU (see Tunis Agenda, § 120). The principal role of the WSIS Stocktaking exercise is to leverage the activities of stakeholders working on the implementation of WSIS outcomes and share knowledge and experience of projects by replicating successful models. In this context, WSIS Stocktaking process provides a portal of best practices for stakeholders seeking updated information on the progress of implementation of WSIS outcomes (see Geneva Plan of Action, §28.e) ECOSOC Resolution 2012 on “Assessment of the progress made in the implementation of and follow-up to the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society” encourages all WSIS stakeholders to continue to contribute information to the WSIS Stocktaking database. The results of the previous call for update and new entries were presented in the fifth edition of the Report on WSIS Stocktaking reflecting more than 700 WSIS-related activities for the period May 2012-May 2013. The sixth edition of the WSIS Stocktaking Report is the continuation of the WSIS Stocktaking Report series and will be prepared for WSIS+10 High-Level Event and Forum 2014 as the background document. The WSIS Stocktaking Report 2014 will also be shared with ITU-D study Groups in the elaboration of Output Reports and will be submitted as the contribution to the 17th session of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD). In 2013, the new application for the database was introduced with additional features that allow stakeholders to use the database in a more efficient way. The users are able to access their account of projects/activities where they could track all recorded data and update/edit their existing WSIS related activities at any time. We look forward to receiving your responses and any other associated documentation by 1st December 2013. Don’t miss the opportunity to provide your input to the 6th edition of the WSIS Stocktaking report Official documentation and questionnaire is available at www.wsis.org/stocktaking WSIS Forum 2013 WSIS Forum 2013 was held from the 13-17 May 2013 at the ITU Headquarters in Geneva. This year the Forum attracted more than 1800 WSIS Stakeholders from more than 140 countries. Several high-level representatives of the wider WSIS Stakeholder community graced the Forum with more than 60 ministers and deputies, several ambassadors, CEOs and Civil Society leaders contributing passionately towards the programme of the Forum. On–site participation increased tremendously during the WSIS Forum 2013. Several remote participants joined the forum through remote participation facilities. WSIS Forum 2013 Outcome Document More than 150 sessions were held during the WSIS Forum 2013 in the form of high level dialogues, thematic and country workshops, showcasing theatres, ministerial round table, WSIS+10 Visioning Track, World Café style workshops, interactive sessions and action line facilitating sessions. This provided a vibrant atmosphere for facilitation and exchange on a multistakeholder vision of the WSIS Process. An exhibition space provided the perfect atmosphere to network, learn and share. [image: wsis forum 2013 outcome document] The commitment and dedication of the WSIS Stakeholders was evident from the outcomes submitted by the session organizers. The outcomes of the WSIS Forum 2013 will be submitted to the Commission on Science and Technology (CSTD), the UN General Assembly and ITU Council. The outcomes of the sessions are available here . Identifying Emerging Trends and a Vision Beyond 2015 booklet Since 2009, the WSIS forum has proven to be a unique platform for multistakeholder brainstorming and consensus on emerging trends in the area of Information Society. This bookletcaptures emerging trends in the 11 WSIS Action lines, both in terms of policy and technology, discussed by stakeholders during WSIS Forum 2013. The trends identified during the Forum, provide the WSIS Community with guidance and a vision for the way beyond 2015, WSIS+10, related activities. [image: emerging trends booklet] • Identifying Emerging Trends and a Vision Beyond 2015 booklet Statement on the WSIS+10 Visioning and WSIS+10 Visioning Challenge document The annual gathering of WSIS Stakeholders at the WSIS Forum, co-organised by ITU, UNESCO, UNCTAD and UNDP, provided the perfect opportunity for multistakeholder visioning and discussion on the WSIS process including the Overall Review of the Implementation of the WSIS Outcomes (WSIS+10). The presence of so many leaders here in Geneva, including over 50 ministers, was a sign, both of stakeholders’ commitment to the WSIS Process and of the important role ICTs will continue to play in tomorrow’s development agenda. During the Forum a Statement on WSIS+10 Visioningwas released WSIS+10 related sessions formed the WSIS+10 Visioning Track that was organized in accordance to the Plan of Action developed within the framework of the United Nations on the Information Society (UNGIS) Open Consultation Process on WSIS+10 (2011-2012, http://www.ungis.org ). [image: WSIS+10 Visioning Challenge Document] • Statement on the WSIS+10 Visioning • WSIS+10 Visioning Challenge Document For further information please visit the Forum Website Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development The Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development is actively involved in the WSIS+10 review process and has taken the lead role in monitoring progress towards the achievements of the WSIS Targets. The Partnership is preparing a final quantitative assessment report, which will analyze and discuss the achievements made on each one of the ten WSIS targets. The report will be based on available data for the 49 indicators identified in the Partnership’s 2011 Measuring the WSIS Targets: a statistical framework document. The report will be launched at the WSIS+10 high-level meeting on the overall review of the WSIS, to take place in April 2014. In July 2013, the Partnership, through the UN Regional Commissions, the OECD and UNCTAD, will send out the WSIS Targets questionnaire to WSIS focal points in all countries to collect data for the indicators identified to track the WSIS Targets. The results of this questionnaire will be used as an input to the final 2014 WSIS assessment report and all countries are encouraged to respond to this questionnaire. *This survey will be the last opportunity to contribute data to the final assessment report.* For more information, and to access the WSIS Targets questionnaire please visit ** http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/intlcoop/partnership/followup.aspx/ **. United Nations Group on the Information Society UNGIS Joint Statement: A collective contribution by 30 UN Agencies (UNGIS Members) to the dialogue on the Post-2015 Development Agenda. In keeping with its mandate to promote policy coherence and programme coordination in the UN system, as well as provide guidance on issues related to information and communications technologies (ICTs) in support of internationally agreed development goals, the 30 members of the UN Group on the Information Society (UNGIS) will respectfully submit a joint statementto the UN Secretary General and the UN Task Team. The statement is a collective contribution to the dialogue on the Post-2015 Development Agenda, a unified effort to harness inter-agency expertise and experience to support deliberations on Post-2015 priorities, and a united commitment to a UN community poised to address development challenges in the 21st century. [image: UNGIS Joint Statement] For information on UNGIS please visit www.ungis.org ITU Telecom World 2013, Bangkok 19-22 November Join the conversation in 2013 [image: about2013pic.jpg (680×220)] A revolution is underway in the ICT sector. The shift to IP-based services is shaking the foundations of communication systems as we know them. We need to understand this change, work out how to grow with it and benefit from it. ITU Telecom World 2013 will explore the theme of Embracing change in a digital world. We invite you to be part of this conversation. Through interactive panel debates, workshops and showfloor sessions we will focus on five major areas of change: *changing user behaviour*; *shifting industry dynamics*; *Internet of Things and M2M*; *new technologies*; * new standardization and regulatory approaches*. For more information, please visit http://world2013.itu.int/ #BYND2015 Global Youth Summit Inspiring young people to ensure a better future for everyone #BYND2015Global Youth Summit intends to address the concerns of young people and provide creative solutions through the use of ICTs. The ITU, who are committed to connecting the world, are doing just that by using an innovative crowd-sourcing platformthat will enable all young people from across the world to sharetheir views and actively participate in shaping the policies that will affect their futures. The key crowd-sourced findings will culminate in an unprecedented statement that will be handed to World Leaders at the United Nations General Assembly in New York by Laura Chinchilla, the President of Costa Rica. The Child Online Protection Initiativeat ITU is organizing a session on child online safety at the Global Youth Summit in partnership with UNICEFand The Walt Disney Company. The *Be Smart, Be Safe*session will help young people become informed users of the Internet and encourage them to share with their peers best practices and recommendations for staying smart and safe online. Young participants will have an opportunity to design their own global awareness campaign on online safety and compete in a video competition to be launched at the Summit. Video: #BYND2015: Crowdsourcing a message to global leaders Broadband Commission Planning for progress: Why national broadband plans matter - a contribution to the work of the Broadband Commission for Digital Development This new ITU and Cisco report finds that there has been strong recent growth in broadband plans, with some 134 policies in force by mid - 2013. Plans may take different forms and vary in targets, however share a common emphasis on the vital role of broadband in underpinning national competitiveness, and extending national footprint of broadband networks and usage of broadband-enabled services and applications. Research conducted for this report suggests that the introduction or adoption of a broadband plan is associated with 2.5% higher fixed broadband penetration, and 7.4% higher mobile broadband penetration on average. This result is consistent with a National Broadband Plan focusing efforts across industry in coordination with policy-makers, emphasizing the role of broadband as a national priority, and signaling national commitment to the roll-out of broadband. To access report, please visit ** www.broadbandcommission.org/documents/reportNBP2013.pdf **. [image: itu/cisco poster] For more information, please visit **www.broadbandcommission.org/ **. Child Online Protection (COP) Inauguration Ceremony of H.E. Dr. Dame Patience Goodluck Jonathan, First Lady of Nigeria as ITU’s Child Online Protection Champion On Monday 22 July 2013, ITU will host an inauguration ceremony of H.E. Dr. Dame Patience Goodluck Jonathan, First Lady of Nigeria, as its Child Online Protection (COP)Champion. A progressive leader and renowned humanitarian, the First Lady of Nigeria has worked extensively to empower children and women in Nigeria. With the support of the First Lady as ITU’s COP Champion, the Federal Republic of Nigeria will be taking more extensive steps to build a safer online environment for children and young people. ITU is looking forward to collaborating closely with the First Lady and her country to promote child online safety. [image: H.E. Dr. Dame Patience Goodluck Jonathan] In addition, ITU and the Federal Republic of Nigeria have just signed a Memorandum of Understanding on the establishment of a Regional Cybersecurity Centre for Africa in Nigeria. This Regional Centre will facilitate multi-stakeholder collaboration on combatting cyber threats at the regional and national levels—with an emphasis on activities related to child online protection. ITU Partners with IWF in its Mission to Achieve Child Online Safety In collaboration with the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), ITUcreated a template for countries to assess online child sexual abuse content and propose mechanisms for its elimination. To test the efficacy of the template and approach, IWF has run a pilot programme in Uganda earlier in June. For more information, visit ITU’s Child Online Protection website . [image: internet watch] ITU and UNICEF Engage Industry Partners to Protect Children Online [image: article_image] ITU’s Child Online Protection (COP)initiative is working closely with UNICEFand industry partners to strengthen industry participation in advancing children’s rights online. Together with UNICEF and partners, ITU is currently updating its Guidelines for Industry on Child Online Protection, whose aim is to provide a common framework for all sectors of the industry in working towards a safer cyber world for children. Also, new industry partners have joined the COP initiative recently: The Walt Disney Company, for example, is one of the partners taking the lead on designing and delivering training for young people on online safety at the Global Youth Summit: BYND2015. Read our articleon the ITU blogto learn more about ITU’s work with UNICEF and industry partners. WSIS+10 High-Level Event Open Consultation Process Invitation Letter: Invitation to Contribute Phase One • Official Submission Form #1 on the Outcome Documents of the WSIS+10 High-Level Event • Official Submission Form #2 on the Thematic Aspects and Innovations on the Format WSIS Fund in Trust WSIS Fund in Trust [image: WSIS Fund in Trust] Call for Contributions 2012-2013 Letter: [AR ] [EN ] [ES ] [FR ] [RU ] [ZH ] Global Events Calendar Africa Child Online Protection (ACOP) Summit 26-28 June 2013, Kampala, Uganda [image: acop] From February 5th to February 7th 2014, the Child Online Protection initiativeat ITU, in partnership with African Child Online Protection (ACOP), will organize the African Child Online Protection Summit in Uganda. In response to increasing access to information and communication technologies in Africa, the Summit will bring together key stakeholders and experts—both local, regional, and international—to discuss policies, strategies, and practices for ensuring child online safety in Africa. For more information, please visit the event pagefor the Summit. Transform Africa 28-31 October 2013, Kigali, Rwanda Africa's Future Delivered, Today The Transform Africa Summit will take place in Kigali, Rwanda from 28 to 31st October 2013. Transform Africa is open to participants from around the world and is expected to attract over 1000 local, regional and international governments, innovators, companies, thought leaders and academia. More Information Global Repository More than 109 WSIS related publications! Recently submitted publications: WSIS Stocktaking Report 2013 [image: stocktaking report] WSIS Stocktaking Success Stories 2013 [image: success stories 2013] WSIS Forum 2013 Outcome Document [image: wsis forum 2013 outcome document] WSIS+10 Visioning Challenge Document [image: WSIS+10 Visioning Challenge Document] National Case Study for Costa Rica on Child Online Protection [image: Costa Rica COP Case Study] The publication is available at: www.itu.int/cop View more Partners [image: logoEiAfrica] [image: logoNGLS] [image: logoE-Agriculture] [image: congoLogo] [image: logoE-learningAfrica] [image: logoE-Krishok] [image: logoICT4Peace] [image: logoRICTA] [image: logoHUB] [image: logoBIID] [image: logoPathable] [image: logoICVolunteers] Media Partners [image: logoITID] [image: logoITUNews] [image: logo connect the world] [image: logoVideoVolunteers] iwrite4WSIS Strategic Partners www.wsis.org/iwrite [image: logoCIVITEC] [image: logotelecentre] [image: logoSuNTA] [image: logoEagriculture] [image: logoCibervoluntariosFoundation] [image: logoCOETTC] [image: logoTransformingBroadcasting] You have received this newsletter as part of your engagement with the WSIS Process. The WSIS Flash provides monthly updates on the WSIS Implementation Process, to stop receiving these emails please unsubscribe. www.wsis.org| wsis-info at itu.int -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk Fri Aug 16 07:58:34 2013 From: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk (Marianne Franklin) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 13:58:34 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Nominees to High Level meeting in Bali on "Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles" In-Reply-To: <20130814152243.2af3b426@quill> References: <5209F29D.2050406@ciroap.org> <20130814054408.GB24804@thorion.it.jyu.fi> <20130814152243.2af3b426@quill> Message-ID: <520E13EA.6050203@gold.ac.uk> Dear all Tapani's points and suggestion below are sound. Having governments take the IGF seriously is integral to moving things forward in the longer term. How these sorts of events operate in protocol terms are, as Anriette notes, not always conducive to interactive modes of discussion. But we have to start somewhere. As there is already and invitation list in place I hope all our self-nominations can be taken on board so that people can attend the meeting at least. That there has been little time or consultation for respective organizations and networks/coalitions to consult properly to nominate people to represent them is not new either. Is this pre-event a closed meeting then entirely? If so, can we join forces to urge the organizers to open it up for observers. The longer term plans for cementing a wider participation in future can then continue. Like others I am interested in hearing what ministers have to say, even if in formal protocol-speak as an individual and also on behalf of IRP Coalition members not attending. In terms of Best Bits representation likewise as our being allowed to be in the room is important I think. best MF On 14/08/2013 15:22, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > >>> How about setting up a joint NomCom by inviting members of all the >>> various civil society organizations and networks to volunteer for >>> the NomCom >> Just finding all civil society organizations is hard enough, >> let alone getting them to agree... we'd need to get this NomCom >> somehow officially blessed by the IGF or something. >> But if we can get enough support for it, i.e., sufficiently >> large number of CS organizations, it could work. > As I mentioned in my response to Jeremy I'd like to go ahead with this > idea with a target of having something in place in time for the 2014 > IGF. > > As a first step, I'd like to build a “list of civil society networks in > the area of Internet Governance”, and I've created an Etherpad for this > at > > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/civil-society-networks > > Obviously all of the steering groups etc. of these networks must be > invited to participate in the discussions around creating a Joint Civil > Society NomCom mechanism, or other credible mechanism that could > serve the same purpose. > > I however don't think that it is appropriate to restrict these > dicussions only to people who are on some steering group. Therefore I'd > like to broadly circulate a call for expressions of interest for > participation in these discussions, in which everyone who is > (1) experienced as a civil society participant in Internet governance > debates, and is > (2) clearly primarily participating as a civil society person, with > reasonable independence from industry and government interests > is invited tp also participate in these discussions on the basis of a > simple expression of interest. > > In case of any doubts in regard to whether someone expressing interest > fulfills the criteria (1) and (2), I envision decisions about > application of these to be made group of people which consists of all > the people from the various steering groups of civil society networks. > > Greetings, > Norbert > -- Dr Marianne Franklin Reader Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) Goldsmiths, University of London Dept. of Media & Communications New Cross, London SE14 6NW Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 @GloComm https://twitter.com/GloComm http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/ https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/ www.internetrightsandprinciples.org @netrights From rguerra at privaterra.org Fri Aug 16 08:40:13 2013 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 08:40:13 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Nominees to High Level meeting in Bali on "Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles" In-Reply-To: <520E13EA.6050203@gold.ac.uk> References: <5209F29D.2050406@ciroap.org> <20130814054408.GB24804@thorion.it.jyu.fi> <20130814152243.2af3b426@quill> <520E13EA.6050203@gold.ac.uk> Message-ID: <5CFB27AF-AAC2-4E42-8DD6-C783440419B9@privaterra.org> I've added details about the Citizen Lab to the wiki/etherpad mentioned below. In terms of nominations - is there a form or wiki? If not, let's set one up and get the conversation going. regards Robert -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.org On 2013-08-16, at 7:58 AM, Marianne Franklin wrote: > Dear all > > Tapani's points and suggestion below are sound. > > Having governments take the IGF seriously is integral to moving things forward in the longer term. How these sorts of events operate in protocol terms are, as Anriette notes, not always conducive to interactive modes of discussion. But we have to start somewhere. > > As there is already and invitation list in place I hope all our self-nominations can be taken on board so that people can attend the meeting at least. That there has been little time or consultation for respective organizations and networks/coalitions to consult properly to nominate people to represent them is not new either. > > Is this pre-event a closed meeting then entirely? If so, can we join forces to urge the organizers to open it up for observers. The longer term plans for cementing a wider participation in future can then continue. > > Like others I am interested in hearing what ministers have to say, even if in formal protocol-speak as an individual and also on behalf of IRP Coalition members not attending. In terms of Best Bits representation likewise as our being allowed to be in the room is important I think. > > best > MF > > On 14/08/2013 15:22, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >> >>>> How about setting up a joint NomCom by inviting members of all the >>>> various civil society organizations and networks to volunteer for >>>> the NomCom >>> Just finding all civil society organizations is hard enough, >>> let alone getting them to agree... we'd need to get this NomCom >>> somehow officially blessed by the IGF or something. >>> But if we can get enough support for it, i.e., sufficiently >>> large number of CS organizations, it could work. >> As I mentioned in my response to Jeremy I'd like to go ahead with this >> idea with a target of having something in place in time for the 2014 >> IGF. >> >> As a first step, I'd like to build a “list of civil society networks in >> the area of Internet Governance”, and I've created an Etherpad for this >> at >> >> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/civil-society-networks >> >> Obviously all of the steering groups etc. of these networks must be >> invited to participate in the discussions around creating a Joint Civil >> Society NomCom mechanism, or other credible mechanism that could >> serve the same purpose. >> >> I however don't think that it is appropriate to restrict these >> dicussions only to people who are on some steering group. Therefore I'd >> like to broadly circulate a call for expressions of interest for >> participation in these discussions, in which everyone who is >> (1) experienced as a civil society participant in Internet governance >> debates, and is >> (2) clearly primarily participating as a civil society person, with >> reasonable independence from industry and government interests >> is invited tp also participate in these discussions on the basis of a >> simple expression of interest. >> >> In case of any doubts in regard to whether someone expressing interest >> fulfills the criteria (1) and (2), I envision decisions about >> application of these to be made group of people which consists of all >> the people from the various steering groups of civil society networks. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> > > -- > Dr Marianne Franklin > Reader > Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program > Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) > Goldsmiths, University of London > Dept. of Media & Communications > New Cross, London SE14 6NW > Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 > > @GloComm > https://twitter.com/GloComm > http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/ > https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/ > www.internetrightsandprinciples.org > @netrights > From avri at acm.org Fri Aug 16 09:13:41 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 06:13:41 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Nominees to High Level meeting in Bali on "Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles" In-Reply-To: <520E13EA.6050203@gold.ac.uk> References: <5209F29D.2050406@ciroap.org> <20130814054408.GB24804@thorion.it.jyu.fi> <20130814152243.2af3b426@quill> <520E13EA.6050203@gold.ac.uk> Message-ID: Hi, While everyone is scrambling to get themselves on the invite list, I think this is a really good proposal. Can we get this meeting opened at least for observation? avri On 16 Aug 2013, at 04:58, Marianne Franklin wrote: > Dear all > > Tapani's points and suggestion below are sound. > > Having governments take the IGF seriously is integral to moving things forward in the longer term. How these sorts of events operate in protocol terms are, as Anriette notes, not always conducive to interactive modes of discussion. But we have to start somewhere. > > As there is already and invitation list in place I hope all our self-nominations can be taken on board so that people can attend the meeting at least. That there has been little time or consultation for respective organizations and networks/coalitions to consult properly to nominate people to represent them is not new either. > > Is this pre-event a closed meeting then entirely? If so, can we join forces to urge the organizers to open it up for observers. The longer term plans for cementing a wider participation in future can then continue. > > Like others I am interested in hearing what ministers have to say, even if in formal protocol-speak as an individual and also on behalf of IRP Coalition members not attending. In terms of Best Bits representation likewise as our being allowed to be in the room is important I think. > > best > MF > > On 14/08/2013 15:22, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >> >>>> How about setting up a joint NomCom by inviting members of all the >>>> various civil society organizations and networks to volunteer for >>>> the NomCom >>> Just finding all civil society organizations is hard enough, >>> let alone getting them to agree... we'd need to get this NomCom >>> somehow officially blessed by the IGF or something. >>> But if we can get enough support for it, i.e., sufficiently >>> large number of CS organizations, it could work. >> As I mentioned in my response to Jeremy I'd like to go ahead with this >> idea with a target of having something in place in time for the 2014 >> IGF. >> >> As a first step, I'd like to build a “list of civil society networks in >> the area of Internet Governance”, and I've created an Etherpad for this >> at >> >> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/civil-society-networks >> >> Obviously all of the steering groups etc. of these networks must be >> invited to participate in the discussions around creating a Joint Civil >> Society NomCom mechanism, or other credible mechanism that could >> serve the same purpose. >> >> I however don't think that it is appropriate to restrict these >> dicussions only to people who are on some steering group. Therefore I'd >> like to broadly circulate a call for expressions of interest for >> participation in these discussions, in which everyone who is >> (1) experienced as a civil society participant in Internet governance >> debates, and is >> (2) clearly primarily participating as a civil society person, with >> reasonable independence from industry and government interests >> is invited tp also participate in these discussions on the basis of a >> simple expression of interest. >> >> In case of any doubts in regard to whether someone expressing interest >> fulfills the criteria (1) and (2), I envision decisions about >> application of these to be made group of people which consists of all >> the people from the various steering groups of civil society networks. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> > > -- > Dr Marianne Franklin > Reader > Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program > Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) > Goldsmiths, University of London > Dept. of Media & Communications > New Cross, London SE14 6NW > Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 > > @GloComm > https://twitter.com/GloComm > http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/ > https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/ > www.internetrightsandprinciples.org > @netrights > > From anja at internetdemocracy.in Fri Aug 16 10:30:52 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 20:00:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Nominees to High Level meeting in Bali on "Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles" In-Reply-To: <093676F2-05AD-409D-BA87-B3776BD70A7B@glocom.ac.jp> References: <5209F29D.2050406@ciroap.org> <20130813183514.0d8c8b97@quill> <6ACCFAD3-3FB9-416B-99FB-4772DDB4E71F@ciroap.org> <20130813184448.5983a1be@quill> <520AF6D8.50709@ciroap.org> <520B02E2.6050205@itforchange.net> <520B9B69.9080204@apc.org> <093676F2-05AD-409D-BA87-B3776BD70A7B@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: I agree with Adam that as long as processes aren't clear, the HLM and its outcomes should be kept more clearly separate from the HLM. As to Adam's question of why people want to attend: in my case this was simply driven by the topic, "cyber ethics principles". Freedom of expression has been a major focus of the Internet Democracy Project, which I work with, over the past two years, and discussions like these have the potential to lead to very negative repercussions on free speech online. Being in the room makes it easier to know what is going on in governments' minds, and to adequately respond if necessary. Best, Anja On 14 August 2013 21:43, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi Anriette, > > Thanks for asking those questions and more. > > Comments below. > > On Aug 14, 2013, at 11:59 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > > Dear Adam > > > > I am sorry... I missed this question about the Baku declaration. > > > > Good question.. but.. counter question... if we want the IGF to become > > more outcome oriented.. don't we want ALL outcomes from IGF-linked > > processes to be reflected.. or should that apply only to events that are > > formally part of the main IGF? > > > > > I think we'd quite soon face the same situation as we kind of see now with > open forums when they become quasi-workshops. What I mean is, we are > trying to create a fair and transparent process for the IGF adhering to > various principles, side events would perhaps side-step those processes and > principles. So for now my answer is we do not want ALL outcomes from > IGF-linked processes to be reflected. Not until we know what we're dealing > with and have principle-based processes in place, > > > > > I agree that it is good for governments to come to the IGF, and an event > > like this can help. I participated in the Nairobi event and it was > > certainly successful, but there was very little dialogue. It was more a > > case of one government after another showcasing what they are doing. > > > > > From what I remember the Nairobi ministerial meeting it was very limited > in the number of non-govt stakeholders, and wasn't intended to be > multi-stakeholder. The Bali meetings starts with the MAG all invited which > makes 30+ (I think!), way ahead already. But I expect it will still be > rather dull, the intent to allow governments to make statements as they > usually do in UN forums. Exactly the kind of session we try to avoid in > the IGF itself. I am not sure why people want to attend. > > > > I would really like to see governments have an interactive dialogue with > > one another at the IGF on internet policy issues. But high-level > > protocol is a powerful force, and not one that combines easily with > > interactive dialogue. > > > > You have to get them there first before they can join the broader dialogue > and that was the intention behind the ministerial/high-level meeting. > Worked to a degree in Nairobi, not sure since. > > Best, > > Adam > > > > > Anriette > > > > On 14/08/2013 12:58, Adam Peake wrote: > >> Parminder, > >> > >> My understanding of the high-level meeting (I think labelled > "ministerial" in Nairobi) is the same as yours: intended a session in a > format more familiar to high-level government representatives, get them and > their staff to attend and to hopefully stay on. And I understand it worked > in Nairobi, it was an effective carrot for both African govt and others to > attend the IGF. And I'm OK with that, a pre-meeting that is clearly > separate from the IGF is fine whether it's bestbits, the host country's HLM > or giganet (etc). But it is problematic when the Baku high-level meeting > produces a declaration (however innocuous) that is then made available on > the official IGF website in the same space as the Chairman's Summary, the > document that's traditionally been to only official output of the IGF > process . Also a problem > that the UN flag raising ceremony was listed as part of the Baku HLM > agenda. Need to be more thoughtful in how these meetings are presented. > >> > >> Anriette - another question for today's MAG call, could you ask why the > Baku declaration is available on the IGF website, and why it's presented > along side the Chairman's summary? If it were on the host website only, > then much less of an issue. This should be fixed for Bali. > >> > >> Further complication this year is that sessions from the IGF proper > will be held on day "zero" (regional IGF session, etc.) Pre-meetings begin > to mix with sessions of the IGF. Would be good to make a very clear > demarcation between what is IGF and what is not IGF (the HLM should not be.) > >> > >> Adam > >> > >> > >> On Aug 14, 2013, at 1:09 PM, parminder wrote: > >> > >>> in addition to the below issues, we still do not know what the form of > the high level meeting is. Is it a real round table kind of forum where > people get an opportunity to wiegh in substantially or just a 'mix and make > connections' thing which corporates types may still love to do but not many > civil society kinds may to be too eager about. > >>> > >>> Also, is their any drafting process for the likely statement to come > out of the HLM. That is crucial. > >>> > >>> And, the IGF or non IGF status of the meeting? > >>> > >>> I had asked for these clarifications on the IGC list from a civil > society member of the MAG, and await them. > >>> > >>> My understanding is that initially is was a kind of a 'formal thing > without real substance', which was to attract high level participation from > governments, esp ministrial level. Kind of peoople who do not come over > just to sit in the audience at the IGF. And when ministers come, their > retinue of senior officials also come along, and that was supposed to fill > in a (really) missing gap at the IG, especially in terms of governmental > participation from developing countires. I will be cautious to see this > meeting take a character and big role for itself, which could compromise > the relatively participative nature of the IGF. Especially of concern is > the declaration that comes from this meeting, which at present is the only > real 'consumable' doc coming out the IGF environment. So, maybe civil > socity may want to think around these issues as well. > >>> > >>> parminder > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wednesday 14 August 2013 08:47 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >>>> On 14/08/13 00:44, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >>>>> Jeremy Malcolm > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>>> How about setting up a joint NomCom by inviting members of all the > >>>>>>> various civil society organizations and networks to volunteer for > >>>>>>> the NomCom... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> It is a very good plan for the future, but not something that could > >>>>>> be accomplished easily in two weeks. > >>>>>> > >>>>> Where does that “two weeks” timeline come from? > >>>>> > >>>> Actually you're quite right, I'm mixing up the deadline for the CSTD > enhanced cooperation questionnaire (which is in two weeks) with the (yet > unspecified, but Izumi is finding out) deadline for nominating panelists to > the High Level Meeting. So maybe we have longer, but surely not much longer. > >>>> > >>>> Establishing (or re-establishing - we had one in WSIS) a high-level > mechanism for civil society groups to jointly nominate candidates for > positions is very important, I couldn't agree with you more. But it's also > ambitious. > >>>> > >>>> Noting that thanks to your leadership the IGC has a workshop relevant > to this topic planned for Bali ("MS selection processes: accountability and > transparency"), it would be better, I feel, to come up with a proposal and > present it at that workshop. I wouldn't want to rush it on account of what > is probably a minimally important pre-event in Bali. > >>>> > >>>> However, if you disagree then by all means put your idea to the IGC > then I can put it to the Best Bits interim steering group and we can reach > out to the other relevant groups and networks too. If it were me though, I > would rather wait. > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> 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 > >>>> > >>>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement > knowledge hub | > http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > >>>> > >>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > >>>> > >>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless > necessary. > >>>> > >>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > >>>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> 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 > >> > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > > executive director, association for progressive communications > > www.apc.org > > po box 29755, melville 2109 > > south africa > > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From grace.abuhamad at gmail.com Fri Aug 16 10:57:44 2013 From: grace.abuhamad at gmail.com (Grace Abuhamad) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 10:57:44 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Internet Events Calendar Message-ID: Dear all, As part of my work for the GovLab @ NYU, I've compiled information about upcoming Internet events into a calendar. I understand this was a project attempted in other groups as well, but I wanted to go ahead and share our product with you: http://www.thegovlab.org/events/ If you have any events you would like to add, please send the information along to me. We are still thinking of ways to make a open calendar compatible with our website. Cheers, -- Grace M. Abuhamad -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shahzad at bytesforall.pk Mon Aug 5 08:46:25 2013 From: shahzad at bytesforall.pk (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2013 17:46:25 +0500 Subject: [bestbits] IGF Bali In-Reply-To: <51FAE664.10104@cdt.org> Message-ID: Just got this news from a friend that its now official that IGF Bali will be organized as planned. http://m.kominfo.go.id/berita/detail/4095/Siaran+Pers+No.+61-PIH-KOMINFO-8-2 013+tentang+Indonesia+Bersama+Komunitas+Internet+Multi-Stakeholder+Global+Si ap+Menjadi+Tuan+Rumah+IGF+2013+-+Bali Congratulations everyone, who have been working very hard behind the scenes to make it happen. More power to you all, Best wishes and regards Shahzad -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Sat Aug 17 02:19:46 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 14:19:46 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Internet Events Calendar In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 16/08/2013, at 10:57 PM, Grace Abuhamad wrote: > As part of my work for the GovLab @ NYU, I've compiled information about upcoming Internet events into a calendar. I understand this was a project attempted in other groups as well, but I wanted to go ahead and share our product with you: http://www.thegovlab.org/events/ Great! > If you have any events you would like to add, please send the information along to me. We are still thinking of ways to make a open calendar compatible with our website. This can be done automatically by importing the events from the Best Bits event calendar, and the reverse can also be done - in other words adding your calendar as a source for events shown in our calendar, which I've just done: http://bestbits.net/events/ We already have nine other calendars - now ten - feeding events into ours (although their events are hidden by default): Internet Governance Caucus, Access, Fight for the Future, IGF Community Site, Consumers International, Diplo Foundation, Infojustice.org, Internet Governance Project and RIPE NCC. To see events from external calendars you need to change the "Categories" drop-down filter to include "Events from other calendars" and then chose the other calendar from the "Tags" drop-down. But the idea is that the moderators of the calendar will periodically move imported events out of this category and into a more appropriate category so that they will become visible. Currently our other categories are ICANN, IGF, ITU, Non-institutional forums, UN and WSIS Review - but we can add more. Other features that are due to be rolled out soon are: RSVPs: This is the most useful improvement - we will show who is attending each upcoming meeting. If you RSVP for any meeting, you will also receive information about travel support opportunities. Institutions: The hosting institutions for meeting will each have a wiki-style page of information about them that carries across all the meetings that they host - and later, a map/infographic will be linked in. Event Issues: Similarly, each event can have issues associated with it. These are more fine-grained than categories, and are designed to capture the particular topics that a meeting will discuss. Reports, Event Papers & Detailed Event Pages: Some events can have a detailed page associated with them, generally because a Best Bits gathering is taking place there (example: http://bestbits.net/bestbits2012). Events can also have briefing papers (ahead of the event) and reports (after the event) uploaded that will be associated with them. These are all treated in a similar way. These features have already been developed, but they broke when I upgraded the site and are having to be reimplemented. :-/ I will send more details when they are ready again. The intent is that our calendar can be a resource for any other groups who can embed it on their own sites, and extract just the events that they want. It is straightforward to embed a calendar (either by subscribing to an iCalendar feed, or by embedding the calendar as a pre-formatted page). To embed the pre-formatted page you add this code to your website: Followed by this:
You can modify the categories or tags that are pre-selected, and the appearance of the calendar, by adding options, for example: Posterboard view:
Stream view:
Month view:
Week view:
Day view:
Agenda view:
Default view as per settings:
Filter by event category ID:
Filter by event category IDs (separate IDs by comma):
Filter by event tag ID:
Filter by event tag IDs (separate IDs by comma):
Filter by post ID:
Filter by post IDs (separate IDs by comma):
Hide title and navigation buttons:
Set a default start date: *
To embed using an iCalendar feed is even simpler: just adjust the options of the event calendar at http://bestbits.net/events/ how you want them, and click "Subscribe to filtered calendar" at the bottom of the page. So as you can see, it does a lot already and more is on the way. Hope some of this may be useful for your aims for the GovLab site too. -- 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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Aug 19 00:16:23 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 12:16:23 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Important new joint submission to CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation Message-ID: <52119C17.4040809@ciroap.org> All Best Bits participants are now invited to finalise a joint submission to the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, which we are to submit by the end of August. This will be a very important submission in its own right, and also a key preparatory document to three upcoming Best Bits meetings - our APrIGF workshop in Seoul , Day 1 of our Best Bits meeting in Bali , and one of our two workshops at the global IGF . Its importance is that it addresses a question, unresolved for the last eight years, about how global Internet governance (in the broad sense that goes beyond technical issues) should evolve in response to states claims of sovereignty over public policy issues relating to the Internet. I wrote a background paper about this general question (and slides ) for our WSIS+10 workshop in Paris. Post-PRISM, the question has only assumed greater importance. For the past few weeks, a civil society-only Best Bits working group (which also includes, though not in an official capacity, civil society members of the CSTD working group) has been working hard on this, to hone in on the core issues and to state them clearly and fairly, taking into account the wide divergence in views that exists even within civil society. The result of our work is open for your comment for one week, at which time we will close for endorsements: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/ec The current text is also pasted below. We aim for this submission to be as broadly inclusive of the views of Best Bits participants as possible, so after reading and considering the existing text carefully, if you have any changes to suggest, please speak up. If the changes are minor, you can just make them on the Etherpad. If major, we would ask that you raise them on the list first. The more groups that can endorse the submission, the more influence it will have. Just to reiterate, we are not taking endorsements yet. This will occur after one week of final comments from this list. (There is no point in taking endorsements when there might still be changes to the text.) For the same reason, we ask that you don't forward the draft text widely yet. If you want to bring other groups into the discussion that is welcome, but (for now) the best way to do so would be to ask them to join the Best Bits list. Here, then, is the current text (starting from question 2, which is intentional): *2. What do you think is the significance, purpose and scope of enhanced cooperation as per the Tunis Agenda?* *a) Significance* The inclusion of the enhanced cooperation mandate in the Tunis Agenda was a political necessity to account for the view of many governments and others of the inadequacy of existing Internet governance arrangements when measured against the criteria identified in the first phase of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS): namely transparency, accountability, multilateralism, and the need to address public policy issues related to Internet governance in a coordinated manner (WGIG Report, para 35). In particular it was suggested "that there are many cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms" (Tunis Agenda, para 60). Foremost amongst the areas in which a deficit in existing arrangements was perceived was the issue of internationalizing Internet oversight beyond the United States, a struggle that had dominated the entire summit process from the beginning of WSIS I. But existing arrangements were also seen as failing to adequately address a broad range of other issues, some discussed below under question 4. At the conclusion of WSIS, civil society, backed by what ultimately became a coalition among the US and some other mainly developed countries, got the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), as a multi-stakeholder forum to address mainly those other broader issues. The promise of addressing the narrower issue of Internet oversight, as sought by a key group of other governments, was reserved for a process parallel to the IGF, and perhaps as a counterbalance to it. Those governments got as a result the 'enhanced cooperation' process. It is also significant that even though the discussion was quite conflictual, member states chose to use 'positive' words: enhance, and cooperation. The ongoing discussion about how to improve IG arrangements should continue in this same positive spirit. *b) Purpose* Therefore the purpose of enhanced cooperation process mandate, in conjunction with the closely related mandate for the formation of an Internet Governance Forum, is to address the perceived deficits described above. In particular the Tunis Agenda identifies that enhanced cooperation would enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet" (para 69). Subtextually, the main purpose of Enhanced Cooperation as sought by governments was to provide a space where they could further deal with the dominant issue across both the summits - internatiionalization of Internet oversight. With IGF a mainly civil society initiative, albeit multi-stakeholder in conception, enhanced cooperation was a process in which goverments would be the main actors. *c) Scope* The enhanced cooperation mandate "should include the development of globally-applicable principles on public policy issues" (para 70) and "also could envisage creation of a suitable framework or mechanisms, where justified" (para 61). But it does not envision the involvement of governments "in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy issues" (para 69). Although there is an emphasis on what enhanced cooperation means for governments (who, after all, were the only stakeholder group required to agree to the enhanced cooperation mandate), the Tunis Agenda does not suggest that enhanced cooperation is solely for governments. In paragraph 69, enhanced cooperation is suggested as a mechanism to "enable" governments to carry out their roles and responsibilities. To "enable" does not mean that enhanced cooperation is for governments alone. Indeed the scope of enhanced cooperation also encompasses all relevant stakeholders as per para 70 ("organisations responsible for essential tasks") and the process towards enhanced cooperation will involve "all stakeholders" per para 71. *3. To what extent has or has not enhanced cooperation been implemented? Please use the space below to explain and to provide examples to support your answer.* It follows that for any public policy issue related to Internet governance that lacks at least one transparent, accountable, multilateral process, involving all stakeholders, for the development of globally-applicable principles to enable that issue to be addressed in a coordinated manner, or any framework or mechanisms to support such a process, the enhanced cooperation mandate is yet to be implemented. As the Tunis Agenda does not necessarily specify that a single or central process or mechanism is required, and indeed there is none yet, some point to a variety of independent efforts to coordinate policy development across a number of issue areas and fora as evidence of the implementation of the mandate. But the degree of such implementation currently varies. For example, the progress made at ICANN with respect to issues of critical Internet resources, involving the role of the Framework of Commitments (FoC) AND the Government Advisory Council (GAC) may be seen as a movement towards fulfilling the enhanced cooperation mandate in that context. Less evidence of such can be seen in the work of WIPO on intellectual property enforcement, that of UNCTAD on cross-border consumer protection, that of the UN Human Rights Council on the human rights impacts of government surveillance, or that of the World Wide Web Consortium on online behavioural advertising. There are other issues still for which there is no institution with a clear responsibility to implement the enhanced cooperation mandate: for example, there is no global body that deals comprehensively with data protection and privacy rights, and similar gaps exist in many other areas of a social, economic, political and cultural nature (see question 4). Indeed while the IGF has developed, across now seven annual sessions, enhanced cooperation has not really got off the ground. There was a session in New York the end of 2010, seeking wider input. And CSTD has held various meetings on the subject. But enhanced cooperation - as conceived in the grand bargain of WSIS - has so far not been taken to serious steps. Meanwhile the tensions that led to the enhanced cooperation bargain are still very much in play, as illustrated by the impasse at the ITU's World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in 2012 between governments seeking to assert greater control over the Internet, and those opposing international treaties as a method of such control. We can agree with both camps: that the enhanced cooperation mandate has not been adequately implemented, but also that going for an intergovernmental treaty is not the right way to begin implementing the EC imperative. *4. What are the relevant international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet?** **/(List in order of priority, if possible)/* The list of International public policy issues that pertain to the Internet is not closed, since these change over time as social conditions change. However, much work has already been done to elaborate some of the most relevant such issues. This work includes the WGIG report, the background report that accompanied it, and ITU Resolution 1305 with regard to "scope of work of ITU on international Internet-related public policy matters". Drawing together and grouping some of the issues identified in these reports and elsewhere, we present a partial list, roughly categorised into groups (though many issues do cut across categories): Human rights * Freedom of Expression * Data protection and privacy rights * Consumer rights * Multilingualism * Access to knowledge and free information flows, deepening the public domain on the Internet * Internet intermediary companies as private agents for extra-territorial law enforcement (problems with) * Protection of vulnerable sections, like children, women, traditional communities etc * Net neutrality (that all data is given equal priority on networks) * Search neutrality (that global search engines give neutral results) Access and accessibility * Multilingualization of the Internet including Internationalized (multilingual) Domain Names * International Internet Connectivity * Cultural diversity * Accessibility policies for the disabled * Affordable and universal access * Reliability, and quality of service, especially in the developing world * Contributing to capacity building for Internet governance in developing countries * Developmental aspects of the Internet Critical Internet resources management and oversight * Administration of the root zone files and system * Interconnection costs (especially global interconnection) * Allocation of domain names * IP addressing * Convergence and next generation networks * Technical standards, and technology choices * Continuity, sustainability, and robustness of the Internet * Genuine internationalization of Internet oversight Security and law enforcement * Internet stability and security * Combatting cybercrime * Other issues pertaining to the use and misuse of the Internet * Dealing effectively with spam * Protecting children and young people from abuse and exploitation * Cryptography * Cross border coordination Trade and commerce * e-commerce * copyright * patents * trademarks * Cross border Internet flows * Internet service providers (ISPs) and third party liabilities * National policies and regulations (harmonization of) * Competition policy, liberalization, privatization and regulations * Applicable jurisdiction * Tax allocation among different jurisdictions with regard to global e-commerce * Development of, and protection to, local content, local application, local e-services, and local/ domestic Internet businesses * Internet and health systems, education systems, governance systems and so on. * Cloud computing (global issues involved) * Economics of personal data (who owns, who makes money from, and so on) * Media convergence - Internet and traditional media (Internet companies versus newspapers, radio, cable and TV, book publishing industry etc) * Regulation of global Internet businesses (in terms of adherence to competition policies, consumer rights, law enforcement etc) *5. What are the roles and responsibilities of the different stakeholders, including governments, in implementation of the various aspects of enhanced cooperation?* We do not think that the allocation of roles between the stakeholders that the Tunis Agenda established should be taken as definitive. We take it that, like the definition of Internet governance adopted in the Tunis Agenda which was specified as a "working definition", so too the definitions of the roles of stakeholders adopted in the Tunis Agenda were also working definitions that would be subject to review. The definition of civil society's "important role ... especially at community level" is particularly unhelpful. We contend that civil society's role in contributing to the development of global public policy principles is much more integral than that definition suggests. In particular, there are cases in which governments are not inclined to uphold the human rights of Internet users, such as the rights of foreigners whose Internet usage is the subject of official surveillance. Civil society has a key role in representing the interests of such users, and others whose interests are otherwise poorly represented due to democratic deficits at national and international levels. But further, the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders cannot be fixed in Internet governance (or probably in many other areas of governance either). For example civil society can in some instances represent specific marginalised communities or user or interest groups (e.g. the visually impaired). At other times civil society can be experts providing input and guidance on how to approach policy issues. At other times civil society can play a 'watch' role to monitor the behaviour of business or government in order to protect the public interest. And so on. Roles and responsibilities of stakeholder groups will depend on the type of process, and the specific interests involved and with a stake in the outcome of each process. Please see also the response to Question 11, below, for some particulars. *6. How should enhanced cooperation be implemented to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet?* We acknowledge that governments remain the main representative structure for international public policy development. This typically takes place through the UN and other multi-lateral institutions such as the WTO, etc. But on Internet-related public policy issues, there are transnational interests and impacts that governments cannot adequately take into account without the full participation of other stakeholders. There is room for discussion about the best way of involving those stakeholders, and it does not necessarily mean placing them on an equal level with governments. There would be value in establishing a framework or mechanism to address Internet related public policy issues that do not already have a home in any existing global forum, or where that forum does not fulfil the WSIS process criteria, including the participation of all stakeholders. Such a framework or mechanism should be non-duplicative and should take advantage of the expertise of existing arrangements, mechanisms, institutions or organisations where relevant. There is also a link between the global and national level. Governments need to put in place transparent, accountable, processes at the national level to support those at the global level. If one takes, for example, ICANN and the GAC, many governments are now participating in the GAC, but their participation is not always transparent to national stakeholders, and it is not clear who they are accountable to at national level. Member states need to fulfil WSIS process criteria at the national level otherwise it does not make much sense (other than just to large powerful business and CS actors) to implement them at the global level. *7. How can enhanced cooperation enable other stakeholders to carry out their roles and responsibilities?* By bringing governments closer to the other stakeholders, the other stakeholders are also brought closer to governments. If enhanced cooperation is a process whereby governments (and existing Internet governance spaces/processes) are compelled to adhere to WSIS principles of transparency, accountability, etc., this can serve to create an approach to IG, and to existing and evolving IG processes and spaces that is rooted in the public interest and inclusive of all stakeholders. Even if the public interest is not always clear, such processes should, and could involve all stakeholders in negotiating a common understanding of what the broadest possible public interest is on any particular issue. * **8. What are the most appropriate mechanisms to fully implement enhanced cooperation as recognized in the Tunis Agenda, including on international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet and public policy issues associated with coordination and management of critical Internet resources?* The CSTD Working Group is itself an important mechanism for the stakeholders to set in train a process to fully implement enhanced cooperation, which may in turn eventually result in changes to frameworks, structures or institutions. This will not take place immediately, but in phases. We are now in a kind of distributed reform/exploration phase with the IGF and IGF-like processes trying to create more cooprative engagement, and institutions like ICANN and the ITU putting in place certain reforms, and institutions that previously ignore the Internet beginning to take it seriously (e.g. the Human Rights Council). This should lead into an intermediate phase of more formalised transparency and reporting and collaboration among all institutions or processes dealing with Internet governance. The IGF (with its mandate to "promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes") could be the home for this role. Ultimately however, this alone will not fill the gaps that created the enhanced cooperation mandate. There is also a pressing need to address very important global Internet related public policy issues, and to do so at the global level, and this work has to be done by democratic / representative structures. This may require the eventual establishment of a new framework or mechanism, particularly in the case of emerging and orphaned issues that have no other global home. Although a logical home for such a framework or mechanism would be the United Nations, we acknowledge the many weaknesses in UN processes at present, including in relation to transparency and very uneven support for the inclusion of civil society influence in the UN system. Certainly, a traditional intergovernmental organisation is not an appropriate structure. In the technical realm of Internet naming and numbering, the response to the weaknesses and shortcomings of the UN system has been to establish in ICANN a body which is independent of the UN system. But even ICANN is overseen by governments, or to be more precise by one government - the United States. And whilst the UN is characterised by some as being a haven for tyrranical regimes, the United States itself is widely criticised as having infringed global human rights norms through its global surveillance practices, and for its tyrannical pursuit of whistleblowers such as Edward Snowden for exposing such practices. Therefore in comparing the respective merits of a UN-based institution (particularly if it is an innovative, multi-stakeholder, and semi-autonomous one such as the IGF), and a non-US based institution that is nonetheless beholden to governments at some level, the choice is not as stark as it is often presented to be. Therefore in both areas - general public policy issues in which governments have a leading role through the international system, and naming and numbering in which ICANN has a leading role - reforms are eventually required. Taking first the case of ICANN, the reforms for which we advocate would not be to bring it within the United Nations, but to broaden its oversight beyond the United States alone. This may take the form of a new international oversight board with techno-political membership derived from different geopolitical regions. The mandate of this oversight mechanism would be very narrow, more or less the same as exercised by the Department of Commerce of the United States Government at present. ICANN would become an international organisation and enter into a host country agreement with the United States, giving it complete immunity from US law or any other form of control or interference. It is not necessary that the same new framework or mechanism that broadens the oversight of ICANN, should also deal with other general public policy issues. In fact there is considerable merit in looking at these aspects of enhanced cooperation separately. Because of the more mature state of the multi-stakeholder model that already exists around the regime for management of critical Internet resources, there is good reason to separate out the need to internationalise existing mechanisms for governmental oversight of that regime, from the need for new frameworks or mechanisms for dealing with more general public policy issues of various political, economic, social and cultural kinds, for which there might be a more central role for another new framework or mechanism. In such fields of public policy outside the narrowly technical, there would be the choice to build upon the existing global order that we have in the United Nations, or to rebuild this from scratch (as in the case of ICANN). Whilst there is merit in the idea of a post-UN transnational democratic order that derives its legitimacy from the individual rather than from the nation state, and which could provide legitimacy and oversight for both technical and broader public policy bodies, nothing of this kind exists or is a realistic prospect for the short or medium term. Therefore, if the mechanism that we begin through the CSTD Working Group does lead towards a new framework or process, we accept the likelihood that such framework or process would likely have to be at least loosely linked with the UN. It is sometimes claimed that there is no need for a new framework or mechanism, because all public policy issues are already covered by a network of existing mechanisms. But the WGIG and Tunis Agenda (paragraph 60) concluded that this was not true, and this remains the case. In fact, the kind of global Internet policy issues that are not adequately addressed by any existing mechanism has only grown in number and complexity since the WSIS. Does this mean that we are asking for a single new mechanism to cover all issues? No. But there must be at least one such mechanism (that is global, multi-stakeholder, etc) and if there is none, nor any scope for an existing narrower body (such as the ITU) to change in order to meet these criteria, then it follows that at least one new mechanism is needed. Conversely, whilst we agree that existing mechanisms should be used where available, we disagree that having a plethora of overlapping bodies or mechanisms is always a positive thing. This limits the ability for developing country governments and civil society representatives to participate, because of their limited resources. If the CSTD does recommend a process that leads to some new framework or mechanism in the future, any such new framework or mechanism should be based on the principles of subsidiarity, and be innovative in terms of mandate, structure, and functions, to be adequate to the unique requirements of global Internet governance. It must be participative of all stakeholders, promoting the democratic and innovative potential of the Internet. Exactly what shape it takes will emerge through reasoned deliberation. Some of us believe that governments will accept nothing less than a new intergovernmental body, like a committee that could be attached to the UN General Assembly, and accordingly would accept such a body if and only if it includes an extensive structure of participation by all stakeholders which could be modelled on the stakeholder participation mechanisms of the OECD's Internet policy development body, the CICCP, and would have a close and organic relationship with the IGF. This option proceeds from the position that global governance reforms should take place in-outwards, proceeding from current multilateral toward their further democratisation. For some others of us, although understanding the sincerity of governments and the legitimacy of their claim to set policy norms, there are too many dangers in proposing such a formal new intergovernmental body, but may be fewer dangers in an adjunct to the IGF, as described below in question 9. Whilst we are still formulating what format a new framework or mechanism might take, and will be discussing this question further at our meeting ahead of the Bali IGF, we are in accord that the CSTD should be open to considering a process that leads to some new framework or mechanism in the future, that is dedicated to fulfilling the purpose and scope of enhanced cooperation as mentioned in the Tunis Agenda and as described above, in a way that the uncoordinated efforts of individual stakeholders and institutions towards fulfilling that mandate have been unable to do. *9. What is the possible relationship between enhanced cooperation and the IGF?* The IGF complements the enhanced cooperation mandate, but as it stands, it does not fulfill that mandate. Some of us believe there is the potential for a significantly strengthened IGF, with appropriate long-term funding support, to host a new framework or mechanism to facilitate the development of globally-applicable principles on public policy issues through a multi-stakeholder process. If so, this would have be entirely new and supplementary to the IGF's existing structures and processes, significantly differing from those that exist now such as the MAG, workshops and dynamic coalitions. In any case, regardless of whether any such new framework or mechanism is part of the IGF, the IGF's existing structures and processes will be valuable in deepening the public sphere for multi-stakeholder discussion of Internet policy issues, which will be integral to the work conducted through the new framework or mechanism. *10. How can the role of developing countries be made more effective in global Internet governance?* Developing countries have taken recourse to the ITU because they feel that they are not otherwise represented in in the existing global Internet governance arrangements, which are dominated by developed countries and by companies and organisations based in those countries. This points to the need for reforms such as those advocated above. However that alone will not be enough. Developing countries are excluded at so many different levels, and they self-exclude, so addressing this problem is not at all trivial. The way in which Internet governance for development (IG4D) has been conceived and addressed in the IGF and in other global spaces is not helpful. It is narrow, and top down, and often does not go beyond affordable access issues. Clarifying the role of governments in Interent governance (see questions 5, 6, 7 and 11) is the first step. Developing country governments must be involved in this discussion otherwise they will not buy into its outcomes. Another necessary step is to foster more engagement with Internet governance issues at the national level in developing countries. In the way that developing countries have made an impact on global issues such as trade justice for, example, so too they could in Internet governance. The issues are debated at national level by the labour movement, local business, social justice groups etc. and this both pressurises governments and informs governments (not always in the desired way) at the global level. Critical thinking needs to be applied at national and regional level, with involvement of non-governmental stakeholders for more effective developing country representation at global level. And vice versa. Global Internet governance processes need to report and feed into national processes. In short, making developing countries (government and other stakeholders) play a more effective role in global Internet governance requires mechanisms at national and regional level as well as a process of democratisation at the global level. *11. What barriers remain for all stakeholders to fully participate in their respective roles in global Internet governance? How can these barriers best be overcome?* As noted in questions 2a and 2b above, enhanced cooperation was largely a role taken by governments who required it, through which they hoped to address the over-arching issue of WSIS, namely internationalization of Internet oversight. But as question 3 notes, that has not happened. The apparent problem is that two separate objectives - the principal aims of either of the power poles - have been conflated. If these two objectives (in question 4 above) are treated separately, then there may become the possibility to find some common ground. Specifically, the US and its allies have feared, and have acted to stop, what they see as the threat of totalitarian control of the Internet. But it is possible to switch from this negative characterization, to a positive outlook: the US and its allies have been centrally concerned with freedom of expression, for our new global communications medium, the Internet. The other governmental power pole has been concerned, from the beginning of WSIS, and even well before, that oversight for the Internet move from the US, to a global arrangement. Both objectives are laudable, and reconcilable. The way forward, as suggested in question 8, is to treat those two objectives separately. In fact, continuing to conflate them - so that there can be no action on one, without impact on the other - assures deadlock. Separating them creates a freedom of maneuver that may permit to find ways forward, between the two, so-far implacable camps. Related to this, the bi-polar opposition between groups of states has come to be mirrored among (what have become) the states' frontline troops: the stakeholders. Multi-stakeholderism has been used as a point of distinction between the Internet governance model favoured by the US and its allies from those of the countries who have been calling for internationalisation of policy oversight. Thus multi-stakeholderism, perhaps the most important innovation of WSIS, which formally acknowledges governance roles for multiple stakeholders, has been co-opted into this struggle between the two governmental power poles. But this is a false dichotomy. Whilst it is fundamental that public policy issues be determined through democratic means, and in the ideal conception of democracy, this would fall to elected governments, we have found that even supposed governmental defenders of democracy abuse their state power - as the Snowden episode, and before it the Manning episode, and even the Wikileaks story, have revealed (not least through the treatment of the individuals themselves). In truth no governement has fully lived up to its fundamental democratic responsibilities, and then within that to the new promise of multi-stakeholderism at the national or the global level. Real multi-stakeholderism offers to formalize government consultation with its constituencies, as governments formulate policy. Among other purposes, this offers a safeguard against the abuses of state power, when 'the people' may otherwise be forgotten. This - real multi-stakeholderism - means consulting widely, certainly beyond the usual suspects who may frequent UN meetings. Thence, the people of a democracy may be empowered, with voices speaking from all corners, and providing a bulwark against the ever-present temptations, for those temporarily entrusted with governmental power, to abuse that power. Thus civil society - instead of being used as pawns in a global power tussle - may instead use the new regime, to assume a rightful place in democracy. *12. What actions are needed to promote effective participation of all marginalised people in the global information society?* Information and communication policy and practice at national level that is based on (and committed to) information and communication processes supporting political, social and economic development. Access to ICTs can empower marginalised people and create more inclusion, but political and economic processes need to enable this for the full potential of this empowerment to make a difference. *13. How can enhanced cooperation address key issues toward global, social and economic development?* *14. What is the role of various stakeholders in promoting the development of local language content?* *15. What are the international internet-related public policy issues that are of special relevance to developing countries?* *16. What are the key issues to be addressed to promote the affordability of the Internet, in particular in developing countries and least developed countries?* *17. What are the national capacities to be developed and modalities to be considered for national governments to develop Internet-related public policy with participation of all stakeholders?* *18. Are there other comments, or areas of concern, on enhanced cooperation you would like to submit?* In institutionalizing and operationalizing enhanced cooperation, it is critically important to create a deliberative process in which all stakeholder perspectives are appropriately taken into consideration. It is not enough to just allow the various stakeholders to voice their perspectives. All the various comments must also be taken in consideration in a logical analysis process, in which for every important policy question, a set of possible answers is worked out, and each of the possible answers is evaluated against the objective of sustainable global, social and economic development as well as in regard to the fundamental principles of democracy, rule of law, and the internationally recognized human rights. -- *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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 261 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Aug 19 00:44:21 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 10:14:21 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Important new joint submission to CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <52119C17.4040809@ciroap.org> References: <52119C17.4040809@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <5211A2A5.3070301@itforchange.net> On Monday 19 August 2013 09:46 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > All Best Bits participants are now invited to finalise a joint > submission to the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, which we > are to submit by the end of August. This will be a very important > submission in its own right, and also a key preparatory document to > three upcoming Best Bits meetings - our APrIGF workshop in Seoul > , Day 1 of our Best Bits > meeting in Bali , and one of our > two workshops at the global IGF > . > > Its importance is that it addresses a question, unresolved for the > last eight years, about how global Internet governance (in the broad > sense that goes beyond technical issues) should evolve in response to > states claims of sovereignty over public policy issues relating to the > Internet. Jeremy, thanks for this important wprk... But I must add that its background cannot just be the "states claim to sovereignty over pubic policy issues" but also the other process of fragmenting/ vaporising Internet-related global policy spaces, largely into nothingness, and alternatively privatising them, both to serve status quoist dominant interests. Any proposal must appropriately and carefully navigate between these two problems or considerations.... parminder > I wrote a background paper > > about this general question (and slides > ) > for our WSIS+10 workshop in Paris. Post-PRISM, the question has only > assumed greater importance. > > For the past few weeks, a civil society-only Best Bits working group > (which also includes, though > not in an official capacity, civil society members of the CSTD working > group) has been working hard on this, to hone in on the core issues > and to state them clearly and fairly, taking into account the wide > divergence in views that exists even within civil society. The result > of our work is open for your comment for one week, at which time we > will close for endorsements: > > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/ec > > The current text is also pasted below. We aim for this submission to > be as broadly inclusive of the views of Best Bits participants as > possible, so after reading and considering the existing text > carefully, if you have any changes to suggest, please speak up. If the > changes are minor, you can just make them on the Etherpad. If major, > we would ask that you raise them on the list first. The more groups > that can endorse the submission, the more influence it will have. > > Just to reiterate, we are not taking endorsements yet. This will > occur after one week of final comments from this list. (There is no > point in taking endorsements when there might still be changes to the > text.) For the same reason, we ask that you don't forward the draft > text widely yet. If you want to bring other groups into the > discussion that is welcome, but (for now) the best way to do so would > be to ask them to join the Best Bits list. > > Here, then, is the current text (starting from question 2, which is > intentional): > > *2. What do you think is the significance, purpose and scope of > enhanced cooperation as per the Tunis Agenda?* > > *a) Significance* > > The inclusion of the enhanced cooperation mandate in the Tunis Agenda > was a political necessity to account for the view of many governments > and others of the inadequacy of existing Internet governance > arrangements when measured against the criteria identified in the > first phase of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS): > namely transparency, accountability, multilateralism, and the need to > address public policy issues related to Internet governance in a > coordinated manner (WGIG Report, para 35). In particular it was > suggested "that there are many cross-cutting international public > policy issues that require attention and are not adequately addressed > by the current mechanisms" (Tunis Agenda, para 60). > > Foremost amongst the areas in which a deficit in existing arrangements > was perceived was the issue of internationalizing Internet oversight > beyond the United States, a struggle that had dominated the entire > summit process from the beginning of WSIS I. But existing arrangements > were also seen as failing to adequately address a broad range of other > issues, some discussed below under question 4. At the conclusion of > WSIS, civil society, backed by what ultimately became a coalition > among the US and some other mainly developed countries, got the > Internet Governance Forum (IGF), as a multi-stakeholder forum to > address mainly those other broader issues. The promise of addressing > the narrower issue of Internet oversight, as sought by a key group of > other governments, was reserved for a process parallel to the IGF, and > perhaps as a counterbalance to it. Those governments got as a result > the 'enhanced cooperation' process. It is also significant that even > though the discussion was quite conflictual, member states chose to > use 'positive' words: enhance, and cooperation. The ongoing discussion > about how to improve IG arrangements should continue in this same > positive spirit. > > *b) Purpose* > > Therefore the purpose of enhanced cooperation process mandate, in > conjunction with the closely related mandate for the formation of an > Internet Governance Forum, is to address the perceived deficits > described above. In particular the Tunis Agenda identifies that > enhanced cooperation would enable governments, on an equal footing, to > carry out their roles and responsibilities, in international public > policy issues pertaining to the Internet" (para 69). Subtextually, > the main purpose of Enhanced Cooperation as sought by governments was > to provide a space where they could further deal with the dominant > issue across both the summits - internatiionalization of Internet > oversight. With IGF a mainly civil society initiative, albeit > multi-stakeholder in conception, enhanced cooperation was a process in > which goverments would be the main actors. > > *c) Scope* > > The enhanced cooperation mandate "should include the development of > globally-applicable principles on public policy issues" (para 70) and > "also could envisage creation of a suitable framework or mechanisms, > where justified" (para 61). But it does not envision the involvement > of governments "in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, > that do not impact on international public policy issues" (para 69). > > Although there is an emphasis on what enhanced cooperation means for > governments (who, after all, were the only stakeholder group required > to agree to the enhanced cooperation mandate), the Tunis Agenda does > not suggest that enhanced cooperation is solely for governments. In > paragraph 69, enhanced cooperation is suggested as a mechanism to > "enable" governments to carry out their roles and responsibilities. > To "enable" does not mean that enhanced cooperation is for governments > alone. Indeed the scope of enhanced cooperation also encompasses all > relevant stakeholders as per para 70 ("organisations responsible for > essential tasks") and the process towards enhanced cooperation will > involve "all stakeholders" per para 71. > > *3. To what extent has or has not enhanced cooperation been > implemented? Please use the space below to explain and to provide > examples to support your answer.* > > It follows that for any public policy issue related to Internet > governance that lacks at least one transparent, accountable, > multilateral process, involving all stakeholders, for the development > of globally-applicable principles to enable that issue to be addressed > in a coordinated manner, or any framework or mechanisms to support > such a process, the enhanced cooperation mandate is yet to be > implemented. As the Tunis Agenda does not necessarily specify that a > single or central process or mechanism is required, and indeed there > is none yet, some point to a variety of independent efforts to > coordinate policy development across a number of issue areas and fora > as evidence of the implementation of the mandate. But the degree of > such implementation currently varies. > > For example, the progress made at ICANN with respect to issues of > critical Internet resources, involving the role of the Framework of > Commitments (FoC) AND the Government Advisory Council (GAC) may be > seen as a movement towards fulfilling the enhanced cooperation mandate > in that context. Less evidence of such can be seen in the work of WIPO > on intellectual property enforcement, that of UNCTAD on cross-border > consumer protection, that of the UN Human Rights Council on the human > rights impacts of government surveillance, or that of the World Wide > Web Consortium on online behavioural advertising. There are other > issues still for which there is no institution with a clear > responsibility to implement the enhanced cooperation mandate: for > example, there is no global body that deals comprehensively with data > protection and privacy rights, and similar gaps exist in many other > areas of a social, economic, political and cultural nature (see > question 4). > > Indeed while the IGF has developed, across now seven annual sessions, > enhanced cooperation has not really got off the ground. There was a > session in New York the end of 2010, seeking wider input. And CSTD has > held various meetings on the subject. But enhanced cooperation - as > conceived in the grand bargain of WSIS - has so far not been taken to > serious steps. Meanwhile the tensions that led to the enhanced > cooperation bargain are still very much in play, as illustrated by the > impasse at the ITU's World Conference on International > Telecommunications (WCIT) in 2012 between governments seeking to > assert greater control over the Internet, and those opposing > international treaties as a method of such control. We can agree with > both camps: that the enhanced cooperation mandate has not been > adequately implemented, but also that going for an intergovernmental > treaty is not the right way to begin implementing the EC imperative. > > *4. What are the relevant international public policy issues > pertaining to the Internet?** > **/(List in order of priority, if possible)/* > > The list of International public policy issues that pertain to the > Internet is not closed, since these change over time as social > conditions change. However, much work has already been done to > elaborate some of the most relevant such issues. This work includes > the WGIG report, the background report that accompanied it, and ITU > Resolution 1305 with regard to "scope of work of ITU on international > Internet-related public policy matters". Drawing together and > grouping some of the issues identified in these reports and elsewhere, > we present a partial list, roughly categorised into groups (though > many issues do cut across categories): > > Human rights > > * Freedom of Expression > * Data protection and privacy rights > * Consumer rights > * Multilingualism > * Access to knowledge and free information flows, deepening the > public domain on the Internet > * Internet intermediary companies as private agents for > extra-territorial law enforcement (problems with) > * Protection of vulnerable sections, like children, women, > traditional communities etc > * Net neutrality (that all data is given equal priority on networks) > * Search neutrality (that global search engines give neutral results) > > > Access and accessibility > > * Multilingualization of the Internet including Internationalized > (multilingual) Domain Names > * International Internet Connectivity > * Cultural diversity > * Accessibility policies for the disabled > * Affordable and universal access > * Reliability, and quality of service, especially in the developing > world > * Contributing to capacity building for Internet governance in > developing countries > * Developmental aspects of the Internet > > > Critical Internet resources management and oversight > > * Administration of the root zone files and system > * Interconnection costs (especially global interconnection) > * Allocation of domain names > * IP addressing > * Convergence and next generation networks > * Technical standards, and technology choices > * Continuity, sustainability, and robustness of the Internet > * Genuine internationalization of Internet oversight > > > Security and law enforcement > > * Internet stability and security > * Combatting cybercrime > * Other issues pertaining to the use and misuse of the Internet > * Dealing effectively with spam > * Protecting children and young people from abuse and exploitation > * Cryptography > * Cross border coordination > > > Trade and commerce > > * e-commerce > * copyright > * patents > * trademarks > * Cross border Internet flows > * Internet service providers (ISPs) and third party liabilities > * National policies and regulations (harmonization of) > * Competition policy, liberalization, privatization and regulations > * Applicable jurisdiction > * Tax allocation among different jurisdictions with regard to global > e-commerce > * Development of, and protection to, local content, local > application, local e-services, and local/ domestic Internet businesses > * Internet and health systems, education systems, governance systems > and so on. > * Cloud computing (global issues involved) > * Economics of personal data (who owns, who makes money from, and so on) > * Media convergence - Internet and traditional media (Internet > companies versus newspapers, radio, cable and TV, book publishing > industry etc) > * Regulation of global Internet businesses (in terms of adherence to > competition policies, consumer rights, law enforcement etc) > > > *5. What are the roles and responsibilities of the different > stakeholders, including governments, in implementation of the various > aspects of enhanced cooperation?* > > We do not think that the allocation of roles between the stakeholders > that the Tunis Agenda established should be taken as definitive. We > take it that, like the definition of Internet governance adopted in > the Tunis Agenda which was specified as a "working definition", so too > the definitions of the roles of stakeholders adopted in the Tunis > Agenda were also working definitions that would be subject to review. > > The definition of civil society's "important role ... especially at > community level" is particularly unhelpful. We contend that civil > society's role in contributing to the development of global public > policy principles is much more integral than that definition > suggests. In particular, there are cases in which governments are not > inclined to uphold the human rights of Internet users, such as the > rights of foreigners whose Internet usage is the subject of official > surveillance. Civil society has a key role in representing the > interests of such users, and others whose interests are otherwise > poorly represented due to democratic deficits at national and > international levels. > > But further, the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders cannot be > fixed in Internet governance (or probably in many other areas of > governance either). For example civil society can in some instances > represent specific marginalised communities or user or interest groups > (e.g. the visually impaired). At other times civil society can be > experts providing input and guidance on how to approach policy > issues. At other times civil society can play a 'watch' role to > monitor the behaviour of business or government in order to protect > the public interest. And so on. Roles and responsibilities of > stakeholder groups will depend on the type of process, and the > specific interests involved and with a stake in the outcome of each > process. > > Please see also the response to Question 11, below, for some particulars. > > *6. How should enhanced cooperation be implemented to enable > governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and > responsibilities in international public policy issues pertaining to > the Internet?* > > We acknowledge that governments remain the main representative > structure for international public policy development. This typically > takes place through the UN and other multi-lateral institutions such > as the WTO, etc. But on Internet-related public policy issues, there > are transnational interests and impacts that governments cannot > adequately take into account without the full participation of other > stakeholders. There is room for discussion about the best way of > involving those stakeholders, and it does not necessarily mean placing > them on an equal level with governments. There would be value in > establishing a framework or mechanism to address Internet related > public policy issues that do not already have a home in any existing > global forum, or where that forum does not fulfil the WSIS process > criteria, including the participation of all stakeholders. Such a > framework or mechanism should be non-duplicative and should take > advantage of the expertise of existing arrangements, mechanisms, > institutions or organisations where relevant. > > There is also a link between the global and national level. > Governments need to put in place transparent, accountable, processes > at the national level to support those at the global level. If one > takes, for example, ICANN and the GAC, many governments are now > participating in the GAC, but their participation is not always > transparent to national stakeholders, and it is not clear who they are > accountable to at national level. Member states need to fulfil WSIS > process criteria at the national level otherwise it does not make much > sense (other than just to large powerful business and CS actors) to > implement them at the global level. > > *7. How can enhanced cooperation enable other stakeholders to carry > out their roles and responsibilities?* > > By bringing governments closer to the other stakeholders, the other > stakeholders are also brought closer to governments. If enhanced > cooperation is a process whereby governments (and existing Internet > governance spaces/processes) are compelled to adhere to WSIS > principles of transparency, accountability, etc., this can serve to > create an approach to IG, and to existing and evolving IG processes > and spaces that is rooted in the public interest and inclusive of all > stakeholders. Even if the public interest is not always clear, such > processes should, and could involve all stakeholders in negotiating a > common understanding of what the broadest possible public interest is > on any particular issue. > * > **8. What are the most appropriate mechanisms to fully implement > enhanced cooperation as recognized in the Tunis Agenda, including on > international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet and > public policy issues associated with coordination and management of > critical Internet resources?* > > The CSTD Working Group is itself an important mechanism for the > stakeholders to set in train a process to fully implement enhanced > cooperation, which may in turn eventually result in changes to > frameworks, structures or institutions. This will not take place > immediately, but in phases. We are now in a kind of distributed > reform/exploration phase with the IGF and IGF-like processes trying to > create more cooprative engagement, and institutions like ICANN and the > ITU putting in place certain reforms, and institutions that previously > ignore the Internet beginning to take it seriously (e.g. the Human > Rights Council). > > This should lead into an intermediate phase of more formalised > transparency and reporting and collaboration among all institutions or > processes dealing with Internet governance. The IGF (with its mandate > to "promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS > principles in Internet governance processes") could be the home for > this role. > > Ultimately however, this alone will not fill the gaps that created the > enhanced cooperation mandate. There is also a pressing need to address > very important global Internet related public policy issues, and to do > so at the global level, and this work has to be done by democratic / > representative structures. This may require the eventual > establishment of a new framework or mechanism, particularly in the > case of emerging and orphaned issues that have no other global home. > Although a logical home for such a framework or mechanism would be the > United Nations, we acknowledge the many weaknesses in UN processes at > present, including in relation to transparency and very uneven support > for the inclusion of civil society influence in the UN system. > Certainly, a traditional intergovernmental organisation is not an > appropriate structure. > > In the technical realm of Internet naming and numbering, the response > to the weaknesses and shortcomings of the UN system has been to > establish in ICANN a body which is independent of the UN system. But > even ICANN is overseen by governments, or to be more precise by one > government - the United States. And whilst the UN is characterised by > some as being a haven for tyrranical regimes, the United States itself > is widely criticised as having infringed global human rights norms > through its global surveillance practices, and for its tyrannical > pursuit of whistleblowers such as Edward Snowden for exposing such > practices. Therefore in comparing the respective merits of a UN-based > institution (particularly if it is an innovative, multi-stakeholder, > and semi-autonomous one such as the IGF), and a non-US based > institution that is nonetheless beholden to governments at some level, > the choice is not as stark as it is often presented to be. > > Therefore in both areas - general public policy issues in which > governments have a leading role through the international system, and > naming and numbering in which ICANN has a leading role - reforms are > eventually required. Taking first the case of ICANN, the reforms for > which we advocate would not be to bring it within the United Nations, > but to broaden its oversight beyond the United States alone. This may > take the form of a new international oversight board with > techno-political membership derived from different geopolitical > regions. The mandate of this oversight mechanism would be very narrow, > more or less the same as exercised by the Department of Commerce of > the United States Government at present. ICANN would become an > international organisation and enter into a host country agreement > with the United States, giving it complete immunity from US law or any > other form of control or interference. > > It is not necessary that the same new framework or mechanism that > broadens the oversight of ICANN, should also deal with other general > public policy issues. In fact there is considerable merit in looking > at these aspects of enhanced cooperation separately. Because of the > more mature state of the multi-stakeholder model that already exists > around the regime for management of critical Internet resources, there > is good reason to separate out the need to internationalise existing > mechanisms for governmental oversight of that regime, from the need > for new frameworks or mechanisms for dealing with more general public > policy issues of various political, economic, social and cultural > kinds, for which there might be a more central role for another new > framework or mechanism. > > In such fields of public policy outside the narrowly technical, there > would be the choice to build upon the existing global order that we > have in the United Nations, or to rebuild this from scratch (as in the > case of ICANN). Whilst there is merit in the idea of a post-UN > transnational democratic order that derives its legitimacy from the > individual rather than from the nation state, and which could provide > legitimacy and oversight for both technical and broader public policy > bodies, nothing of this kind exists or is a realistic prospect for the > short or medium term. Therefore, if the mechanism that we begin > through the CSTD Working Group does lead towards a new framework or > process, we accept the likelihood that such framework or process would > likely have to be at least loosely linked with the UN. > > It is sometimes claimed that there is no need for a new framework or > mechanism, because all public policy issues are already covered by a > network of existing mechanisms. But the WGIG and Tunis Agenda > (paragraph 60) concluded that this was not true, and this remains the > case. In fact, the kind of global Internet policy issues that are not > adequately addressed by any existing mechanism has only grown in > number and complexity since the WSIS. Does this mean that we are > asking for a single new mechanism to cover all issues? No. But there > must be at least one such mechanism (that is global, > multi-stakeholder, etc) and if there is none, nor any scope for an > existing narrower body (such as the ITU) to change in order to meet > these criteria, then it follows that at least one new mechanism is > needed. Conversely, whilst we agree that existing mechanisms should be > used where available, we disagree that having a plethora of > overlapping bodies or mechanisms is always a positive thing. This > limits the ability for developing country governments and civil > society representatives to participate, because of their limited > resources. > > If the CSTD does recommend a process that leads to some new framework > or mechanism in the future, any such new framework or mechanism should > be based on the principles of subsidiarity, and be innovative in terms > of mandate, structure, and functions, to be adequate to the unique > requirements of global Internet governance. It must be participative > of all stakeholders, promoting the democratic and innovative potential > of the Internet. Exactly what shape it takes will emerge through > reasoned deliberation. Some of us believe that governments will accept > nothing less than a new intergovernmental body, like a committee that > could be attached to the UN General Assembly, and accordingly would > accept such a body if and only if it includes an extensive structure > of participation by all stakeholders which could be modelled on the > stakeholder participation mechanisms of the OECD's Internet policy > development body, the CICCP, and would have a close and organic > relationship with the IGF. This option proceeds from the position that > global governance reforms should take place in-outwards, proceeding > from current multilateral toward their further democratisation. > > For some others of us, although understanding the sincerity of > governments and the legitimacy of their claim to set policy norms, > there are too many dangers in proposing such a formal new > intergovernmental body, but may be fewer dangers in an adjunct to the > IGF, as described below in question 9. Whilst we are still > formulating what format a new framework or mechanism might take, and > will be discussing this question further at our meeting ahead of the > Bali IGF, we are in accord that the CSTD should be open to considering > a process that leads to some new framework or mechanism in the future, > that is dedicated to fulfilling the purpose and scope of enhanced > cooperation as mentioned in the Tunis Agenda and as described above, > in a way that the uncoordinated efforts of individual stakeholders and > institutions towards fulfilling that mandate have been unable to do. > > *9. What is the possible relationship between enhanced cooperation and > the IGF?* > > The IGF complements the enhanced cooperation mandate, but as it > stands, it does not fulfill that mandate. Some of us believe there is > the potential for a significantly strengthened IGF, with appropriate > long-term funding support, to host a new framework or mechanism to > facilitate the development of globally-applicable principles on public > policy issues through a multi-stakeholder process. If so, this would > have be entirely new and supplementary to the IGF's existing > structures and processes, significantly differing from those that > exist now such as the MAG, workshops and dynamic coalitions. In any > case, regardless of whether any such new framework or mechanism is > part of the IGF, the IGF's existing structures and processes will be > valuable in deepening the public sphere for multi-stakeholder > discussion of Internet policy issues, which will be integral to the > work conducted through the new framework or mechanism. > > *10. How can the role of developing countries be made more effective > in global Internet governance?* > > Developing countries have taken recourse to the ITU because they feel > that they are not otherwise represented in in the existing global > Internet governance arrangements, which are dominated by developed > countries and by companies and organisations based in those countries. > This points to the need for reforms such as those advocated above. > > However that alone will not be enough. Developing countries are > excluded at so many different levels, and they self-exclude, so > addressing this problem is not at all trivial. The way in which > Internet governance for development (IG4D) has been conceived and > addressed in the IGF and in other global spaces is not helpful. It is > narrow, and top down, and often does not go beyond affordable access > issues. Clarifying the role of governments in Interent governance (see > questions 5, 6, 7 and 11) is the first step. Developing country > governments must be involved in this discussion otherwise they will > not buy into its outcomes. Another necessary step is to foster more > engagement with Internet governance issues at the national level in > developing countries. In the way that developing countries have made > an impact on global issues such as trade justice for, example, so too > they could in Internet governance. The issues are debated at national > level by the labour movement, local business, social justice groups > etc. and this both pressurises governments and informs governments > (not always in the desired way) at the global level. Critical thinking > needs to be applied at national and regional level, with involvement > of non-governmental stakeholders for more effective developing country > representation at global level. And vice versa. Global Internet > governance processes need to report and feed into national processes. > In short, making developing countries (government and other > stakeholders) play a more effective role in global Internet governance > requires mechanisms at national and regional level as well as a > process of democratisation at the global level. > > *11. What barriers remain for all stakeholders to fully participate > in their respective roles in global Internet governance? How can > these barriers best be overcome?* > > As noted in questions 2a and 2b above, enhanced cooperation was > largely a role taken by governments who required it, through which > they hoped to address the over-arching issue of WSIS, namely > internationalization of Internet oversight. But as question 3 notes, > that has not happened. The apparent problem is that two separate > objectives - the principal aims of either of the power poles - have > been conflated. If these two objectives (in question 4 above) are > treated separately, then there may become the possibility to find some > common ground. > > Specifically, the US and its allies have feared, and have acted to > stop, what they see as the threat of totalitarian control of the > Internet. But it is possible to switch from this negative > characterization, to a positive outlook: the US and its allies have > been centrally concerned with freedom of expression, for our new > global communications medium, the Internet. The other governmental > power pole has been concerned, from the beginning of WSIS, and even > well before, that oversight for the Internet move from the US, to a > global arrangement. Both objectives are laudable, and reconcilable. > > The way forward, as suggested in question 8, is to treat those two > objectives separately. In fact, continuing to conflate them - so that > there can be no action on one, without impact on the other - assures > deadlock. Separating them creates a freedom of maneuver that may > permit to find ways forward, between the two, so-far implacable camps. > > Related to this, the bi-polar opposition between groups of states has > come to be mirrored among (what have become) the states' frontline > troops: the stakeholders. Multi-stakeholderism has been used as a > point of distinction between the Internet governance model favoured by > the US and its allies from those of the countries who have been > calling for internationalisation of policy oversight. Thus > multi-stakeholderism, perhaps the most important innovation of WSIS, > which formally acknowledges governance roles for multiple > stakeholders, has been co-opted into this struggle between the two > governmental power poles. > > But this is a false dichotomy. Whilst it is fundamental that public > policy issues be determined through democratic means, and in the ideal > conception of democracy, this would fall to elected governments, we > have found that even supposed governmental defenders of democracy > abuse their state power - as the Snowden episode, and before it the > Manning episode, and even the Wikileaks story, have revealed (not > least through the treatment of the individuals themselves). In truth > no governement has fully lived up to its fundamental democratic > responsibilities, and then within that to the new promise of > multi-stakeholderism at the national or the global level. > > Real multi-stakeholderism offers to formalize government consultation > with its constituencies, as governments formulate policy. Among other > purposes, this offers a safeguard against the abuses of state power, > when 'the people' may otherwise be forgotten. This - real > multi-stakeholderism - means consulting widely, certainly beyond the > usual suspects who may frequent UN meetings. Thence, the people of a > democracy may be empowered, with voices speaking from all corners, and > providing a bulwark against the ever-present temptations, for those > temporarily entrusted with governmental power, to abuse that power. > > Thus civil society - instead of being used as pawns in a global power > tussle - may instead use the new regime, to assume a rightful place in > democracy. > > *12. What actions are needed to promote effective participation of all > marginalised people in the global information society?* > > Information and communication policy and practice at national level > that is based on (and committed to) information and communication > processes supporting political, social and economic development. > Access to ICTs can empower marginalised people and create more > inclusion, but political and economic processes need to enable this > for the full potential of this empowerment to make a difference. > > *13. How can enhanced cooperation address key issues toward global, > social and economic development?* > > > > *14. What is the role of various stakeholders in promoting the > development of local language content?* > > > > *15. What are the international internet-related public policy issues > that are of special relevance to developing countries?* > > > > *16. What are the key issues to be addressed to promote the > affordability of the Internet, in particular in developing countries > and least developed countries?* > > > > *17. What are the national capacities to be developed and modalities > to be considered for national governments to develop Internet-related > public policy with participation of all stakeholders?* > > > > *18. Are there other comments, or areas of concern, on enhanced > cooperation you would like to submit?* > > In institutionalizing and operationalizing enhanced cooperation, it is > critically important to create a deliberative process in which all > stakeholder perspectives are appropriately taken into consideration. > It is not enough to just allow the various stakeholders to voice their > perspectives. All the various comments must also be taken in > consideration in a logical analysis process, in which for every > important policy question, a set of possible answers is worked out, > and each of the possible answers is evaluated against the objective of > sustainable global, social and economic development as well as in > regard to the fundamental principles of democracy, rule of law, and > the internationally recognized human rights. > > -- > > *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 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge > hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Mon Aug 19 09:10:39 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 06:10:39 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Important new joint submission to CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <52119C17.4040809@ciroap.org> References: <52119C17.4040809@ciroap.org> Message-ID: On 18 Aug 2013, at 21:16, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > For the past few weeks, a civil society-only Best Bits working group (which also includes, though not in an official capacity, civil society members of the CSTD working group) Can you know who is on this list? (Note I thought I had joined thi list to observe, as I thought that members of the WGEC should not themselves contribute to statements, but I don't think I ever ended up in the group) In any case I think it is important to know who contributed to this statement in secret. thanks avri From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Aug 19 09:18:56 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 21:18:56 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Important new joint submission to CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <52119C17.4040809@ciroap.org> Message-ID: On 19/08/2013, at 9:10 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Can you know who is on this list? > > (Note I thought I had joined thi list to observe, as I thought that members of the WGEC should not themselves contribute to statements, but I don't think I ever ended up in the group) You joined, but then left again. You are more than welcome to rejoin, and (like this list) there is a link to view the members once you are logged in: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/review/ec > In any case I think it is important to know who contributed to this statement in secret. It wasn't in secret, it was publicised here before it began work and several times since then: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/arc/bestbits/2013-04/msg00008.html as well as on some other lists including governance... and the list archives are open. -- 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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. From avri at acm.org Mon Aug 19 09:34:03 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 06:34:03 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Important new joint submission to CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <52119C17.4040809@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <9F2A1002-928D-4BF9-A989-65C868619428@acm.org> On 19 Aug 2013, at 06:18, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> Can you know who is on this list? >> >> (Note I thought I had joined thi list to observe, as I thought that members of the WGEC should not themselves contribute to statements, but I don't think I ever ended up in the group) > > You joined, but then left again. You are more than welcome to rejoin, and (like this list) there is a link to view the members once you are logged in: Thanks for the reminder that this was the list I joined/left. > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/review/ec I think the list of people who contributed to the statement should be made public. >> >> In any case I think it is important to know who contributed to this statement in secret. > > It wasn't in secret, it was publicised here before it began work and several times since then: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/arc/bestbits/2013-04/msg00008.html > > as well as on some other lists including governance... and the list archives are open. anyhow glad that the archives are open. I had missed reading that fact. Are the list of email authors and the list of text authors the same? avri From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Aug 19 09:48:52 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 21:48:52 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Important new joint submission to CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <9F2A1002-928D-4BF9-A989-65C868619428@acm.org> References: <52119C17.4040809@ciroap.org> <9F2A1002-928D-4BF9-A989-65C868619428@acm.org> Message-ID: On 19/08/2013, at 9:34 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Are the list of email authors and the list of text authors the same? Yes. -- 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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. From anriette at apc.org Mon Aug 19 10:23:58 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 16:23:58 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Important new joint submission to CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <9F2A1002-928D-4BF9-A989-65C868619428@acm.org> References: <52119C17.4040809@ciroap.org> <9F2A1002-928D-4BF9-A989-65C868619428@acm.org> Message-ID: <52122A7E.2090806@apc.org> Hi all Names of people who were contributing were on the etherpad. I was one of them. I did not do a lot, and came in late, but Jeremy certainly did integrate quite a lot of the comments I added as notes. There were some divergent views and I think that Jeremy did a very good job of synthesising input. I am sure not everyone who contributed agree with everything that is in the current draft, but I would guess that they do feel that their input has been dealt with respectfully and inclusively. Anriette On 19/08/2013 15:34, Avri Doria wrote: > On 19 Aug 2013, at 06:18, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> Can you know who is on this list? >>> >>> (Note I thought I had joined thi list to observe, as I thought that members of the WGEC should not themselves contribute to statements, but I don't think I ever ended up in the group) >> You joined, but then left again. You are more than welcome to rejoin, and (like this list) there is a link to view the members once you are logged in: > Thanks for the reminder that this was the list I joined/left. > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/review/ec > I think the list of people who contributed to the statement should be made public. > >>> In any case I think it is important to know who contributed to this statement in secret. >> It wasn't in secret, it was publicised here before it began work and several times since then: >> >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/arc/bestbits/2013-04/msg00008.html >> >> as well as on some other lists including governance... and the list archives are open. > > anyhow glad that the archives are open. I had missed reading that fact. > > Are the list of email authors and the list of text authors the same? > > avri > > > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Mon Aug 19 10:31:23 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 10:31:23 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] / CELE's new document: intermediary liablity References: <1376920095.84662.YahooMailNeo@web125201.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <03003A77-4DF3-4815-83B4-9A48BEFCEE91@gmail.com> Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: > From: CELE > Date: August 19, 2013, 9:48:15 AM EDT > To: undisclosed recipients: ; > Subject: [IRPCoalition] Nuevo trabajo del CELE: responsabilidad de intermediarios / CELE's new document: intermediary liablity > Reply-To: CELE > > > > English version below > > Las llaves del ama de llaves: la estrategia de los intermediarios en Internet y el impacto en el entorno digital > > De manera creciente se viene discutiendo en Latinoamérica sobre la responsabilidad que deben tener los intermediarios en Internet por las acciones de sus usuarios. Para los Estados y algunos actores privados, los intermediarios –la empresa que nos presta la conexión o la red social que usamos diariamente– están llamados a ejercer como guardianes en la red para combatir la difamación y la piratería en línea, entre otros. Éste, sin embargo, no es un debate limitado a los intereses del Estado y de las empresas que ofrecen servicios en la red. El entorno digital se ha convertido en una extensión del espacio físico, donde los ciudadanos ejercen derechos como el acceso a la información, la educación y la libertad de expresión. En esa medida, las soluciones regulatorias en este tema deben tomar en cuenta la tensión de derechos y los objetivos socialmente deseables. > > El objetivo de este nuevo documento de la Iniciativa por la Libertad de Expresión en Internet (iLEI) del CELE es ofrecer un sustento teórico y un contexto mínimo para el debate sobre la responsabilidad de los intermediarios en Internet con énfasis en los problemas relacionados con contenidos. > > El documento completo está disponible aquí > > ACERCA DEL CELE > > > El Centro de Estudios para la Libertad de Expresión y Acceso a la Información (CELE) fue creado en el año 2009 en el ámbito de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de Palermo con el objetivo de proveer de investigaciones y estudios rigurosos a sectores de la sociedad civil, periodistas, instituciones gubernamentales e instituciones académicas dedicados a la defensa y a la promoción de estos derechos, especialmente en América Latina. La creación del CELE responde a la necesidad de construir espacios de debate y estudio dedicados a reflexionar sobre la importancia, los contenidos y los límites de estos derechos en la región. Para esto, el centro se propone dialogar y trabajar en conjunto con otras unidades académicas del país y de Latinoamérica. > > El CELE tiene como objetivo principal que sus investigaciones se constituyan en herramientas útiles para periodistas, instituciones gubernamentales, sectores privados y de la sociedad civil dedicados a la defensa y promoción de estos derechos, especialmente en América Latina. Teniendo en cuenta este objetivo, además de los estudios que considere necesarios, el centro encarará investigaciones solicitadas por estos grupos. > > El director del CELE es Eduardo Bertoni, Profesor de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de Palermo y ex-Relator Especial para la Libertad de Expresión en la Organización de los Estados Americanos. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > The gatekeeper’s keys: the strategy of intermediaries on the Internet and the impact on the digital surroundings > > The responsibility that intermediaries must have regarding the behaviour of their users on the Internet has increasingly been discussed in Latin America. For States and certain private sectors, the intermediaries- the companies that provide the Internet connection or the social network we use every day- are called to act as gatekeepers on the network in order to combat defamation and online piracy, among others. This, however, is not a debate limited to the interests of the State and the companies offering services on the network. The digital environment has become an extension of the physical space, where citizens exercise rights such as access to information, education and freedom of expression. To that extent, regulatory solutions in this area should take into account the rights and power of socially desirable goals. > > The aim of this new document by the Freedom of Expression on the Internet initiative (iLEI) of CELE is to offer a theoretical foundation and a minimum context for the debate on liability of Internet intermediaries, with emphasis on problems related to content. > > The complete document (in Spanish) is available here > > > About CELE > > The Center for Studies on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information (CELE) was founded in 2009 at the Palermo University Law School with the objective to provide rigorous research and studies to sectors of civil society, journalists, government institutions and the academic community that are dedicated to the promotion of those rights, primarily in Latin America. CELE was created in response to a need to construct spaces for debate and study dedicated to reflecting on the importance and the limits of freedom of expression and access to public information in the region. In order to accomplish this, the center proposes to create dialogue and collaborate with other academic entities in Argentina and in Latin America. > > CELE's principal objective is to produce reports that can be useful tools for those journalists, governmental institutions, and members of the private sector and civil society that are dedicated to the defense and promotion of these rights, especially in Latin America. In accordance with this objective, CELE will undertake research at the request of the aforementioned groups in addition to undertaking studies that CELE considers to be necessary. > > CELE's director is Eduardo Bertoni, a professor at Palermo University Lawschool and former Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression at the Organization of American States. > > UNIVERSIDAD DE PALERMO > 2013 Facultad de Derecho > Mario Bravo 1050 | Tel: 5199-4500 | www.palermo.edu/derecho > CELE Centro de Estudios en Libertad de Expresión y Acceso a la Información > www.palermo.edu/cele > Si no desea recibir más e-mails de esta dirección, por favor, responda con el asunto REMOVER. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at ella.com Mon Aug 19 10:35:54 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 07:35:54 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Important new joint submission to CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <52122A7E.2090806@apc.org> References: <52119C17.4040809@ciroap.org> <9F2A1002-928D-4BF9-A989-65C868619428@acm.org> <52122A7E.2090806@apc.org> Message-ID: <328D85F9-C26D-446A-8ABA-BDABE7D6603F@ella.com> Thanks avri On 19 Aug 2013, at 07:23, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Hi all > > Names of people who were contributing were on the etherpad. I was one of > them. I did not do a lot, and came in late, but Jeremy certainly did > integrate quite a lot of the comments I added as notes. > > There were some divergent views and I think that Jeremy did a very good > job of synthesising input. > I am sure not everyone who contributed agree with everything that is in > the current draft, but I would guess that they do feel that their input > has been dealt with respectfully and inclusively. > > Anriette > > > On 19/08/2013 15:34, Avri Doria wrote: >> On 19 Aug 2013, at 06:18, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>> Can you know who is on this list? >>>> >>>> (Note I thought I had joined thi list to observe, as I thought that members of the WGEC should not themselves contribute to statements, but I don't think I ever ended up in the group) >>> You joined, but then left again. You are more than welcome to rejoin, and (like this list) there is a link to view the members once you are logged in: >> Thanks for the reminder that this was the list I joined/left. >> >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/review/ec >> I think the list of people who contributed to the statement should be made public. >> >>>> In any case I think it is important to know who contributed to this statement in secret. >>> It wasn't in secret, it was publicised here before it began work and several times since then: >>> >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/arc/bestbits/2013-04/msg00008.html >>> >>> as well as on some other lists including governance... and the list archives are open. >> >> anyhow glad that the archives are open. I had missed reading that fact. >> >> Are the list of email authors and the list of text authors the same? >> >> avri >> >> >> >> >> > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > From dbu at donnybu.com Mon Aug 5 08:48:34 2013 From: dbu at donnybu.com (Donny B.U.) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 19:48:34 +0700 Subject: [bestbits] IGF Bali In-Reply-To: References: <51FAE664.10104@cdt.org> Message-ID: please use google translate :) -dbu- On Monday, August 5, 2013, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > Just got this news from a friend that its now official that IGF Bali will > be organized as planned. > > > http://m.kominfo.go.id/berita/detail/4095/Siaran+Pers+No.+61-PIH-KOMINFO-8-2013+tentang+Indonesia+Bersama+Komunitas+Internet+Multi-Stakeholder+Global+Siap+Menjadi+Tuan+Rumah+IGF+2013+-+Bali > > Congratulations everyone, who have been working very hard behind the > scenes to make it happen. > > More power to you all, > > Best wishes and regards > Shahzad > > -- e: dbu at donnybu.com | t: @donnybu | f: donnybu | w: donnybu.com | p: +62818930932 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Mon Aug 19 10:36:21 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 07:36:21 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Important new joint submission to CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <52119C17.4040809@ciroap.org> <9F2A1002-928D-4BF9-A989-65C868619428@acm.org> Message-ID: Thanks avri On 19 Aug 2013, at 06:48, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 19/08/2013, at 9:34 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Are the list of email authors and the list of text authors the same? > > > Yes. From avri at acm.org Mon Aug 19 10:47:51 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 07:47:51 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Important new joint submission to CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <52119C17.4040809@ciroap.org> <9F2A1002-928D-4BF9-A989-65C868619428@acm.org> Message-ID: On 19 Aug 2013, at 06:48, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 19/08/2013, at 9:34 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Are the list of email authors and the list of text authors the same? > > > Yes. For completeness sake went to the archive http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/arc/ec (cut and paste, alphabetized) Anriette Esterhuysen, David Allen Ian Peter Jeremy Malcolm matthew shears Norbert Bollow parminder (hope I captured all the names) From jefsey at jefsey.com Mon Aug 19 20:37:10 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 02:37:10 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Important new joint submission to CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <5211A2A5.3070301@itforchange.net> References: <52119C17.4040809@ciroap.org> <5211A2A5.3070301@itforchange.net> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joy at apc.org Mon Aug 19 21:43:54 2013 From: joy at apc.org (joy) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 13:43:54 +1200 Subject: [bestbits] Important new joint submission to CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <52119C17.4040809@ciroap.org> <9F2A1002-928D-4BF9-A989-65C868619428@acm.org> Message-ID: <5212C9DA.6080305@apc.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Thanks Avri I can also confirm that as a WGEC member, I am on the EC list as an observer and have not made any contributions to the text nor made any email posts. Joy On 20/08/2013 2:47 a.m., Avri Doria wrote: > > On 19 Aug 2013, at 06:48, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> On 19/08/2013, at 9:34 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >>> Are the list of email authors and the list of text authors the same? >> >> >> Yes. > > > For completeness sake went to the archive http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/arc/ec (cut and paste, alphabetized) > > Anriette Esterhuysen, > David Allen > Ian Peter > Jeremy Malcolm > matthew shears > Norbert Bollow > parminder > > (hope I captured all the names) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSEsnaAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bq6cEIAMFamilzqiNYaYNZwwcwc9DM aDwWlAfQ5bHcERZVRBLnNbMpfbMH7w4I9atWom/o13Y0wxLUDukfgi83s75IsBBe 7Czwn2Bo43Ar/LDcMCMVCI+05T0qtPveK+lVZ8Mdlbe1Om3azj8JNT5o8sDWYfhB Kyq+VfU80eGjv3rOkz8wK05L98HMgAPcp5d7ambp0cvP6heJp6ewp3eFuR+FQkcF s7nLGssy1rEoj8T4ZEMD9RGqO4VSvCVzgZjZWQllD9ZiptdLduROLCee3tkXofAO aU9sGdlshy7+sR3q5ZS3T3hxVtrGTNd4IcZbwN2/jmjxZQ0KJLG3uzLQYo0LuVA= =y3jP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk Tue Aug 20 09:45:44 2013 From: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk (Marianne Franklin) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 15:45:44 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] IGF Youth Forum - Invitation In-Reply-To: <520C1539.4010900@apc.org> References: <5209BF40.4080700@ciroap.org> <520A6555.5050008@apc.org> <520A6E50.3080309@eff.org> <520C1539.4010900@apc.org> Message-ID: <52137308.8030405@gold.ac.uk> HI all True that surveys are proliferating but if well designed and used to good effect they have their uses. One such survey is from the IGF Youth Forum, http://www.youthigfproject.com, who made a strong impression in their first visit to the IGF in 2009 at Sharm el Sheikh. For Bali, they have developed a survey about online anonymity. It is available to all ages, questions developed by Youth Forum participants themselves and open until the end of September at https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/anonymity Feel free to complete and circulate to your networks, young and not so young! This survey is one worth supporting I think. Just did it. Five minutes only to complete if not less. best MF -- Dr Marianne Franklin Reader Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) Goldsmiths, University of London Dept. of Media & Communications New Cross, London SE14 6NW Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 @GloComm https://twitter.com/GloComm http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/ https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/ www.internetrightsandprinciples.org @netrights From vikszabados at gmail.com Tue Aug 20 09:56:16 2013 From: vikszabados at gmail.com (Viktor Szabados) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 15:56:16 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] IGF Youth Forum - Invitation In-Reply-To: <52137308.8030405@gold.ac.uk> References: <5209BF40.4080700@ciroap.org> <520A6555.5050008@apc.org> <520A6E50.3080309@eff.org> <520C1539.4010900@apc.org> <52137308.8030405@gold.ac.uk> Message-ID: Dear Marianne, thanks. yes, this is the UK national youth IGF. x vik 2013/8/20, Marianne Franklin : > HI all > > True that surveys are proliferating but if well designed and used to > good effect they have their uses. One such survey is from the IGF Youth > Forum, http://www.youthigfproject.com, who made a strong impression in > their first visit to the IGF in 2009 at Sharm el Sheikh. > > For Bali, they have developed a survey about online anonymity. It is > available to all ages, questions developed by Youth Forum participants > themselves and open until the end of September at > > https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/anonymity > > Feel free to complete and circulate to your networks, young and not so > young! This survey is one worth supporting I think. Just did it. Five > minutes only to complete if not less. > > best > MF > > -- > Dr Marianne Franklin > Reader > Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program > Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) > Goldsmiths, University of London > Dept. of Media & Communications > New Cross, London SE14 6NW > Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 > > @GloComm > https://twitter.com/GloComm > http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/ > https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/ > www.internetrightsandprinciples.org > @netrights > > -- tag - Internetes Jogok és Alapelvek Koalíció Irányító Bizottsága http://internetrightsandprinciples.org alapító, főszerkesztő - Elnökség Tudósítói www.elnoksegtudositoi.eu -- SZABADOS Viktor vikszabados at gmail.com +36 30 8535388 +43 699 11948 266 From shahzad at bytesforall.pk Tue Aug 20 23:02:33 2013 From: shahzad at bytesforall.pk (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 08:02:33 +0500 Subject: [bestbits] Bangladesh need your attention - Amendment of the ICT Act In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear colleagues, Wish to draw your kind attention on the latest developments in Bangladesh. Adilur Rahman is a personal friend and a renowned human rights defender. He was picked by the police on 10th August 2013. Some details of the case are here https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/node/23539 Following note has been sent to relevant UN Special Procedures and Mandate Holders by concerned civil society organizations, however, it will be good that you all are also aware and probably can help. Best wishes and regards Shahzad PS: We dread policy laundering so re very very concerned. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Dear Special Procedures Mandate Holders This is to alert you regarding the ordinance titled Information and Communication Technology (ICT) (Amendment) Act, 2013 being passed and approved by the Cabinet of Bangladesh on 19 August 2013. The cabinet has approved the proposed draft of the ³Information and Communication Technology (ICT) (Amendment) Act, 2013² which seeks to make significant changes to the existing legislation enacted in 2006 . Initial reports indicate that some of the key provisions of the amendment are as follows: 1. Section 76 of the present Act classifies all offences committed under the Act to be Non-Cognizable. However, the 2013 amendment seeks to classify some of the offences as cognizable. By doing so, the police could arrest persons without issuing a warrant by invoking Section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure . 2. Offences under the present Act are bailable, while the amendment seeks to make the offences non-bailable. 3. The maximum period of imprisonment for offences under the Act has been increased to 14 years as against 10 years under the present Act. Penalties and fines are also to be enhanced. Reports also suggest that the Ordinance is likely to receive the assent of the President soon, after which the provisions will come into effect. As soon as the copy of the Ordinance is made available to us we will share it with you. We would further like to bring to your notice to the fact that this draft amendment has been passed in a hurry by the cabinet while the Parliament is scheduled to be in session soon on 12 September 2013. By doing so, the government has denied the opposition parties the opportunity to discuss the provisions of the amendment and raise objections. We must also bring to your attention the recent arrest of Adilur Rahman Khan, a prominent human rights activist on 10 August 2013 for the alleged offences under the Information and Communication Technology Act, 2006. The documents submitted before the courts in relation to his arrest also suggest that the authorities seek to proceed against Adilur Rahman Khan for charges similar to sedition. We anticipate that further arrests of human rights defenders such as Adilur Rahman Khan would be carried out soon after the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) (Amendment) Act, 2013 ordinance is promulgated by the President. We therefore call upon your office to urgently intervene and urge the Government of Bangladesh and the President of Bangladesh to refrain from bringing the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) (Amendment) Act, 2013 into force. Please do contact us should you need any further information or clarification. ------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Wed Aug 21 00:35:16 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varonferraz) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 01:35:16 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Bangladesh need your attention - Amendment of the ICT Act In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9FB48FA2-1BA1-4ADF-98F8-BBC8EB4504F3@varonferraz.com> Dear Shahzad, Im really sorry to hear so. I've checked the website and the suggestion for action is to post a letter to the prime minister: https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/node/23539/action Is there another help you would need? Take good care! Joana --- ~ --- ~ --- ~ Joana Varon Ferraz Researcher Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS/FGV) On 21/08/2013, at 00:02, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > Wish to draw your kind attention on the latest developments in Bangladesh. > > Adilur Rahman is a personal friend and a renowned human rights defender. He was picked by the police on 10th August 2013. Some details of the case are here https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/node/23539 > > Following note has been sent to relevant UN Special Procedures and Mandate Holders by concerned civil society organizations, however, it will be good that you all are also aware and probably can help. > > Best wishes and regards > Shahzad > > PS: We dread policy laundering so re very very concerned. > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Dear Special Procedures Mandate Holders > > This is to alert you regarding the ordinance titled Information and Communication Technology (ICT) (Amendment) Act, 2013 being passed and approved by the Cabinet of Bangladesh on 19 August 2013. > > The cabinet has approved the proposed draft of the “Information and Communication Technology (ICT) (Amendment) Act, 2013” which seeks to make significant changes to the existing legislation enacted in 2006. > > Initial reports indicate that some of the key provisions of the amendment are as follows: > > 1. Section 76 of the present Act classifies all offences committed under the Act to be Non-Cognizable. However, the 2013 amendment seeks to classify some of the offences as cognizable. By doing so, the police could arrest persons without issuing a warrant by invoking Section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. > > 2. Offences under the present Act are bailable, while the amendment seeks to make the offences non-bailable. > > 3. The maximum period of imprisonment for offences under the Act has been increased to 14 years as against 10 years under the present Act. Penalties and fines are also to be enhanced. > > Reports also suggest that the Ordinance is likely to receive the assent of the President soon, after which the provisions will come into effect. As soon as the copy of the Ordinance is made available to us we will share it with you. > We would further like to bring to your notice to the fact that this draft amendment has been passed in a hurry by the cabinet while the Parliament is scheduled to be in session soon on 12 September 2013. By doing so, the government has denied the opposition parties the opportunity to discuss the provisions of the amendment and raise objections. > > We must also bring to your attention the recent arrest of Adilur Rahman Khan, a prominent human rights activist on 10 August 2013 for the alleged offences under the Information and Communication Technology Act, 2006. The documents submitted before the courts in relation to his arrest also suggest that the authorities seek to proceed against Adilur Rahman Khan for charges similar to sedition. > > We anticipate that further arrests of human rights defenders such as Adilur Rahman Khan would be carried out soon after the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) (Amendment) Act, 2013 ordinance is promulgated by the President. > > We therefore call upon your office to urgently intervene and urge the Government of Bangladesh and the President of Bangladesh to refrain from bringing the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) (Amendment) Act, 2013 into force. > > Please do contact us should you need any further information or clarification. > > ------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shahzad at bytesforall.pk Wed Aug 21 04:06:49 2013 From: shahzad at bytesforall.pk (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:06:49 +0500 Subject: [bestbits] Bangladesh need your attention - Amendment of the ICT Act In-Reply-To: <9FB48FA2-1BA1-4ADF-98F8-BBC8EB4504F3@varonferraz.com> Message-ID: Dear Joana and colleagues, What we heard from the local civil society organizations, this new development of amending the Act is very new, probably only yesterday. So our contacts there told that after the cabinet's approval, it will be issued as a presidential ordinance, which will come into action immediately. This may put other members of Adilur's org in harms way. Its a point of concern for all of us in the region. Joana, you work with different UNSRs, I would suggest you to please make sure that they have seen this and know about these developments. Best wishes and regards Shahzad From: Joana Varonferraz Date: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 9:35 AM To: Shahzad Ahmad Cc: "" Subject: Re: [bestbits] Bangladesh need your attention - Amendment of the ICT Act Dear Shahzad, Im really sorry to hear so. I've checked the website and the suggestion for action is to post a letter to the prime minister: https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/node/23539/action Is there another help you would need? Take good care! Joana --- ~ --- ~ --- ~ Joana Varon Ferraz Researcher Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS/FGV) On 21/08/2013, at 00:02, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > Wish to draw your kind attention on the latest developments in Bangladesh. > > Adilur Rahman is a personal friend and a renowned human rights defender. He > was picked by the police on 10th August 2013. Some details of the case are > here https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/node/23539 > > Following note has been sent to relevant UN Special Procedures and Mandate > Holders by concerned civil society organizations, however, it will be good > that you all are also aware and probably can help. > > Best wishes and regards > Shahzad > > PS: We dread policy laundering so re very very concerned. > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Dear Special Procedures Mandate Holders > > This is to alert you regarding the ordinance titled Information and > Communication Technology (ICT) (Amendment) Act, 2013 being passed and approved > by the Cabinet of Bangladesh on 19 August 2013. > > The cabinet has approved the proposed draft of the ³Information and > Communication Technology (ICT) (Amendment) Act, 2013² which seeks to make > significant changes to the existing legislation enacted in 2006 > . > > Initial reports indicate that some of the key provisions of the amendment are > as follows: > > 1. Section 76 of the present Act classifies all offences committed under the > Act to be Non-Cognizable. However, the 2013 amendment seeks to classify some > of the offences as cognizable. By doing so, the police could arrest persons > without issuing a warrant by invoking Section 54 of the Code of Criminal > Procedure . > > > > 2. Offences under the present Act are bailable, while the amendment seeks to > make the offences non-bailable. > > > > 3. The maximum period of imprisonment for offences under the Act has been > increased to 14 years as against 10 years under the present Act. Penalties and > fines are also to be enhanced. > > > > Reports also suggest that the Ordinance is likely to receive the assent of the > President soon, after which the provisions will come into effect. As soon as > the copy of the Ordinance is made available to us we will share it with you. > > We would further like to bring to your notice to the fact that this draft > amendment has been passed in a hurry by the cabinet while the Parliament is > scheduled to be in session soon on 12 September 2013. By doing so, the > government has denied the opposition parties the opportunity to discuss the > provisions of the amendment and raise objections. > > We must also bring to your attention the recent arrest of Adilur Rahman Khan, > a prominent human rights activist on 10 August 2013 for the alleged offences > under the Information and Communication Technology Act, 2006. The documents > submitted before the courts in relation to his arrest also suggest that the > authorities seek to proceed against Adilur Rahman Khan for charges similar to > sedition. > > We anticipate that further arrests of human rights defenders such as Adilur > Rahman Khan would be carried out soon after the Information and Communication > Technology (ICT) (Amendment) Act, 2013 ordinance is promulgated by the > President. > > We therefore call upon your office to urgently intervene and urge the > Government of Bangladesh and the President of Bangladesh to refrain from > bringing the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) (Amendment) Act, > 2013 into force. > > Please do contact us should you need any further information or clarification. > > ------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sana at bolobhi.org Wed Aug 21 14:43:33 2013 From: sana at bolobhi.org (Sana Saleem) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 23:43:33 +0500 Subject: [bestbits] Pakistan: Ministry of IT Pursues Filtration Again Message-ID: Hi all, Many of you have been of great support during our campaign to get Ministry of IT to shelve their plans for a National Level URL Filtration & Blocking System that was announced in February last year, through your consistent support and pressure we were able to get the ministry to shelve the plan last year. However, as we feared and as now indicated through multiple media statements, the ministry is pursuing their plans and have in fact now indicated that the filters will be provided through an ISP for "free for one year". As partners and supporters of campaigns run by Civil Society in Pakistan, we are sending out this note to keep you updated on the situation. We've issued a detailed statement regarding the issue alongside extensive resources that we have been producing, including submissions to court in the YouTube case in which our director is Amicus Curiae Here's the link to our statement: http://bolobhi.org/press-releases/minstry-of-it-no-to-internet-filters-censorship/ The successful campaign last year which is now being disregarded : http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/11/26/the_fp_100_global_thinkers?page=0,58#thinker100 Submissions to court: http://bolobhi.org/press-releases/minstry-of-it-no-to-internet-filters-censorship/ Best, Sana -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director, Bolo Bhi, Advocacy-Policy-Research [http://bolobhi.org] Blogger: Dawn.com [http://blog.dawn.com/author/sana-saleem/] Global Voices: [http://globalvoicesonline.org/author/sana-saleem/] The Guardian:[ www.guardian.co.uk/profile/sana-saleem] Blog: http://sanasaleem.com] Twitter: @sanasaleem @bolobhi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shahzad at bytesforall.pk Mon Aug 5 08:54:25 2013 From: shahzad at bytesforall.pk (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2013 17:54:25 +0500 Subject: [bestbits] IGF Bali In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Yes I did :) And I saw ICT Watch mentioned tooŠ All the best Donny. This is going to be a very very exciting IGF :) Best wishes and regards Shahzad From: "Donny B.U." Date: Monday, August 5, 2013 5:48 PM To: Shahzad Ahmad Cc: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" Subject: Re: [bestbits] IGF Bali please use google translate :) -dbu- On Monday, August 5, 2013, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > Just got this news from a friend that its now official that IGF Bali will be > organized as planned. > > http://m.kominfo.go.id/berita/detail/4095/Siaran+Pers+No.+61-PIH-KOMINFO-8-201 > 3+tentang+Indonesia+Bersama+Komunitas+Internet+Multi-Stakeholder+Global+Siap+M > enjadi+Tuan+Rumah+IGF+2013+-+Bali > > Congratulations everyone, who have been working very hard behind the scenes to > make it happen. > > More power to you all, > > Best wishes and regards > Shahzad > -- e: dbu at donnybu.com | t: @donnybu | f: donnybu | w: donnybu.com | p: +62818930932 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joy at apc.org Wed Aug 21 21:52:54 2013 From: joy at apc.org (joy) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:52:54 +1200 Subject: [bestbits] Programme for Best Bits annual meeting In-Reply-To: References: <36DD99DF-3B81-4184-8F47-D1C6DD9C4451@ciroap.org> <5206F45C.9070100@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52156EF6.2040406@apc.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi all - just wanting to add some thoughts on the agenda and thanks for preparing a draft Jeremy Copying the original agenda back in for ease of reference: *Day 1* 1) Best Bits itself: goals, structure, processes, fundraising, interactions with other groups, etc. The interim steering group is working on a documents with our brainstorming about all this, which we will share soon. The purpose of this session is to reach a consensus that we are heading in the right direction (or not), and to provide a mandate to carry out proposals that will help us grow and become stronger and more sustainable. 2) Global Internet governance principles and Enhanced Cooperation. As you know, there are groups at the IGF MAG and the CSTD discussing these issues, but until now there has been no strong unified civil society position about the evolution of Internet governance arrangements, and this equivocation has played into the wrong hands. We have been largely split between groups that are averse to any changes, and those with proposals for changes that are seen as radical. The purpose of this session (as I see it, anyway) is to get together behind a shared position that can become a solid base for advocacy. We already have a working group arguing over these issues (in a good way), which will report back to this main list soon. JL: it would be a shame if the only focus of this session was the for and against debate about current arrangements. There are other pressing internet governance issues including for developing countries access and national internet governance processes, capacity building and best practice among others. can some time be made for these as well? *Day 2* JL: I agree we should not be ITU-centric. Can we include a brief clearinghouse session (perhaps we can start a thread on it before the meeting) looking at the range of other forums which might be relevant for inputs - to help ensure that wider focus The surveillance session: i agree it should be a key focus and would emphasise to look at the implications of trends in the range of invasive and threatening actions being taken by diverse governments and then at the strategies for civil society to respond. I know for example, that many civil society groups which are leading on secure online communciations training for human rights defenders are doing some deep thinking about how to respond to surveillance at a practical not only policy level. Finally, should there be a session focused on IGF itself: the programme, side events and so on and sharing if there are any particular sessions or workshops that Best Bits feels strongly should have focus or which would be strategically important to have input to. thanks Joy On 14/08/2013 2:16 a.m., Anne Jellema wrote: > This is great, Parminder. I leave it to others to comment on whether it should be the sole focus of CSO discussions at Bali, or one strand among others - but it is definitely something that Best Bits and Web We Want could plan together, as it's an excellent fit with the Web We Want mission of consolidating and promoting a positive vision for the future of the open Web. > Beyond coming out with a statement ... even better would be coming out with an action plan! > cheers > Anne > > > On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 4:18 AM, parminder > wrote: > > > Thanks to the steering committee for this great start.... > > I havent much to say about day 1. Maybe a few things, but that later... > > Abut day 2 > > I think we would do well if we try not to look very ITU centric ( and I can assure, we do)... Last year was different with the WCIT in the offing, but this year I dont see why a session should focus on ITU. > > As to saying that Snowden or NSA revelations can become a sub item of this ITU discussion, quite the opposite is what I think would be in order.. > > Lets be honest, and do justice to the people of the world in whose name we assemble, work and expend monies.... Internet governance to the world right now is completely focussed on the Snowden affair. Not only among the laity, but even the politically well informed and articulate. > > It is bad enough that the IGF wont largely be about NSA revelations (even to the extent that Kenya IGF was about the India's CIRP proposal) although I will be happy to be pleasantly surprised. But I cant see how a civil society meeting can afford to be not about it. This is my basic proposition.. > > I think we need to have a session on something very roughly like the 'The global Internet after Snowden - What will balkanise the Internet and what can keep it sufficiently global' - and if possible come out with a statement about it. > > At the time of formation of BB, we had promised ourselves a positive agenda , and flogging ITU over a day once again is not what I think takes us towards that. (Disclaimer: I have long held that the ITU is not the right place for most global IG work.) > > People are interested to know in which directions would post Snowden global Internet go. And we should discuss this. > > Lets cut the chaff and go directly to what is/ are the issue(s) of global governance of the Internet today. For instance - what are the global ethics, norms, principles and legal frameworks for trans-border flow of data, information and digital services? Who should develop ( ensure their compliance) and how? > > And wh- at is the meaning of ownership of our digital lives, and how statist and corporatist controls play with such rightful ownership. > > That is what people right now most want to know... Do we have anything to say to them, and perhaps say on the behalf of them? > > parminder > > > > > On Saturday 10 August 2013 09:06 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> Since the good news that the 2013 IGF will be going ahead after all, it's time to revise and finalise the programme for our annual meeting in Bali. The interim steering group has been talking about this, and here was their suggestion for topics (the descriptions are mine though): >> >> *Day 1* >> >> 1) Best Bits itself: goals, structure, processes, fundraising, interactions with other groups, etc. The interim steering group is working on a documents with our brainstorming about all this, which we will share soon. The purpose of this session is to reach a consensus that we are heading in the right direction (or not), and to provide a mandate to carry out proposals that will help us grow and become stronger and more sustainable. >> >> 2) Global Internet governance principles and Enhanced Cooperation. As you know, there are groups at the IGF MAG and the CSTD discussing these issues, but until now there has been no strong unified civil society position about the evolution of Internet governance arrangements, and this equivocation has played into the wrong hands. We have been largely split between groups that are averse to any changes, and those with proposals for changes that are seen as radical. The purpose of this session (as I see it, anyway) is to get together behind a shared position that can become a solid base for advocacy. We already have a working group arguing over these issues (in a good way), which will report back to this main list soon. >> >> *Day 2* >> >> 3) The ITU processes, up to the ITU Plenipotentiary in 2014 and the WSIS+10 review. What is coming up? What is our long term strategy? Have we responded adequately to the ITU's most recent refusal to open up the Council Working Group on Internet Policy to stakeholders? If we still don't see change at the Plenipotentiary, what then - do we disengage? >> >> 4) The NSA surveillance issue may become a sub-item of the ITU discussion, given that there are countries that may bring this debate to the ITU. But it will also include an update on the Human Rights Council, stateside developments, how this has altered the Internet governance landscape in the long term, and general strategy going forward. >> >> There's also a lot of other work to be done between now and then, including work on the website (so that you can actually register for the meeting!) and on fundraising (to help pay for it). I'll be posting more about that very soon. >> >> Meanwhile your comments are invited on the programme... >> >> -- >> >> *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 >> >> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. >> > > > > > -- > Anne Jellema > Chief Executive Officer > Cape Town, RSA > mob +27 61 036 9652 > tel +27 21 788 4585 > Skype anne.jellema > @afjellema > > World Wide Web Foundation | 1889 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSFW72AAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqlaYH/1VO5qy4FHaErnEKeq5IJ+lU ayzyQWzcCFC5d4aztko5Js/Mp47qTnG745xm77cYRC1n1FyTWR3F7THUZYcJTWlJ 5AdNG7YcDhN7c4A+mnpnuUIPmzpnvO936GLSAn5BxByw3qNG4M1kDJaPh2Q31VQw ReoiJSSSoQa+GG9IpMkrgyzRWNySQW3xVPUCiOKCeEv/A9zd3kxAPRfN5MlyG3Gf KuWqE44RE75qdZhS8Pnp8bKM7F0+2vsl9ly7UNMHwecbILA5mkfG7gIcAVBmccE2 jSBNupV4z4caWkg3D0c+38WN1zPRma77mU4g3simF1JoEidQ0NoTjDkWDBIUFkM= =q01i -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed Aug 21 22:37:19 2013 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 11:37:19 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Programme for Best Bits annual meeting In-Reply-To: <52156EF6.2040406@apc.org> References: <36DD99DF-3B81-4184-8F47-D1C6DD9C4451@ciroap.org> <5206F45C.9070100@itforchange.net> <52156EF6.2040406@apc.org> Message-ID: Hi Joy, + 1, good idea about clearinghouse, we have multiplication of new fora like Internet Freedom Coalition or also Cyber london conf (and so Budapest, Seoul) . even for ITU we have CWG. maybe time to have discussion on how CS can really be present in all these spaces and can be effective because I do think that is not really sustainable . Best, Rafik 2013/8/22 joy > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi all - just wanting to add some thoughts on the agenda and thanks for > preparing a draft Jeremy > Copying the original agenda back in for ease of reference: > *Day 1* > > > 1) Best Bits itself: goals, structure, processes, fundraising, > interactions with other groups, etc. The interim steering group is working > on a documents with our brainstorming about all this, which we will share > soon. The purpose of this session is to reach a consensus that we are > heading in the right direction (or not), and to provide a mandate to carry > out proposals that will help us grow and become stronger and more > sustainable. > > 2) Global Internet governance principles and Enhanced Cooperation. As you > know, there are groups at the IGF MAG and the CSTD discussing these issues, > but until now there has been no strong unified civil society position about > the evolution of Internet governance arrangements, and this equivocation > has played into the wrong hands. We have been largely split between groups > that are averse to any changes, and those with proposals for changes that > are seen as radical. The purpose of this session (as I see it, anyway) is > to get together behind a shared position that can become a solid base for > advocacy. We already have a working group arguing over these issues (in a > good way), which will report back to this main list soon. > > JL: it would be a shame if the only focus of this session was the for and > against debate about current arrangements. There are other pressing > internet governance issues including for developing countries access and > national internet governance processes, capacity building and best practice > among others. can some time be made for these as well? > > > *Day 2* > JL: I agree we should not be ITU-centric. Can we include a brief > clearinghouse session (perhaps we can start a thread on it before the > meeting) looking at the range of other forums which might be relevant for > inputs - to help ensure that wider focus > The surveillance session: i agree it should be a key focus and would > emphasise to look at the implications of trends in the range of invasive > and threatening actions being taken by diverse governments and then at the > strategies for civil society to respond. I know for example, that many > civil society groups which are leading on secure online communciations > training for human rights defenders are doing some deep thinking about how > to respond to surveillance at a practical not only policy level. > > Finally, should there be a session focused on IGF itself: the programme, > side events and so on and sharing if there are any particular sessions or > workshops that Best Bits feels strongly should have focus or which would be > strategically important to have input to. > > thanks > > Joy > > On 14/08/2013 2:16 a.m., Anne Jellema wrote: > > This is great, Parminder. I leave it to others to comment on whether it > should be the sole focus of CSO discussions at Bali, or one strand among > others - but it is definitely something that Best Bits and Web We Want > could plan together, as it's an excellent fit with the Web We Want mission > of consolidating and promoting a positive vision for the future of the open > Web. > > Beyond coming out with a statement ... even better would be coming out > with an action plan! > > cheers > > Anne > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 4:18 AM, parminder > wrote: > > > > > > Thanks to the steering committee for this great start.... > > > > I havent much to say about day 1. Maybe a few things, but that > later... > > > > Abut day 2 > > > > I think we would do well if we try not to look very ITU centric ( > and I can assure, we do)... Last year was different with the WCIT in the > offing, but this year I dont see why a session should focus on ITU. > > > > As to saying that Snowden or NSA revelations can become a sub item > of this ITU discussion, quite the opposite is what I think would be in > order.. > > > > Lets be honest, and do justice to the people of the world in whose > name we assemble, work and expend monies.... Internet governance to the > world right now is completely focussed on the Snowden affair. Not only > among the laity, but even the politically well informed and articulate. > > > > It is bad enough that the IGF wont largely be about NSA revelations > (even to the extent that Kenya IGF was about the India's CIRP proposal) > although I will be happy to be pleasantly surprised. But I cant see how a > civil society meeting can afford to be not about it. This is my basic > proposition.. > > > > I think we need to have a session on something very roughly like the > 'The global Internet after Snowden - What will balkanise the Internet and > what can keep it sufficiently global' - and if possible come out with a > statement about it. > > > > At the time of formation of BB, we had promised ourselves a positive > agenda , and flogging ITU over a day once again is not what I think takes > us towards that. (Disclaimer: I have long held that the ITU is not the > right place for most global IG work.) > > > > People are interested to know in which directions would post Snowden > global Internet go. And we should discuss this. > > > > Lets cut the chaff and go directly to what is/ are the issue(s) of > global governance of the Internet today. For instance - what are the global > ethics, norms, principles and legal frameworks for trans-border flow of > data, information and digital services? Who should develop ( ensure their > compliance) and how? > > > > And wh- at is the meaning of ownership of our digital lives, and how > statist and corporatist controls play with such rightful ownership. > > > > That is what people right now most want to know... Do we have > anything to say to them, and perhaps say on the behalf of them? > > > > parminder > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday 10 August 2013 09:06 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> Since the good news that the 2013 IGF will be going ahead after > all, it's time to revise and finalise the programme for our annual meeting > in Bali. The interim steering group has been talking about this, and here > was their suggestion for topics (the descriptions are mine though): > >> > >> *Day 1* > > >> > >> 1) Best Bits itself: goals, structure, processes, fundraising, > interactions with other groups, etc. The interim steering group is working > on a documents with our brainstorming about all this, which we will share > soon. The purpose of this session is to reach a consensus that we are > heading in the right direction (or not), and to provide a mandate to carry > out proposals that will help us grow and become stronger and more > sustainable. > >> > >> 2) Global Internet governance principles and Enhanced Cooperation. > As you know, there are groups at the IGF MAG and the CSTD discussing these > issues, but until now there has been no strong unified civil society > position about the evolution of Internet governance arrangements, and this > equivocation has played into the wrong hands. We have been largely split > between groups that are averse to any changes, and those with proposals for > changes that are seen as radical. The purpose of this session (as I see > it, anyway) is to get together behind a shared position that can become a > solid base for advocacy. We already have a working group arguing over > these issues (in a good way), which will report back to this main list soon. > >> > >> *Day 2* > > >> > >> 3) The ITU processes, up to the ITU Plenipotentiary in 2014 and the > WSIS+10 review. What is coming up? What is our long term strategy? Have > we responded adequately to the ITU's most recent refusal to open up the > Council Working Group on Internet Policy to stakeholders? If we still > don't see change at the Plenipotentiary, what then - do we disengage? > >> > >> 4) The NSA surveillance issue may become a sub-item of the ITU > discussion, given that there are countries that may bring this debate to > the ITU. But it will also include an update on the Human Rights Council, > stateside developments, how this has altered the Internet governance > landscape in the long term, and general strategy going forward. > >> > >> There's also a lot of other work to be done between now and then, > including work on the website (so that you can actually register for the > meeting!) and on fundraising (to help pay for it). I'll be posting more > about that very soon. > >> > >> Meanwhile your comments are invited on the programme... > >> > >> -- > >> > >> *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 > > >> > >> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement > knowledge hub | > http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > >> > >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > >> > >> Read our email confidentiality notice > . > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Anne Jellema > > Chief Executive Officer > > Cape Town, RSA > > mob +27 61 036 9652 > > tel +27 21 788 4585 > > Skype anne.jellema > > @afjellema > > > > World Wide Web Foundation | 1889 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, USA > | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSFW72AAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqlaYH/1VO5qy4FHaErnEKeq5IJ+lU > ayzyQWzcCFC5d4aztko5Js/Mp47qTnG745xm77cYRC1n1FyTWR3F7THUZYcJTWlJ > 5AdNG7YcDhN7c4A+mnpnuUIPmzpnvO936GLSAn5BxByw3qNG4M1kDJaPh2Q31VQw > ReoiJSSSoQa+GG9IpMkrgyzRWNySQW3xVPUCiOKCeEv/A9zd3kxAPRfN5MlyG3Gf > KuWqE44RE75qdZhS8Pnp8bKM7F0+2vsl9ly7UNMHwecbILA5mkfG7gIcAVBmccE2 > jSBNupV4z4caWkg3D0c+38WN1zPRma77mU4g3simF1JoEidQ0NoTjDkWDBIUFkM= > =q01i > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From genekimmelman at gmail.com Thu Aug 22 05:12:12 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 11:12:12 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Programme for Best Bits annual meeting Message-ID:  I like Joy's ideas. It would be great to get a list of the most pressing issues -------- Original message -------- From: joy Date: To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Programme for Best Bits annual meeting -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1   Hi all - just wanting to add some thoughts on the agenda and thanks for preparing a draft Jeremy Copying the original agenda back in for ease of reference: *Day 1* 1) Best Bits itself: goals, structure, processes, fundraising, interactions with other groups, etc. The interim steering group is working on a documents with our brainstorming about all this, which we will share soon.  The purpose of this session is to reach a consensus that we are heading in the right direction (or not), and to provide a mandate to carry out proposals that will help us grow and become stronger and more sustainable. 2) Global Internet governance principles and Enhanced Cooperation.  As you know, there are groups at the IGF MAG and the CSTD discussing these issues, but until now there has been no strong unified civil society position about the evolution of Internet governance arrangements, and this equivocation has played into the wrong hands.  We have been largely split between groups that are averse to any changes, and those with proposals for changes that are seen as radical.  The purpose of this session (as I see it, anyway) is to get together behind a shared position that can become a solid base for advocacy.  We already have a working group arguing over these issues (in a good way), which will report back to this main list soon. JL: it would be a shame if the only focus of this session was the for and against debate about current arrangements. There are other pressing internet governance issues including for developing countries access and national internet governance processes, capacity building and best practice among others. can some time be made for these as well? *Day 2* JL: I agree we should not be ITU-centric. Can we include a brief clearinghouse session (perhaps we can start a thread on it before the meeting) looking at the range of other forums which might be relevant for inputs - to help ensure that wider focus The surveillance session: i agree it should be a key focus and would emphasise to look at the implications of trends in the range of invasive and threatening actions being taken by diverse governments and then at the strategies for civil society to respond. I know for example, that many civil society groups which are leading on secure online communciations training for human rights defenders are doing some deep thinking about how to respond to surveillance at a practical not only policy level. Finally, should there be a session focused on IGF itself: the programme, side events and so on and sharing if there are any particular sessions or workshops that Best Bits feels strongly should have focus or which would be strategically important to have input to. thanks Joy On 14/08/2013 2:16 a.m., Anne Jellema wrote: > This is great, Parminder. I leave it to others to comment on whether it should be the sole focus of CSO discussions at Bali, or one strand among others - but it is definitely something that Best Bits and Web We Want could plan together, as it's an excellent fit with the Web We Want mission of consolidating and promoting a positive vision for the future of the open Web. > Beyond coming out with a statement ... even better would be coming out with an action plan! > cheers > Anne > > > On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 4:18 AM, parminder > wrote: > > >     Thanks to the steering committee for this great start.... > >     I havent much to say about day 1. Maybe a few things, but that later... > >     Abut day 2 > >     I think we would do well if we try not to look very ITU centric ( and I can assure, we do)... Last year was different with the WCIT in the offing, but this year I dont see why a session should focus on ITU. > >     As to saying that Snowden or NSA revelations can become a sub item of this ITU discussion, quite the opposite is what I think would be in order.. > >     Lets be honest, and do justice to the people of the world in whose name we assemble, work and expend monies.... Internet governance to the world right now is completely focussed on the Snowden affair. Not only among the laity, but even the politically well informed and articulate. > >     It is bad enough that the IGF wont largely be about NSA revelations (even to the extent that Kenya IGF was about the India's CIRP proposal) although I will be happy to be pleasantly surprised. But I cant see how a civil society meeting can afford to be not about it. This is my basic proposition.. > >     I think we need to have a session on something very roughly like the 'The global Internet after Snowden - What will balkanise the Internet and what can keep it sufficiently global' - and if possible come out with a statement about it. > >     At the time of formation of BB, we had promised ourselves a positive agenda , and flogging ITU over a day once again is not what I think takes us towards that. (Disclaimer: I have long held that the ITU is not the right place for most global IG work.) > >     People are interested to know in which directions would post Snowden global Internet go. And we should discuss this. > >     Lets cut the chaff and go directly to what is/ are the issue(s) of global governance of the Internet today. For instance - what are the global ethics, norms, principles and legal frameworks for trans-border flow of data, information and digital services? Who should develop ( ensure their compliance) and how? > >     And wh- at is the meaning of ownership of our digital lives, and how statist and corporatist controls play with such rightful ownership. > >     That is what people right now most want to know... Do we have anything to say to them, and perhaps say on the behalf of them? > >     parminder > > > > >     On Saturday 10 August 2013 09:06 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>     Since the good news that the 2013 IGF will be going ahead after all, it's time to revise and finalise the programme for our annual meeting in Bali.  The interim steering group has been talking about this, and here was their suggestion for topics (the descriptions are mine though): >> >>     *Day 1* >> >>     1) Best Bits itself: goals, structure, processes, fundraising, interactions with other groups, etc. The interim steering group is working on a documents with our brainstorming about all this, which we will share soon.  The purpose of this session is to reach a consensus that we are heading in the right direction (or not), and to provide a mandate to carry out proposals that will help us grow and become stronger and more sustainable. >> >>     2) Global Internet governance principles and Enhanced Cooperation.  As you know, there are groups at the IGF MAG and the CSTD discussing these issues, but until now there has been no strong unified civil society position about the evolution of Internet governance arrangements, and this equivocation has played into the wrong hands.  We have been largely split between groups that are averse to any changes, and those with proposals for changes that are seen as radical.  The purpose of this session (as I see it, anyway) is to get together behind a shared position that can become a solid base for advocacy.  We already have a working group arguing over these issues (in a good way), which will report back to this main list soon. >> >>     *Day 2* >> >>     3) The ITU processes, up to the ITU Plenipotentiary in 2014 and the WSIS+10 review.  What is coming up?  What is our long term strategy?  Have we responded adequately to the ITU's most recent refusal to open up the Council Working Group on Internet Policy to stakeholders?  If we still don't see change at the Plenipotentiary, what then - do we disengage? >> >>     4) The NSA surveillance issue may become a sub-item of the ITU discussion, given that there are countries that may bring this debate to the ITU. But it will also include an update on the Human Rights Council, stateside developments, how this has altered the Internet governance landscape in the long term, and general strategy going forward. >> >>     There's also a lot of other work to be done between now and then, including work on the website (so that you can actually register for the meeting!) and on fundraising (to help pay for it).  I'll be posting more about that very soon. >> >>     Meanwhile your comments are invited on the programme... >> >>     -- >> >>     *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 >> >>     Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >> >>     @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >>     Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. >> > > > > > -- > Anne Jellema > Chief Executive Officer > Cape Town, RSA > mob +27 61 036 9652 > tel +27 21 788 4585 > Skype anne.jellema > @afjellema  >  > World Wide Web Foundation | 1889 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/   iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSFW72AAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqlaYH/1VO5qy4FHaErnEKeq5IJ+lU ayzyQWzcCFC5d4aztko5Js/Mp47qTnG745xm77cYRC1n1FyTWR3F7THUZYcJTWlJ 5AdNG7YcDhN7c4A+mnpnuUIPmzpnvO936GLSAn5BxByw3qNG4M1kDJaPh2Q31VQw ReoiJSSSoQa+GG9IpMkrgyzRWNySQW3xVPUCiOKCeEv/A9zd3kxAPRfN5MlyG3Gf KuWqE44RE75qdZhS8Pnp8bKM7F0+2vsl9ly7UNMHwecbILA5mkfG7gIcAVBmccE2 jSBNupV4z4caWkg3D0c+38WN1zPRma77mU4g3simF1JoEidQ0NoTjDkWDBIUFkM= =q01i -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk Thu Aug 22 06:02:48 2013 From: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk (Marianne Franklin) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 12:02:48 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Programme for Best Bits annual meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5215E1C8.1030809@gold.ac.uk> HI all +1 from me. There are a lot of workshops in the main IGF where participation and support from Best Bits folk would be productive not only for this specific Civil Society initiative (which is taking a step back from the compulsory 'multistakeholder' model of the main IGF program) but also for the workshops. A two-way process hopefully! Re. hosting of chat rooms to avoid Skype and also to work on alternatives in principle, and other online spaces. I think there needs to be some thought about setting up with an individual. What happens if that person withdraws good will, moves on or has to close these services? Just a thought. Passwords can disappear, domain ownership can become murky and so on. And all this is alongside whether we need to be waterproof in a world that is now totally porous! best MF On 22/08/2013 11:12, genekimmelman at gmail.com wrote: > I like Joy's ideas. It would be great to get a list of the most > pressing issues > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: joy > Date: > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Programme for Best Bits annual meeting > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi all - just wanting to add some thoughts on the agenda and thanks > for preparing a draft Jeremy > Copying the original agenda back in for ease of reference: > *Day 1* > > 1) Best Bits itself: goals, structure, processes, fundraising, > interactions with other groups, etc. The interim steering group is > working on a documents with our brainstorming about all this, which we > will share soon. The purpose of this session is to reach a consensus > that we are heading in the right direction (or not), and to provide a > mandate to carry out proposals that will help us grow and become > stronger and more sustainable. > > 2) Global Internet governance principles and Enhanced Cooperation. As > you know, there are groups at the IGF MAG and the CSTD discussing > these issues, but until now there has been no strong unified civil > society position about the evolution of Internet governance > arrangements, and this equivocation has played into the wrong hands. > We have been largely split between groups that are averse to any > changes, and those with proposals for changes that are seen as > radical. The purpose of this session (as I see it, anyway) is to get > together behind a shared position that can become a solid base for > advocacy. We already have a working group arguing over these issues > (in a good way), which will report back to this main list soon. > > JL: it would be a shame if the only focus of this session was the for > and against debate about current arrangements. There are other > pressing internet governance issues including for developing countries > access and national internet governance processes, capacity building > and best practice among others. can some time be made for these as well? > > > *Day 2* > JL: I agree we should not be ITU-centric. Can we include a brief > clearinghouse session (perhaps we can start a thread on it before the > meeting) looking at the range of other forums which might be relevant > for inputs - to help ensure that wider focus > The surveillance session: i agree it should be a key focus and would > emphasise to look at the implications of trends in the range of > invasive and threatening actions being taken by diverse governments > and then at the strategies for civil society to respond. I know for > example, that many civil society groups which are leading on secure > online communciations training for human rights defenders are doing > some deep thinking about how to respond to surveillance at a practical > not only policy level. > > Finally, should there be a session focused on IGF itself: the > programme, side events and so on and sharing if there are any > particular sessions or workshops that Best Bits feels strongly should > have focus or which would be strategically important to have input to. > > thanks > > Joy > On 14/08/2013 2:16 a.m., Anne Jellema wrote: > > This is great, Parminder. I leave it to others to comment on whether it should be the sole focus > of CSO discussions at Bali, or one strand among others - but it is > definitely something that Best Bits and Web We Want could plan > together, as it's an excellent fit with the Web We Want mission of > consolidating and promoting a positive vision for the future of the > open Web. > > Beyond coming out with a statement ... even better would be coming > out with an action plan! > > cheers > > Anne > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 4:18 AM, parminder > > wrote: > > > > > > Thanks to the steering committee for this great start.... > > > > I havent much to say about day 1. Maybe a few things, but that > later... > > > > Abut day 2 > > > > I think we would do well if we try not to look very ITU centric > ( and I can assure, we do)... Last year was different with the WCIT in > the offing, but this year I dont see why a session should focus on ITU. > > > > As to saying that Snowden or NSA revelations can become a sub > item of this ITU discussion, quite the opposite is what I think would > be in order.. > > > > Lets be honest, and do justice to the people of the world in > whose name we assemble, work and expend monies.... Internet governance > to the world right now is completely focussed on the Snowden affair. > Not only among the laity, but even the politically well informed and > articulate. > > > > It is bad enough that the IGF wont largely be about NSA > revelations (even to the extent that Kenya IGF was about the India's > CIRP proposal) although I will be happy to be pleasantly surprised. > But I cant see how a civil society meeting can afford to be not about > it. This is my basic proposition.. > > > > I think we need to have a session on something very roughly like > the 'The global Internet after Snowden - What will balkanise the > Internet and what can keep it sufficiently global' - and if possible > come out with a statement about it. > > > > At the time of formation of BB, we had promised ourselves a > positive agenda , and flogging ITU over a day once again is not what I > think takes us towards that. (Disclaimer: I have long held that the > ITU is not the right place for most global IG work.) > > > > People are interested to know in which directions would post > Snowden global Internet go. And we should discuss this. > > > > Lets cut the chaff and go directly to what is/ are the issue(s) > of global governance of the Internet today. For instance - what are > the global ethics, norms, principles and legal frameworks for > trans-border flow of data, information and digital services? Who > should develop ( ensure their compliance) and how? > > > > And wh- at is the meaning of ownership of our digital lives, and > how statist and corporatist controls play with such rightful ownership. > > > > That is what people right now most want to know... Do we have > anything to say to them, and perhaps say on the behalf of them? > > > > parminder > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday 10 August 2013 09:06 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> Since the good news that the 2013 IGF will be going ahead after > all, it's time to revise and finalise the programme for our annual > meeting in Bali. The interim steering group has been talking about > this, and here was their suggestion for topics (the descriptions are > mine though): > >> > >> *Day 1* > >> > >> 1) Best Bits itself: goals, structure, processes, fundraising, > interactions with other groups, etc. The interim steering group is > working on a documents with our brainstorming about all this, which we > will share soon. The purpose of this session is to reach a consensus > that we are heading in the right direction (or not), and to provide a > mandate to carry out proposals that will help us grow and become > stronger and more sustainable. > >> > >> 2) Global Internet governance principles and Enhanced > Cooperation. As you know, there are groups at the IGF MAG and the > CSTD discussing these issues, but until now there has been no strong > unified civil society position about the evolution of Internet > governance arrangements, and this equivocation has played into the > wrong hands. We have been largely split between groups that are > averse to any changes, and those with proposals for changes that are > seen as radical. The purpose of this session (as I see it, anyway) is > to get together behind a shared position that can become a solid base > for advocacy. We already have a working group arguing over these > issues (in a good way), which will report back to this main list soon. > >> > >> *Day 2* > >> > >> 3) The ITU processes, up to the ITU Plenipotentiary in 2014 and > the WSIS+10 review. What is coming up? What is our long term > strategy? Have we responded adequately to the ITU's most recent > refusal to open up the Council Working Group on Internet Policy to > stakeholders? If we still don't see change at the Plenipotentiary, > what then - do we disengage? > >> > >> 4) The NSA surveillance issue may become a sub-item of the ITU > discussion, given that there are countries that may bring this debate > to the ITU. But it will also include an update on the Human Rights > Council, stateside developments, how this has altered the Internet > governance landscape in the long term, and general strategy going forward. > >> > >> There's also a lot of other work to be done between now and > then, including work on the website (so that you can actually register > for the meeting!) and on fundraising (to help pay for it). I'll be > posting more about that very soon. > >> > >> Meanwhile your comments are invited on the programme... > >> > >> -- > >> > >> *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 > >> > >> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement > knowledge hub | > http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > >> > >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > >> > >> Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > >> > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Anne Jellema > > Chief Executive Officer > > Cape Town, RSA > > mob +27 61 036 9652 > > tel +27 21 788 4585 > > Skype anne.jellema > > @afjellema > > > > World Wide Web Foundation | 1889 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, > USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: > @webfoundation > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSFW72AAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqlaYH/1VO5qy4FHaErnEKeq5IJ+lU > ayzyQWzcCFC5d4aztko5Js/Mp47qTnG745xm77cYRC1n1FyTWR3F7THUZYcJTWlJ > 5AdNG7YcDhN7c4A+mnpnuUIPmzpnvO936GLSAn5BxByw3qNG4M1kDJaPh2Q31VQw > ReoiJSSSoQa+GG9IpMkrgyzRWNySQW3xVPUCiOKCeEv/A9zd3kxAPRfN5MlyG3Gf > KuWqE44RE75qdZhS8Pnp8bKM7F0+2vsl9ly7UNMHwecbILA5mkfG7gIcAVBmccE2 > jSBNupV4z4caWkg3D0c+38WN1zPRma77mU4g3simF1JoEidQ0NoTjDkWDBIUFkM= > =q01i > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > -- Dr Marianne Franklin Reader Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) Goldsmiths, University of London Dept. of Media & Communications New Cross, London SE14 6NW Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 @GloComm https://twitter.com/GloComm http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/ https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/ www.internetrightsandprinciples.org @netrights -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Aug 22 18:34:08 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 10:34:08 +1200 Subject: [bestbits] Programme for Best Bits annual meeting In-Reply-To: <52156EF6.2040406@apc.org> References: <36DD99DF-3B81-4184-8F47-D1C6DD9C4451@ciroap.org> <5206F45C.9070100@itforchange.net> <52156EF6.2040406@apc.org> Message-ID: <9E9C4667-EA54-4818-97BC-3F4ADB6DAEBA@ciroap.org> On 22/08/2013, at 1:52 PM, joy wrote: > JL: it would be a shame if the only focus of this session was the for > and against debate about current arrangements. There are other pressing > internet governance issues including for developing countries access and > national internet governance processes, capacity building and best > practice among others. can some time be made for these as well? > > *Day 2* > JL: I agree we should not be ITU-centric. Can we include a brief > clearinghouse session (perhaps we can start a thread on it before the > meeting) looking at the range of other forums which might be relevant > for inputs - to help ensure that wider focus > The surveillance session: i agree it should be a key focus and would > emphasise to look at the implications of trends in the range of invasive > and threatening actions being taken by diverse governments and then at > the strategies for civil society to respond. I know for example, that > many civil society groups which are leading on secure online > communciations training for human rights defenders are doing some deep > thinking about how to respond to surveillance at a practical not only > policy level. > > Finally, should there be a session focused on IGF itself: the programme, > side events and so on and sharing if there are any particular sessions > or workshops that Best Bits feels strongly should have focus or which > would be strategically important to have input to. Thanks everyone for the comments so far, a draft agenda the incorporates the suggestions given is now up for further comment at http://bestbits.net/bali2013 (click "Agenda") and also on the front page. The session facilitators are just suggestions and not confirmed yet. Sorry if I'm slow to respond to further suggestions for amendment, as I'm travelling at the moment. -- 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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Aug 22 18:37:40 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 10:37:40 +1200 Subject: [bestbits] Programme for Best Bits annual meeting In-Reply-To: <5215E1C8.1030809@gold.ac.uk> References: <5215E1C8.1030809@gold.ac.uk> Message-ID: On 22/08/2013, at 10:02 PM, Marianne Franklin wrote: > Re. hosting of chat rooms to avoid Skype and also to work on alternatives in principle, and other online spaces. I think there needs to be some thought about setting up with an individual. What happens if that person withdraws good will, moves on or has to close these services? > > Just a thought. Passwords can disappear, domain ownership can become murky and so on. And all this is alongside whether we need to be waterproof in a world that is now totally porous! In case anyone is confused by this, it continues a discussion raised in the steering committee. So I'll just copy and paste below from my email there, to provide the context for the above. And in answer to Marianne's question, the offer of Robert Guerra's server was just for our testing purposes. I can and will set up a permanent bestbits.net Mumble server if we decide that we like it. > From: Jeremy Malcolm > Subject: Walking the walk: Mumble > Date: 20 August 2013 10:01:47 PM NZST > To: "steering at lists.bestbits.net" > > One of my pet peeves is the extent to which civil society groups continue to patronise the same networks and applications that we know are subject to unlawful surveillance programmes. > > This came up in conversation with Robert Guerra, when I had a call scheduled with him and mentioned that I didn't like using Skype. He was of the same mind, and said that he had been using an open source, cross-platform encrypted group chat software called Mumble. I had heard of Mumble before but hadn't actually used it. > > Well, the call went very well and I was sufficiently impressed that Robert offered to set up a group chat room for us to use for Best Bits. I'd like to encourage any of you to try it. Whilst I can't do a group call in the near future due to travel, you can connect individually with any friends or colleagues you like, and try it out. > > If we decide we really like it, I can set up a Mumble server of our own (which is very simple to do). But for now we have Robert's for testing. > > Instructions: > Download Mumble for your platform: Windows, Mac, Linux, iOS, Android are all supported. See http://mumble.sourceforge.net/. > Run it and run the Certificate wizard, to make sure your calls will be encrypted (you can also import an existing S/MIME certificate, if you're a geek). > Add a new server to connect to: Label can be anything, Address should be vpn.priveterra.info, Port doesn't need to be changed, and Username can be anything. > The first time you connect you'll be asked to accept Robert's certificate: do that. > Join the "Best Bits" channel and start talking. > Hope someone will be able to try it. I'd be interested in your feedback! -- 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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Aug 22 19:55:17 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 11:55:17 +1200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: Important new joint submission to CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <52119C17.4040809@ciroap.org> References: <52119C17.4040809@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <6C79E61E-0649-44C3-8C2E-8C2CC6C82F58@ciroap.org> A reminder that any remaining comments on this draft submission are due over the weekend, so that can post it to the Best BIts site and begin collecting endorsements in time to submit it to the CSTD on 31 August. I would like to reiterate the importance of us delivering a strong joint civil society submission to this questionnaire. Other groups such as ICC-BASIS are supporting the status quo, and even putting forward the idea that things like the (much-criticised by civil society) APEC Cross-Border Privacy Regulation system is a good example of enhanced cooperation in practice! So it is very important for us to put forward a strong submission that points out the shortcomings of the status quo, and advances a public interest perspective on this topic. Thanks. On 19/08/2013, at 4:16 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > All Best Bits participants are now invited to finalise a joint submission to the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, which we are to submit by the end of August. This will be a very important submission in its own right, and also a key preparatory document to three upcoming Best Bits meetings - our APrIGF workshop in Seoul, Day 1 of our Best Bits meeting in Bali, and one of our two workshops at the global IGF. > > Its importance is that it addresses a question, unresolved for the last eight years, about how global Internet governance (in the broad sense that goes beyond technical issues) should evolve in response to states claims of sovereignty over public policy issues relating to the Internet. I wrote a background paper about this general question (and slides) for our WSIS+10 workshop in Paris. Post-PRISM, the question has only assumed greater importance. > > For the past few weeks, a civil society-only Best Bits working group (which also includes, though not in an official capacity, civil society members of the CSTD working group) has been working hard on this, to hone in on the core issues and to state them clearly and fairly, taking into account the wide divergence in views that exists even within civil society. The result of our work is open for your comment for one week, at which time we will close for endorsements: > > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/ec > > The current text is also pasted below. We aim for this submission to be as broadly inclusive of the views of Best Bits participants as possible, so after reading and considering the existing text carefully, if you have any changes to suggest, please speak up. If the changes are minor, you can just make them on the Etherpad. If major, we would ask that you raise them on the list first. The more groups that can endorse the submission, the more influence it will have. > > Just to reiterate, we are not taking endorsements yet. This will occur after one week of final comments from this list. (There is no point in taking endorsements when there might still be changes to the text.) For the same reason, we ask that you don't forward the draft text widely yet. If you want to bring other groups into the discussion that is welcome, but (for now) the best way to do so would be to ask them to join the Best Bits list. > > Here, then, is the current text (starting from question 2, which is intentional): > > 2. What do you think is the significance, purpose and scope of enhanced cooperation as per the Tunis Agenda? > > a) Significance > > The inclusion of the enhanced cooperation mandate in the Tunis Agenda was a political necessity to account for the view of many governments and others of the inadequacy of existing Internet governance arrangements when measured against the criteria identified in the first phase of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS): namely transparency, accountability, multilateralism, and the need to address public policy issues related to Internet governance in a coordinated manner (WGIG Report, para 35). In particular it was suggested "that there are many cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms" (Tunis Agenda, para 60). > > Foremost amongst the areas in which a deficit in existing arrangements was perceived was the issue of internationalizing Internet oversight beyond the United States, a struggle that had dominated the entire summit process from the beginning of WSIS I. But existing arrangements were also seen as failing to adequately address a broad range of other issues, some discussed below under question 4. At the conclusion of WSIS, civil society, backed by what ultimately became a coalition among the US and some other mainly developed countries, got the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), as a multi-stakeholder forum to address mainly those other broader issues. The promise of addressing the narrower issue of Internet oversight, as sought by a key group of other governments, was reserved for a process parallel to the IGF, and perhaps as a counterbalance to it. Those governments got as a result the 'enhanced cooperation' process. It is also significant that even though the discussion was quite conflictual, member states chose to use 'positive' words: enhance, and cooperation. The ongoing discussion about how to improve IG arrangements should continue in this same positive spirit. > > b) Purpose > > Therefore the purpose of enhanced cooperation process mandate, in conjunction with the closely related mandate for the formation of an Internet Governance Forum, is to address the perceived deficits described above. In particular the Tunis Agenda identifies that enhanced cooperation would enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet" (para 69). Subtextually, the main purpose of Enhanced Cooperation as sought by governments was to provide a space where they could further deal with the dominant issue across both the summits - internatiionalization of Internet oversight. With IGF a mainly civil society initiative, albeit multi-stakeholder in conception, enhanced cooperation was a process in which goverments would be the main actors. > > c) Scope > > The enhanced cooperation mandate "should include the development of globally-applicable principles on public policy issues" (para 70) and "also could envisage creation of a suitable framework or mechanisms, where justified" (para 61). But it does not envision the involvement of governments "in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy issues" (para 69). > > Although there is an emphasis on what enhanced cooperation means for governments (who, after all, were the only stakeholder group required to agree to the enhanced cooperation mandate), the Tunis Agenda does not suggest that enhanced cooperation is solely for governments. In paragraph 69, enhanced cooperation is suggested as a mechanism to "enable" governments to carry out their roles and responsibilities. To "enable" does not mean that enhanced cooperation is for governments alone. Indeed the scope of enhanced cooperation also encompasses all relevant stakeholders as per para 70 ("organisations responsible for essential tasks") and the process towards enhanced cooperation will involve "all stakeholders" per para 71. > > 3. To what extent has or has not enhanced cooperation been implemented? Please use the space below to explain and to provide examples to support your answer. > > It follows that for any public policy issue related to Internet governance that lacks at least one transparent, accountable, multilateral process, involving all stakeholders, for the development of globally-applicable principles to enable that issue to be addressed in a coordinated manner, or any framework or mechanisms to support such a process, the enhanced cooperation mandate is yet to be implemented. As the Tunis Agenda does not necessarily specify that a single or central process or mechanism is required, and indeed there is none yet, some point to a variety of independent efforts to coordinate policy development across a number of issue areas and fora as evidence of the implementation of the mandate. But the degree of such implementation currently varies. > > For example, the progress made at ICANN with respect to issues of critical Internet resources, involving the role of the Framework of Commitments (FoC) AND the Government Advisory Council (GAC) may be seen as a movement towards fulfilling the enhanced cooperation mandate in that context. Less evidence of such can be seen in the work of WIPO on intellectual property enforcement, that of UNCTAD on cross-border consumer protection, that of the UN Human Rights Council on the human rights impacts of government surveillance, or that of the World Wide Web Consortium on online behavioural advertising. There are other issues still for which there is no institution with a clear responsibility to implement the enhanced cooperation mandate: for example, there is no global body that deals comprehensively with data protection and privacy rights, and similar gaps exist in many other areas of a social, economic, political and cultural nature (see question 4). > > Indeed while the IGF has developed, across now seven annual sessions, enhanced cooperation has not really got off the ground. There was a session in New York the end of 2010, seeking wider input. And CSTD has held various meetings on the subject. But enhanced cooperation - as conceived in the grand bargain of WSIS - has so far not been taken to serious steps. Meanwhile the tensions that led to the enhanced cooperation bargain are still very much in play, as illustrated by the impasse at the ITU's World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in 2012 between governments seeking to assert greater control over the Internet, and those opposing international treaties as a method of such control. We can agree with both camps: that the enhanced cooperation mandate has not been adequately implemented, but also that going for an intergovernmental treaty is not the right way to begin implementing the EC imperative. > > 4. What are the relevant international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet? > (List in order of priority, if possible) > > The list of International public policy issues that pertain to the Internet is not closed, since these change over time as social conditions change. However, much work has already been done to elaborate some of the most relevant such issues. This work includes the WGIG report, the background report that accompanied it, and ITU Resolution 1305 with regard to “scope of work of ITU on international Internet-related public policy matters”. Drawing together and grouping some of the issues identified in these reports and elsewhere, we present a partial list, roughly categorised into groups (though many issues do cut across categories): > > Human rights > Freedom of Expression > Data protection and privacy rights > Consumer rights > Multilingualism > Access to knowledge and free information flows, deepening the public domain on the Internet > Internet intermediary companies as private agents for extra-territorial law enforcement (problems with) > Protection of vulnerable sections, like children, women, traditional communities etc > Net neutrality (that all data is given equal priority on networks) > Search neutrality (that global search engines give neutral results) > > Access and accessibility > Multilingualization of the Internet including Internationalized (multilingual) Domain Names > International Internet Connectivity > Cultural diversity > Accessibility policies for the disabled > Affordable and universal access > Reliability, and quality of service, especially in the developing world > Contributing to capacity building for Internet governance in developing countries > Developmental aspects of the Internet > > Critical Internet resources management and oversight > Administration of the root zone files and system > Interconnection costs (especially global interconnection) > Allocation of domain names > IP addressing > Convergence and next generation networks > Technical standards, and technology choices > Continuity, sustainability, and robustness of the Internet > Genuine internationalization of Internet oversight > > Security and law enforcement > Internet stability and security > Combatting cybercrime > Other issues pertaining to the use and misuse of the Internet > Dealing effectively with spam > Protecting children and young people from abuse and exploitation > Cryptography > Cross border coordination > > Trade and commerce > e-commerce > copyright > patents > trademarks > Cross border Internet flows > Internet service providers (ISPs) and third party liabilities > National policies and regulations (harmonization of) > Competition policy, liberalization, privatization and regulations > Applicable jurisdiction > Tax allocation among different jurisdictions with regard to global e-commerce > Development of, and protection to, local content, local application, local e-services, and local/ domestic Internet businesses > Internet and health systems, education systems, governance systems and so on. > Cloud computing (global issues involved) > Economics of personal data (who owns, who makes money from, and so on) > Media convergence - Internet and traditional media (Internet companies versus newspapers, radio, cable and TV, book publishing industry etc) > Regulation of global Internet businesses (in terms of adherence to competition policies, consumer rights, law enforcement etc) > > 5. What are the roles and responsibilities of the different stakeholders, including governments, in implementation of the various aspects of enhanced cooperation? > > We do not think that the allocation of roles between the stakeholders that the Tunis Agenda established should be taken as definitive. We take it that, like the definition of Internet governance adopted in the Tunis Agenda which was specified as a "working definition", so too the definitions of the roles of stakeholders adopted in the Tunis Agenda were also working definitions that would be subject to review. > > The definition of civil society's "important role ... especially at community level" is particularly unhelpful. We contend that civil society's role in contributing to the development of global public policy principles is much more integral than that definition suggests. In particular, there are cases in which governments are not inclined to uphold the human rights of Internet users, such as the rights of foreigners whose Internet usage is the subject of official surveillance. Civil society has a key role in representing the interests of such users, and others whose interests are otherwise poorly represented due to democratic deficits at national and international levels. > > But further, the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders cannot be fixed in Internet governance (or probably in many other areas of governance either). For example civil society can in some instances represent specific marginalised communities or user or interest groups (e.g. the visually impaired). At other times civil society can be experts providing input and guidance on how to approach policy issues. At other times civil society can play a 'watch' role to monitor the behaviour of business or government in order to protect the public interest. And so on. Roles and responsibilities of stakeholder groups will depend on the type of process, and the specific interests involved and with a stake in the outcome of each process. > > Please see also the response to Question 11, below, for some particulars. > > 6. How should enhanced cooperation be implemented to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet? > > We acknowledge that governments remain the main representative structure for international public policy development. This typically takes place through the UN and other multi-lateral institutions such as the WTO, etc. But on Internet-related public policy issues, there are transnational interests and impacts that governments cannot adequately take into account without the full participation of other stakeholders. There is room for discussion about the best way of involving those stakeholders, and it does not necessarily mean placing them on an equal level with governments. There would be value in establishing a framework or mechanism to address Internet related public policy issues that do not already have a home in any existing global forum, or where that forum does not fulfil the WSIS process criteria, including the participation of all stakeholders. Such a framework or mechanism should be non-duplicative and should take advantage of the expertise of existing arrangements, mechanisms, institutions or organisations where relevant. > > There is also a link between the global and national level. Governments need to put in place transparent, accountable, processes at the national level to support those at the global level. If one takes, for example, ICANN and the GAC, many governments are now participating in the GAC, but their participation is not always transparent to national stakeholders, and it is not clear who they are accountable to at national level. Member states need to fulfil WSIS process criteria at the national level otherwise it does not make much sense (other than just to large powerful business and CS actors) to implement them at the global level. > > 7. How can enhanced cooperation enable other stakeholders to carry out their roles and responsibilities? > > By bringing governments closer to the other stakeholders, the other stakeholders are also brought closer to governments. If enhanced cooperation is a process whereby governments (and existing Internet governance spaces/processes) are compelled to adhere to WSIS principles of transparency, accountability, etc., this can serve to create an approach to IG, and to existing and evolving IG processes and spaces that is rooted in the public interest and inclusive of all stakeholders. Even if the public interest is not always clear, such processes should, and could involve all stakeholders in negotiating a common understanding of what the broadest possible public interest is on any particular issue. > > 8. What are the most appropriate mechanisms to fully implement enhanced cooperation as recognized in the Tunis Agenda, including on international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet and public policy issues associated with coordination and management of critical Internet resources? > > The CSTD Working Group is itself an important mechanism for the stakeholders to set in train a process to fully implement enhanced cooperation, which may in turn eventually result in changes to frameworks, structures or institutions. This will not take place immediately, but in phases. We are now in a kind of distributed reform/exploration phase with the IGF and IGF-like processes trying to create more cooprative engagement, and institutions like ICANN and the ITU putting in place certain reforms, and institutions that previously ignore the Internet beginning to take it seriously (e.g. the Human Rights Council). > > This should lead into an intermediate phase of more formalised transparency and reporting and collaboration among all institutions or processes dealing with Internet governance. The IGF (with its mandate to "promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes") could be the home for this role. > > Ultimately however, this alone will not fill the gaps that created the enhanced cooperation mandate. There is also a pressing need to address very important global Internet related public policy issues, and to do so at the global level, and this work has to be done by democratic / representative structures. This may require the eventual establishment of a new framework or mechanism, particularly in the case of emerging and orphaned issues that have no other global home. Although a logical home for such a framework or mechanism would be the United Nations, we acknowledge the many weaknesses in UN processes at present, including in relation to transparency and very uneven support for the inclusion of civil society influence in the UN system. Certainly, a traditional intergovernmental organisation is not an appropriate structure. > > In the technical realm of Internet naming and numbering, the response to the weaknesses and shortcomings of the UN system has been to establish in ICANN a body which is independent of the UN system. But even ICANN is overseen by governments, or to be more precise by one government - the United States. And whilst the UN is characterised by some as being a haven for tyrranical regimes, the United States itself is widely criticised as having infringed global human rights norms through its global surveillance practices, and for its tyrannical pursuit of whistleblowers such as Edward Snowden for exposing such practices. Therefore in comparing the respective merits of a UN-based institution (particularly if it is an innovative, multi-stakeholder, and semi-autonomous one such as the IGF), and a non-US based institution that is nonetheless beholden to governments at some level, the choice is not as stark as it is often presented to be. > > Therefore in both areas - general public policy issues in which governments have a leading role through the international system, and naming and numbering in which ICANN has a leading role - reforms are eventually required. Taking first the case of ICANN, the reforms for which we advocate would not be to bring it within the United Nations, but to broaden its oversight beyond the United States alone. This may take the form of a new international oversight board with techno-political membership derived from different geopolitical regions. The mandate of this oversight mechanism would be very narrow, more or less the same as exercised by the Department of Commerce of the United States Government at present. ICANN would become an international organisation and enter into a host country agreement with the United States, giving it complete immunity from US law or any other form of control or interference. > > It is not necessary that the same new framework or mechanism that broadens the oversight of ICANN, should also deal with other general public policy issues. In fact there is considerable merit in looking at these aspects of enhanced cooperation separately. Because of the more mature state of the multi-stakeholder model that already exists around the regime for management of critical Internet resources, there is good reason to separate out the need to internationalise existing mechanisms for governmental oversight of that regime, from the need for new frameworks or mechanisms for dealing with more general public policy issues of various political, economic, social and cultural kinds, for which there might be a more central role for another new framework or mechanism. > > In such fields of public policy outside the narrowly technical, there would be the choice to build upon the existing global order that we have in the United Nations, or to rebuild this from scratch (as in the case of ICANN). Whilst there is merit in the idea of a post-UN transnational democratic order that derives its legitimacy from the individual rather than from the nation state, and which could provide legitimacy and oversight for both technical and broader public policy bodies, nothing of this kind exists or is a realistic prospect for the short or medium term. Therefore, if the mechanism that we begin through the CSTD Working Group does lead towards a new framework or process, we accept the likelihood that such framework or process would likely have to be at least loosely linked with the UN. > > It is sometimes claimed that there is no need for a new framework or mechanism, because all public policy issues are already covered by a network of existing mechanisms. But the WGIG and Tunis Agenda (paragraph 60) concluded that this was not true, and this remains the case. In fact, the kind of global Internet policy issues that are not adequately addressed by any existing mechanism has only grown in number and complexity since the WSIS. Does this mean that we are asking for a single new mechanism to cover all issues? No. But there must be at least one such mechanism (that is global, multi-stakeholder, etc) and if there is none, nor any scope for an existing narrower body (such as the ITU) to change in order to meet these criteria, then it follows that at least one new mechanism is needed. Conversely, whilst we agree that existing mechanisms should be used where available, we disagree that having a plethora of overlapping bodies or mechanisms is always a positive thing. This limits the ability for developing country governments and civil society representatives to participate, because of their limited resources. > > If the CSTD does recommend a process that leads to some new framework or mechanism in the future, any such new framework or mechanism should be based on the principles of subsidiarity, and be innovative in terms of mandate, structure, and functions, to be adequate to the unique requirements of global Internet governance. It must be participative of all stakeholders, promoting the democratic and innovative potential of the Internet. Exactly what shape it takes will emerge through reasoned deliberation. Some of us believe that governments will accept nothing less than a new intergovernmental body, like a committee that could be attached to the UN General Assembly, and accordingly would accept such a body if and only if it includes an extensive structure of participation by all stakeholders which could be modelled on the stakeholder participation mechanisms of the OECD's Internet policy development body, the CICCP, and would have a close and organic relationship with the IGF. This option proceeds from the position that global governance reforms should take place in-outwards, proceeding from current multilateral toward their further democratisation. > > For some others of us, although understanding the sincerity of governments and the legitimacy of their claim to set policy norms, there are too many dangers in proposing such a formal new intergovernmental body, but may be fewer dangers in an adjunct to the IGF, as described below in question 9. Whilst we are still formulating what format a new framework or mechanism might take, and will be discussing this question further at our meeting ahead of the Bali IGF, we are in accord that the CSTD should be open to considering a process that leads to some new framework or mechanism in the future, that is dedicated to fulfilling the purpose and scope of enhanced cooperation as mentioned in the Tunis Agenda and as described above, in a way that the uncoordinated efforts of individual stakeholders and institutions towards fulfilling that mandate have been unable to do. > > 9. What is the possible relationship between enhanced cooperation and the IGF? > > The IGF complements the enhanced cooperation mandate, but as it stands, it does not fulfill that mandate. Some of us believe there is the potential for a significantly strengthened IGF, with appropriate long-term funding support, to host a new framework or mechanism to facilitate the development of globally-applicable principles on public policy issues through a multi-stakeholder process. If so, this would have be entirely new and supplementary to the IGF's existing structures and processes, significantly differing from those that exist now such as the MAG, workshops and dynamic coalitions. In any case, regardless of whether any such new framework or mechanism is part of the IGF, the IGF's existing structures and processes will be valuable in deepening the public sphere for multi-stakeholder discussion of Internet policy issues, which will be integral to the work conducted through the new framework or mechanism. > > 10. How can the role of developing countries be made more effective in global Internet governance? > > Developing countries have taken recourse to the ITU because they feel that they are not otherwise represented in in the existing global Internet governance arrangements, which are dominated by developed countries and by companies and organisations based in those countries. This points to the need for reforms such as those advocated above. > > However that alone will not be enough. Developing countries are excluded at so many different levels, and they self-exclude, so addressing this problem is not at all trivial. The way in which Internet governance for development (IG4D) has been conceived and addressed in the IGF and in other global spaces is not helpful. It is narrow, and top down, and often does not go beyond affordable access issues. Clarifying the role of governments in Interent governance (see questions 5, 6, 7 and 11) is the first step. Developing country governments must be involved in this discussion otherwise they will not buy into its outcomes. Another necessary step is to foster more engagement with Internet governance issues at the national level in developing countries. In the way that developing countries have made an impact on global issues such as trade justice for, example, so too they could in Internet governance. The issues are debated at national level by the labour movement, local business, social justice groups etc. and this both pressurises governments and informs governments (not always in the desired way) at the global level. Critical thinking needs to be applied at national and regional level, with involvement of non-governmental stakeholders for more effective developing country representation at global level. And vice versa. Global Internet governance processes need to report and feed into national processes. In short, making developing countries (government and other stakeholders) play a more effective role in global Internet governance requires mechanisms at national and regional level as well as a process of democratisation at the global level. > > 11. What barriers remain for all stakeholders to fully participate in their respective roles in global Internet governance? How can these barriers best be overcome? > > As noted in questions 2a and 2b above, enhanced cooperation was largely a role taken by governments who required it, through which they hoped to address the over-arching issue of WSIS, namely internationalization of Internet oversight. But as question 3 notes, that has not happened. The apparent problem is that two separate objectives - the principal aims of either of the power poles - have been conflated. If these two objectives (in question 4 above) are treated separately, then there may become the possibility to find some common ground. > > Specifically, the US and its allies have feared, and have acted to stop, what they see as the threat of totalitarian control of the Internet. But it is possible to switch from this negative characterization, to a positive outlook: the US and its allies have been centrally concerned with freedom of expression, for our new global communications medium, the Internet. The other governmental power pole has been concerned, from the beginning of WSIS, and even well before, that oversight for the Internet move from the US, to a global arrangement. Both objectives are laudable, and reconcilable. > > The way forward, as suggested in question 8, is to treat those two objectives separately. In fact, continuing to conflate them - so that there can be no action on one, without impact on the other - assures deadlock. Separating them creates a freedom of maneuver that may permit to find ways forward, between the two, so-far implacable camps. > > Related to this, the bi-polar opposition between groups of states has come to be mirrored among (what have become) the states' frontline troops: the stakeholders. Multi-stakeholderism has been used as a point of distinction between the Internet governance model favoured by the US and its allies from those of the countries who have been calling for internationalisation of policy oversight. Thus multi-stakeholderism, perhaps the most important innovation of WSIS, which formally acknowledges governance roles for multiple stakeholders, has been co-opted into this struggle between the two governmental power poles. > > But this is a false dichotomy. Whilst it is fundamental that public policy issues be determined through democratic means, and in the ideal conception of democracy, this would fall to elected governments, we have found that even supposed governmental defenders of democracy abuse their state power - as the Snowden episode, and before it the Manning episode, and even the Wikileaks story, have revealed (not least through the treatment of the individuals themselves). In truth no governement has fully lived up to its fundamental democratic responsibilities, and then within that to the new promise of multi-stakeholderism at the national or the global level. > > Real multi-stakeholderism offers to formalize government consultation with its constituencies, as governments formulate policy. Among other purposes, this offers a safeguard against the abuses of state power, when 'the people' may otherwise be forgotten. This - real multi-stakeholderism - means consulting widely, certainly beyond the usual suspects who may frequent UN meetings. Thence, the people of a democracy may be empowered, with voices speaking from all corners, and providing a bulwark against the ever-present temptations, for those temporarily entrusted with governmental power, to abuse that power. > > Thus civil society - instead of being used as pawns in a global power tussle - may instead use the new regime, to assume a rightful place in democracy. > > 12. What actions are needed to promote effective participation of all marginalised people in the global information society? > > Information and communication policy and practice at national level that is based on (and committed to) information and communication processes supporting political, social and economic development. Access to ICTs can empower marginalised people and create more inclusion, but political and economic processes need to enable this for the full potential of this empowerment to make a difference. > > 13. How can enhanced cooperation address key issues toward global, social and economic development? > > > > 14. What is the role of various stakeholders in promoting the development of local language content? > > > > 15. What are the international internet-related public policy issues that are of special relevance to developing countries? > > > > 16. What are the key issues to be addressed to promote the affordability of the Internet, in particular in developing countries and least developed countries? > > > > 17. What are the national capacities to be developed and modalities to be considered for national governments to develop Internet-related public policy with participation of all stakeholders? > > > > 18. Are there other comments, or areas of concern, on enhanced cooperation you would like to submit? > > In institutionalizing and operationalizing enhanced cooperation, it is critically important to create a deliberative process in which all stakeholder perspectives are appropriately taken into consideration. It is not enough to just allow the various stakeholders to voice their perspectives. All the various comments must also be taken in consideration in a logical analysis process, in which for every important policy question, a set of possible answers is worked out, and each of the possible answers is evaluated against the objective of sustainable global, social and economic development as well as in regard to the fundamental principles of democracy, rule of law, and the internationally recognized human rights. > > -- > 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 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > -- 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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From antiropy at gmail.com Thu Aug 22 22:11:22 2013 From: antiropy at gmail.com (Byoung-il Oh) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 11:11:22 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Joint_Statement_by_NGOs_in_the_Republ?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?ic_of_Korea_on_Intelligence_Agencies=92_Internet_Surveil?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?lance?= Message-ID: Hello, Korean human rights organizations including Jinbonet published joint statement on Internet Surveillance of US NSA, and submitted it to UN Human Rights Council with its 24th regular session ahead, on August 22th, 2013. http://act.jinbo.net/drupal/node/7636 Best, Oh Byoungil ------- *Joint Statement by NGOs in the Republic of Korea on Intelligence Agencies’ Internet Surveillance: Electronic Surveillance of Internet Users Worldwide Should Be Stopped* There was a shocking revelation that the United States(US) National Security Agency(NSA) has conducted surveillance of global Internet users by using PRISM, a clandestine mass electronic surveillance data mining program, and large online service providers have complied with the Agency’s request. It has been reported that intelligence agencies in a number of countries have not only collected data from online providers, including e-mail, Internet phone, chat and social networking services, but have also exchanged those data each other1. In order to improve society toward democracy and human rights, NGOs in the Republic of Korea have fought against national surveillance systems such as “criminalization of false communications” or “the Internet real-name registration system,” and to secure the freedom of anonymous speech and the right to privacy over the Internet2. We are deeply concerned by the fact that the US government has ignored the human rights of internet users because they are non-US citizens, and the surveillance of overseas users has been conducted in the name of national security, as we can see from the US government’s explanations3 on this issue. We also suggest the citizens of the global community to act in solidarity on this issue taking into account of following reasons. National security agencies in many countries have been broadly authorized to watch foreign people as well as domestic people in the name of the national security and the prevention of terrorism. Additionally, the development of information and communication technologies, such as the Internet has enabled those agencies to carry out global surveillance in real time much easier than ever before. It is also truly astonishing, in particular, that the US global online provider like Microsoft, Google, Yahoo!, Facebook, Paltalk, YouTube, Skype, AOL and Apple have handed over massive amount of information about foreign users in responding to the request of NSA without any prior consent or post-notification on the provision of personal information and communications, or without any appropriate legal procedures for protecting users’ privacy or freedom of speech. Non-US citizens’ privacy has been infringed simply because they have used the services which are provided by the US based global enterprises in the Internet and in mobile communications area. It means that those internet users worldwide are forced to be out of the due process, which has been secured by the modern constitutional principle that a warrant is required to perform a lawful search and seizure. Obviously, the global surveillance violates the freedom of speech and the right to privacy as enschrined in Article 12 and Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and also in Article 17 and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) of which the US is one of signatories. It should not be ignored that global Internet users, even when they use those services provided by the US-based or the US enterprises, should be legitimately ensured that the communications secrets, the freedom of speech and the right to privacy are to be protected. Even when some online service providers happen to access to users’ data in the process of providing services, it is very obvious that the data belongs exclusively to such users; neither to the country where the service provider is located or nor to those providers themselves. To provide personal information, or communications to the third party without any prior consent or any prior notification to users and the fact that such a behavior has long maintained, shows that those enterprises have infringed the user’s rights. Nevertheless, it is hard for users to know whether and how their personal information would have been handed over and their communications would have been eavesdropped and how it would be even in future. Furthermore, even if they could know, it is also much more difficult for them to redress the infringement. If these conditions are to be maintained, the civic liberty of people who necessarily need to use the Internet in their daily lives regardless of whether they are US citizens or not would be severely threatened. If this issue would be left alone, and any further framework for the improvement of the Internet users’ human rights is not to be set, intelligence agencies in many countries may introduce another electronic surveillance data mining program such as PRISM more competitively and then it would exacerbate the reality of human rights over the Internet. Disappointingly, however, these countries including the US directly or indirectly involved with PRISM do not show any serious attempt to sort out these problems. They have only asserted that such an monitoring behavior could be legitimized and used to be authorized under laws concerned since its surveillance target is not their own national people. Moreover, the fact that Snowden, the whistleblower who has exposed the surveillance reality are wandering without any appropriate protection is itself making serious chilling effect on those global citizens who have a solid confidence on the value of human rights and have pursued justice by accusing the truth of human rights infringement over the world. Therefore, We also request the UN Human Rights Council to take following actions together with other global civil society’s demands for this issue, which we support and are in solidarity with4. 1. Hold a special session to investigate illegal surveillance on the Internet users. 2. Develop recommendations on how effectively restrict or prevent today’s intelligence agency’s or global online service providers surveillance behavior in a way to further promote and protect human rights of internet users. Furthermore, we request the US government to carry out following actions. 1. Decide to immediately suspend the electronic surveillance data mining program which was recently revealed to comprehensively monitor global internet users 2. Establish a legal basis to inform those users who have been the targets of surveillance and what communication has been monitored under the FISA framework, and transparently disclose the full statistics concerned. 3. Stop suppressing the whistleblowers and giving international pressure on other countries not to help them. Protect Snowden as a whistlebrower. We also request global online service providers which have been known to cooperate with the NSA for this surveillance to take following actions. 1. Inform those users who have been the targets of surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA ), and transparently disclose the full statistics concerned. 2. Add appropriate users’ protection provisions to terms and conditions Lastly, we urge the government and the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea to take relevant measures as follows. 1. Identify whether or not and how South Korean have become victims of the recent controversial electronical communication surveillance by other states’ intelligence agencies. 2. Examine the domestic laws concerned with Internet surveillance including the Protection of Communications Secrets Act. In particular, disclose the reality of how and when foreign Internet users are monitored without court’s warrant, and improve the human right protectionregarding surveillance process. 3. Make global efforts to introduce appropriate policy measures to restrict or prevent global Internet surveillance behavior in accordance with the international human rights standards. 4. Cooperate with international humanitarian actions for protecting Snowden as a whislebrower. August 21th, 2013 Citizens' Coalition for Economic Justice Dasan Human Rights Center Consumers Korea Civil Society Organizations Network in Korea Korean House for International Solidarity Human Rights Education 'Deul' Korean Progressive Network ‘jinbonet’ Buddhist Solidarity for Reform People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy Catholic human rights committee Women Making Peace National Council of YMCAs of KOREA Korea Alliance For Progressive Movement Citizen’s Action Network 1 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d0873f38-d1c5-11e2-9336-00144feab7de.html, https://www.bof.nl/2013/06/11/bits-of-freedom-dutch-spooks-must-stop-use-of-prism/and http://www.standaard.be/cnt/DMF20130610_063. 2 "Mission to the Republic of Korea : Addendum of the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression". A/HRC/17/27/Add.2. Frank La Rue. 21 March 2011. 3 Ovide, Shira (June 8, 2013). "U.S. OfficialReleasesDetailsofPrismProgram". TheWallStreetJournal. Retrieved June 15, 2013. 4 "Civil Society Statement to the Human Rights Council on the impact of State Surveillance on Human Rights addressing the PRISM/NSA case". http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa/ -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From genekimmelman at gmail.com Fri Aug 23 03:16:11 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 09:16:11 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: Important new joint submission to CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation Message-ID: I hope we will reconsider use of the word tyrannical to describe any regime or action.  If our goal is to make a strong statement and express some kind of parallelism between vastly different countries,  it may be more effective to use a less provocative word.  Maybe something that conveys disrespect for human rights principles?  -------- Original message -------- From: Jeremy Malcolm Date: To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [bestbits] Re: Important new joint submission to CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation A reminder that any remaining comments on this draft submission are due over the weekend, so that can post it to the Best BIts site and begin collecting endorsements in time to submit it to the CSTD on 31 August. I would like to reiterate the importance of us delivering a strong joint civil society submission to this questionnaire.  Other groups such as ICC-BASIS are supporting the status quo, and even putting forward the idea that things like the (much-criticised by civil society) APEC Cross-Border Privacy Regulation system is a good example of enhanced cooperation in practice!  So it is very important for us to put forward a strong submission that points out the shortcomings of the status quo, and advances a public interest perspective on this topic. Thanks. On 19/08/2013, at 4:16 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: All Best Bits participants are now invited to finalise a joint submission to the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, which we are to submit by the end of August.  This will be a very important submission in its own right, and also a key preparatory document to three upcoming Best Bits meetings - our APrIGF workshop in Seoul, Day 1 of our Best Bits meeting in Bali, and one of our two workshops at the global IGF. Its importance is that it addresses a question, unresolved for the last eight years, about how global Internet governance (in the broad sense that goes beyond technical issues) should evolve in response to states claims of sovereignty over public policy issues relating to the Internet.  I wrote a background paper about this general question (and slides) for our WSIS+10 workshop in Paris.  Post-PRISM, the question has only assumed greater importance. For the past few weeks, a civil society-only Best Bits working group (which also includes, though not in an official capacity, civil society members of the CSTD working group) has been working hard on this, to hone in on the core issues and to state them clearly and fairly, taking into account the wide divergence in views that exists even within civil society.  The result of our work is open for your comment for one week, at which time we will close for endorsements: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/ec The current text is also pasted below.  We aim for this submission to be as broadly inclusive of the views of Best Bits participants as possible, so after reading and considering the existing text carefully, if you have any changes to suggest, please speak up.  If the changes are minor, you can just make them on the Etherpad.  If major, we would ask that you raise them on the list first.  The more groups that can endorse the submission, the more influence it will have. Just to reiterate, we are not taking endorsements yet.  This will occur after one week of final comments from this list.  (There is no point in taking endorsements when there might still be changes to the text.)  For the same reason, we ask that you don't forward the draft text widely yet.  If you want to bring other groups into the discussion that is welcome, but (for now) the best way to do so would be to ask them to join the Best Bits list. Here, then, is the current text (starting from question 2, which is intentional): 2.  What do you think is the significance, purpose and scope of enhanced cooperation as per the Tunis Agenda? a) Significance The inclusion of the enhanced cooperation mandate in the Tunis Agenda was a political necessity to account for the view of many governments and others of the inadequacy of existing Internet governance arrangements when measured against the criteria identified in the first phase of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS): namely transparency, accountability, multilateralism, and the need to address public policy issues related to Internet governance in a coordinated manner (WGIG Report, para 35). In particular it was suggested "that there are many cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms" (Tunis Agenda, para 60). Foremost amongst the areas in which a deficit in existing arrangements was perceived was the issue of internationalizing Internet oversight beyond the United States, a struggle that had dominated the entire summit process from the beginning of WSIS I. But existing arrangements were also seen as failing to adequately address a broad range of other issues, some discussed below under question 4. At the conclusion of WSIS, civil society, backed by what ultimately became a coalition among the US and some other mainly developed countries, got the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), as a multi-stakeholder forum to address mainly those other broader issues. The promise of addressing the narrower issue of Internet oversight, as sought by a key group of other governments, was reserved for a process parallel to the IGF, and perhaps as a counterbalance to it. Those governments got as a result the 'enhanced cooperation' process.  It is also significant that even though the discussion was quite conflictual, member states chose to use 'positive' words: enhance, and cooperation. The ongoing discussion about how to improve IG arrangements should continue in this same positive spirit. b) Purpose   Therefore the purpose of enhanced cooperation process mandate, in conjunction with the closely related mandate for the formation of an Internet Governance Forum, is to address the perceived deficits described above. In particular the Tunis Agenda identifies that enhanced cooperation would enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet" (para 69).  Subtextually, the main purpose of Enhanced Cooperation as sought by governments was to provide a space where they could further deal with the dominant issue across both the summits - internatiionalization of Internet oversight. With IGF a mainly civil society initiative, albeit multi-stakeholder in conception, enhanced cooperation was a process in which goverments would be the main actors. c) Scope The enhanced cooperation mandate "should include the development of globally-applicable principles on public policy issues" (para 70) and "also could envisage creation of a suitable framework or mechanisms, where justified" (para 61). But it does not envision the involvement of governments "in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy issues" (para 69).   Although there is an emphasis on what enhanced cooperation means for governments (who, after all, were the only stakeholder group required to agree to the enhanced cooperation mandate), the Tunis Agenda does not suggest that enhanced cooperation is solely for governments.  In paragraph 69, enhanced cooperation is suggested as a mechanism to "enable" governments to carry out their roles and responsibilities. To "enable" does not mean that enhanced cooperation is for governments alone. Indeed the  scope of enhanced cooperation also encompasses all relevant  stakeholders as per para 70 ("organisations responsible for essential  tasks") and the process towards enhanced cooperation will involve "all  stakeholders" per para 71. 3.  To what extent has or has not enhanced cooperation been implemented?   Please use the space below to explain and to provide examples to support your answer. It follows that for any public policy issue related to Internet governance that lacks at least one transparent, accountable, multilateral process, involving all stakeholders, for the development of globally-applicable principles to enable that issue to be addressed in a coordinated manner, or any framework or mechanisms to support such a process, the enhanced cooperation mandate is yet to be implemented.  As the Tunis Agenda does not necessarily specify that a single or central process or mechanism is required, and indeed there is none yet, some point to a variety of independent efforts to coordinate policy development across a number of issue areas and fora as evidence of the implementation of the mandate.  But the degree of such implementation currently varies. For example, the progress made at ICANN with respect to issues of critical Internet resources, involving the role of the Framework of Commitments (FoC) AND the Government Advisory Council (GAC) may be seen as a movement towards fulfilling the enhanced cooperation mandate in that context. Less evidence of such can be seen in the work of WIPO on intellectual property enforcement, that of UNCTAD on cross-border consumer protection, that of the UN Human Rights Council on the human rights impacts of government surveillance, or that of the World Wide Web Consortium on online behavioural advertising. There are other issues still for which there is no institution with a clear responsibility to implement the enhanced cooperation mandate: for example, there is no global body that deals comprehensively with data protection and privacy rights, and similar gaps exist in many other areas of a social, economic, political and cultural nature (see question 4). Indeed while the IGF has developed, across now seven annual sessions, enhanced cooperation has not really got off the ground. There was a session in New York the end of 2010, seeking wider input. And CSTD has held various meetings on the subject. But enhanced cooperation - as conceived in the grand bargain of WSIS - has so far not been taken to serious steps. Meanwhile the tensions that led to the enhanced cooperation bargain are still very much in play, as illustrated by the impasse at the ITU's World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in 2012 between governments seeking to assert greater control over the Internet, and those opposing international treaties as a method of such control. We can agree with both camps: that the enhanced cooperation mandate has not been adequately implemented, but also that going for an intergovernmental treaty is not the right way to begin implementing the EC imperative. 4. What are the relevant international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet? (List in order of priority, if possible) The list of International public policy issues that pertain to the Internet is not closed, since these change over time as social conditions change.  However, much work has already been done to elaborate some of the most relevant such issues.  This work includes the WGIG report, the background report that accompanied it, and ITU Resolution 1305 with regard to “scope of work of ITU on international Internet-related public policy matters”.  Drawing together and grouping some of the issues identified in these reports and elsewhere, we present a partial list, roughly categorised into groups (though many issues do cut across categories): Human rights Freedom of Expression Data protection and privacy rights Consumer rights Multilingualism Access to knowledge and free information flows, deepening the public domain on the Internet Internet intermediary companies as private agents for extra-territorial law enforcement (problems with) Protection of vulnerable sections, like children, women, traditional communities etc Net neutrality (that all data is given equal priority on networks) Search neutrality (that global search engines give neutral results) Access and accessibility Multilingualization of the Internet including Internationalized (multilingual) Domain Names International Internet Connectivity Cultural diversity Accessibility policies for the disabled Affordable and universal access Reliability, and quality of service, especially in the developing world Contributing to capacity building for Internet governance in developing countries Developmental aspects of the Internet Critical Internet resources management and oversight Administration of the root zone files and system Interconnection costs (especially global interconnection) Allocation of domain names IP addressing Convergence and next generation networks Technical standards, and technology choices Continuity, sustainability, and robustness of the Internet Genuine  internationalization of Internet oversight Security and law enforcement Internet stability and security Combatting cybercrime Other issues pertaining to the use and misuse of the Internet Dealing effectively with spam Protecting children and young people from abuse and exploitation Cryptography Cross border coordination Trade and commerce e-commerce copyright patents trademarks Cross border Internet flows Internet service providers (ISPs) and third party liabilities National policies and regulations (harmonization of) Competition policy, liberalization, privatization and regulations Applicable jurisdiction Tax allocation among different jurisdictions with regard to global e-commerce Development of, and protection to, local content, local application, local e-services, and local/ domestic Internet businesses Internet and health systems, education systems, governance systems and so on. Cloud computing (global issues involved) Economics of personal data (who owns, who makes money from, and so on) Media  convergence - Internet and traditional media (Internet companies versus newspapers, radio, cable and TV, book publishing industry etc) Regulation of global Internet businesses (in terms of adherence to competition policies, consumer rights, law enforcement etc) 5.  What are the roles and responsibilities of the different stakeholders, including governments, in implementation of the various aspects of enhanced cooperation? We do not think that the allocation of roles between the stakeholders that the Tunis Agenda established should be taken as definitive.  We take it that, like the definition of Internet governance adopted in the Tunis Agenda which was specified as a "working definition", so too the definitions of the roles of stakeholders adopted in the Tunis Agenda were also working definitions that would be subject to review. The definition of civil society's "important role ... especially at community level" is particularly unhelpful.  We contend that civil society's role in contributing to the development of global public policy principles is much more integral than that definition suggests.  In particular, there are cases in which governments are not inclined to uphold the human rights of Internet users, such as the rights of foreigners whose Internet usage is the subject of official surveillance.  Civil society has a key role in representing the interests of such users, and others whose interests are otherwise poorly represented due to democratic deficits at national and international levels. But further, the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders cannot be fixed  in Internet governance (or probably in many other areas of governance  either). For example civil society can in some  instances represent specific marginalised communities or user or  interest groups (e.g. the visually impaired). At other times civil society can be experts  providing input and guidance on how to approach policy issues.  At other  times civil society can play a 'watch' role to monitor the behaviour of business or government in order to protect the public interest.  And so on. Roles and responsibilities of stakeholder groups will depend on  the type of process, and the specific interests involved and with a  stake in the outcome of each process. Please see also the response to Question 11, below, for some particulars. 6.  How should enhanced cooperation be implemented to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet? We acknowledge that governments remain the main representative structure for international public policy development.  This typically takes place through the UN and other multi-lateral institutions such as the WTO, etc. But on Internet-related public policy issues, there are transnational interests and impacts that governments cannot adequately take into account without the full participation of other stakeholders.  There is room for discussion about the best way of involving those stakeholders, and it does not necessarily mean placing them on an equal level with governments.  There would be value in establishing a framework or mechanism to address Internet related public policy issues that do not already have a home in any existing global forum, or where that forum does not fulfil the WSIS process criteria, including the participation of all stakeholders.  Such a framework or mechanism should be non-duplicative and should take advantage of the expertise of existing arrangements, mechanisms, institutions or organisations where relevant. There is also a link between the global and national level. Governments need to put in place transparent, accountable, processes at the national level to support those at the global level. If one takes, for example, ICANN and the GAC, many governments are now participating in the GAC, but their participation is not always transparent to national stakeholders, and it is not clear who they are accountable to at national level. Member states need to fulfil WSIS process criteria at the national level otherwise it does not make much sense (other than just to large powerful business and CS actors) to implement them at the global level. 7. How can enhanced cooperation enable other stakeholders to carry out their roles and responsibilities? By bringing governments closer to the other stakeholders, the other stakeholders are also brought closer to governments.  If enhanced cooperation is a process whereby governments (and existing Internet governance spaces/processes) are compelled to adhere to WSIS principles of transparency, accountability, etc., this can serve to create an approach to IG, and to existing and evolving IG processes and spaces  that is rooted in the public interest and inclusive of all stakeholders.  Even if the public interest is not always clear, such processes should, and could involve all stakeholders in negotiating a common understanding of what the broadest possible public interest is on any particular issue. 8.  What are the most appropriate mechanisms to fully implement enhanced cooperation as recognized in the Tunis Agenda, including on  international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet and public policy issues associated with coordination and management of critical Internet resources? The CSTD Working Group is itself an important mechanism for the stakeholders to set in train a process to fully implement enhanced cooperation, which may in turn eventually result in changes to frameworks, structures or institutions. This will not take place immediately, but in phases.  We are now in a kind of distributed reform/exploration phase with the IGF and IGF-like processes trying to create more cooprative engagement, and institutions like ICANN and the ITU putting in place certain reforms, and institutions that previously ignore the Internet beginning to take it seriously (e.g. the Human Rights Council).  This should lead into an intermediate  phase of more formalised transparency and reporting and collaboration among all institutions or processes dealing with Internet governance. The IGF (with  its mandate to "promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes") could be the home for this role.  Ultimately however, this alone will not fill the gaps that created the enhanced cooperation mandate. There is also a pressing need to address very important global Internet related public policy issues, and to do so at the global level, and this work has to be done by democratic / representative structures.   This may require the eventual establishment of a new framework or mechanism, particularly in the case of emerging and orphaned issues that have no other global home. Although a logical home for such a framework or mechanism would be the United Nations, we acknowledge the many weaknesses in UN processes at present, including in relation to transparency and very uneven support for the inclusion of civil society influence in the UN system. Certainly, a traditional intergovernmental organisation is not an appropriate structure. In the technical realm of Internet naming and numbering, the response to the weaknesses and shortcomings of the UN system has been to establish in ICANN a body which is independent of the UN system.  But even ICANN is overseen by governments, or to be more precise by one government - the United States.  And whilst the UN is characterised by some as being a haven for tyrranical regimes, the United States itself is widely criticised as having infringed global human rights norms through its global surveillance practices, and for its tyrannical pursuit of whistleblowers such as Edward Snowden for exposing such practices. Therefore in comparing the respective merits of a UN-based institution (particularly if it is an innovative, multi-stakeholder, and semi-autonomous one such as the IGF), and a non-US based institution that is nonetheless beholden to governments at some level, the choice is not as stark as it is often presented to be. Therefore in both areas - general public policy issues in which governments have a leading role through the international system, and naming and numbering in which ICANN has a leading role - reforms are eventually required.  Taking first the case of ICANN, the reforms for which we advocate would not be to bring it within the United  Nations, but to broaden its oversight beyond the United States alone.  This may take the form of a new international oversight board with techno-political membership derived from different geopolitical regions. The mandate of this oversight mechanism would be very narrow, more or less the same as exercised by the Department of Commerce of the United States Government at present. ICANN would become an international organisation and enter into a host country agreement with the United States, giving it complete immunity from US law or any other form of control or interference. It is not necessary that the same new framework or mechanism that broadens the oversight of ICANN, should also deal with other general public policy issues. In fact there is considerable merit in looking at these aspects of enhanced cooperation separately. Because of the more mature state of the multi-stakeholder model that already  exists around the regime for management of critical Internet resources, there is good reason to separate out the need to internationalise existing mechanisms for governmental oversight of that regime, from the need for new frameworks or mechanisms for dealing with more general public policy issues of various political, economic, social and cultural kinds, for which there might be a more central role for another new framework or mechanism. In such fields of public policy outside the narrowly technical, there would be the choice to build upon the existing global order that we have in the United Nations, or to rebuild this from scratch (as in the case of ICANN).  Whilst there is merit in the idea of a post-UN transnational democratic order that derives its legitimacy from the individual rather than from the nation state, and which could provide legitimacy and oversight for both technical and broader public policy bodies, nothing of this kind exists or is a realistic prospect for the short or medium term. Therefore, if the mechanism that we begin through the CSTD Working Group does lead towards a new framework or process, we accept the likelihood that such framework or process would likely have to be at least loosely linked with the UN. It is sometimes claimed that there is no need for  a new framework or mechanism, because all public policy issues are already covered by a network of existing mechanisms.  But the WGIG and Tunis Agenda (paragraph 60) concluded that this was not true, and this remains the case. In fact, the kind of global Internet policy issues that are not adequately addressed by any existing mechanism has only grown in number and complexity since the WSIS. Does this mean that we are asking for a single new mechanism to cover all issues? No. But there must be at least one such mechanism (that is global, multi-stakeholder, etc) and if there is none, nor any scope for an existing narrower body (such as the ITU) to change in order to meet these criteria, then it follows that at least one new mechanism is needed. Conversely, whilst we agree that existing mechanisms should be used where available, we disagree that having a plethora of overlapping bodies or mechanisms is always a positive thing. This limits the ability for developing country governments and civil society representatives to participate, because of their limited resources. If the CSTD does recommend a process that  leads to some new framework or mechanism in the future, any such new framework or mechanism should be based on the principles of subsidiarity, and be innovative in terms of mandate, structure, and functions, to be adequate to the unique requirements of global Internet governance. It must be participative of all stakeholders, promoting the democratic and innovative potential of the Internet.  Exactly what shape it takes will emerge through reasoned deliberation. Some of us believe that governments will accept nothing less than a new intergovernmental body, like a committee that could be attached to the UN General Assembly, and accordingly would accept such a body if and only if it includes an extensive structure of participation by all stakeholders which could be modelled on the stakeholder participation mechanisms of the OECD's Internet policy development body, the CICCP, and would have a close and organic relationship with the IGF. This option proceeds from the position that global governance reforms should take place in-outwards, proceeding from current multilateral toward their further democratisation. For some others of us, although understanding the sincerity of governments and the legitimacy of their claim to set policy norms, there are too many dangers in proposing such a formal new intergovernmental body, but may be fewer dangers in an adjunct to the IGF, as described below in question 9.  Whilst we are still formulating what format a new framework or mechanism might take, and will be discussing this question further at our meeting ahead of the Bali IGF, we are in accord that the CSTD should be open to considering a process that leads to some new framework or mechanism in the future, that is dedicated to fulfilling the purpose and scope of enhanced cooperation as mentioned in the Tunis Agenda and as described above, in a way that the uncoordinated efforts of individual stakeholders and institutions towards fulfilling that mandate have been unable to do. 9. What is the possible relationship between enhanced cooperation and the IGF? The IGF complements the enhanced cooperation mandate, but as it stands, it does not fulfill that mandate.  Some of us believe there is the potential for a significantly strengthened IGF, with appropriate long-term funding support, to host a new framework or mechanism to facilitate the development of globally-applicable principles on public policy issues through a multi-stakeholder process. If so, this would have be entirely new and supplementary to the IGF's existing structures and processes, significantly differing from those that exist now such as the MAG, workshops and dynamic coalitions.  In any case, regardless of whether any such new framework or mechanism is part of the IGF, the IGF's existing structures and processes will be valuable in deepening the public sphere for multi-stakeholder discussion of Internet policy issues, which will be integral to the work conducted through the new framework or mechanism. 10. How can the role of developing countries be made more effective in global Internet governance? Developing countries have taken recourse to the ITU because they feel that they are not otherwise represented in in the existing global Internet governance arrangements, which are dominated by developed countries and by companies and organisations based in those countries. This points to the need for reforms such as those advocated above. However that alone will not be enough.  Developing countries are excluded at so many different levels, and they self-exclude, so addressing this problem is not at all trivial. The way in which Internet governance for development (IG4D) has been conceived and addressed in the IGF and in other global spaces is not helpful. It is narrow, and top down, and often does not go beyond affordable access issues. Clarifying the role of governments in Interent governance (see questions 5, 6, 7 and 11) is the first step. Developing country governments must be involved in this discussion otherwise they will not buy into its outcomes.  Another necessary step is to foster more engagement with Internet governance issues at the national level in developing countries. In the way that developing countries have made an impact on global issues such as trade justice for, example, so too they could in Internet governance. The issues are debated at national level by the labour movement, local business, social justice groups etc. and this both pressurises governments and informs governments (not always in the desired way) at the global level. Critical thinking needs to be applied at national and regional level, with involvement of non-governmental stakeholders for more effective developing country representation at global level. And vice versa. Global Internet governance processes need to report and feed into national processes. In short, making developing countries (government and other stakeholders) play a more effective role in global Internet governance requires mechanisms at national and regional level as well as a process of democratisation at the global level. 11.  What barriers remain for all stakeholders to fully participate in their  respective roles in global Internet governance? How can these barriers best be overcome? As noted in questions 2a and 2b above, enhanced cooperation was largely a role taken by governments who required it, through which they hoped to address the over-arching issue of WSIS, namely internationalization of Internet oversight. But as question 3 notes, that has not happened.  The apparent problem is that two separate objectives - the principal aims of either of the power poles - have been conflated. If these two objectives (in question 4 above) are treated separately, then there may become the possibility to find some common ground. Specifically, the US and its allies have feared, and have acted to stop, what they see as the threat of totalitarian control of the Internet. But it is possible to switch from this negative characterization, to a positive outlook: the US and its allies have been centrally concerned with freedom of expression, for our new global communications medium, the Internet.  The other governmental power pole has been concerned, from the beginning of WSIS, and even well before, that oversight for the Internet move from the US, to a global arrangement.  Both objectives are laudable, and reconcilable. The way forward, as suggested in question 8, is to treat those two objectives separately. In fact, continuing to conflate them - so that there can be no action on one, without impact on the other - assures deadlock. Separating them creates a freedom of maneuver that may permit to find ways forward, between the two, so-far implacable camps. Related to this, the bi-polar opposition between groups of states has come to be mirrored among (what have become) the states' frontline troops: the stakeholders. Multi-stakeholderism has been used as a point of distinction between the Internet governance model favoured by the US and its allies from those of the countries who have been calling for internationalisation of policy oversight.  Thus multi-stakeholderism, perhaps the most important innovation of WSIS, which formally acknowledges governance roles for multiple stakeholders, has been co-opted into this struggle between the two governmental power poles. But this is a false dichotomy.   Whilst it is fundamental that public policy issues be determined through democratic means, and in the ideal conception of democracy, this would fall to elected governments, we have found that even supposed governmental defenders of democracy abuse their state power - as the Snowden episode, and before it the Manning episode, and even the Wikileaks story, have revealed (not least through the treatment of the individuals themselves).  In truth no governement has fully lived up to its fundamental democratic responsibilities, and then within that to the new promise of multi-stakeholderism at the national or the global level. Real multi-stakeholderism offers to formalize government consultation with its constituencies, as governments formulate policy. Among other purposes, this offers a safeguard against the abuses of state power, when 'the people' may otherwise be forgotten. This - real multi-stakeholderism - means consulting widely, certainly beyond the usual suspects who may frequent UN meetings. Thence, the people of a democracy may be empowered, with voices speaking from all corners, and providing a bulwark against the ever-present temptations, for those temporarily entrusted with governmental power, to abuse that power. Thus civil society - instead of being used as pawns in a global power tussle - may instead use the new regime, to assume a rightful place in democracy. 12. What actions are needed to promote effective participation of all marginalised people in the global information society? Information and communication policy and practice at national level that is based on (and committed to) information and communication processes supporting political, social and economic development. Access to ICTs can empower marginalised people and create more inclusion, but political and economic processes need to enable this for the full potential of this empowerment to make a difference. 13. How can enhanced cooperation address key issues toward global, social and economic development? 14. What is the role of various stakeholders in promoting the development of local language content? 15. What are the international internet-related public policy issues that are of special relevance to developing countries? 16.  What are the key issues to be addressed to promote the affordability of  the Internet, in particular in developing countries and least developed  countries? 17.  What are the national capacities to be developed and modalities to be  considered for national governments to develop Internet-related public policy with participation of all stakeholders? 18. Are there other comments, or areas of concern, on enhanced cooperation you would like to submit? In institutionalizing and operationalizing enhanced cooperation, it is critically important to create a deliberative process in which all stakeholder perspectives are appropriately taken into consideration. It is not enough to just allow the various stakeholders to voice their perspectives. All the various comments must also be taken in consideration in a logical analysis process, in which for every important policy question, a set of possible answers is worked out, and each of the possible answers is evaluated against the objective of sustainable global, social and economic development as well as in regard to the fundamental principles of democracy, rule of law, and the internationally recognized human rights. -- 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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. --  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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nnenna75 at gmail.com Fri Aug 23 12:17:39 2013 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 16:17:39 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Public Consultation on the ITU 2016-2019 Strategy Message-ID: Apologies for cross posting N === Dear Sir/Madam, We want to bring to your notice an important open consultation that we are carrying out - Public Consultation on the ITU 2016-2019 Strategy The Council of our Member States launched the development of a new ITU Strategic Plan for 2016-2019, which will be approved at the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference in October 2014. In preparing the Secretary General's contribution to this work of the Council, we are asking for your inputs to the debate. You can tell us what you expect from ITU in the future, where we should direct our efforts to best serve everyone, including you; and which challenges we should be prepared to meet. We invite you to participate in this Public Consultation and we are looking forward to your opinions. You can share your views and ideas at the interactive platform www.itu.int/PublicConsultations or submit your written contributions by email to strategy at itu.int. Please feel free to forward this information to your contacts. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Sat Aug 31 13:10:08 2013 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 13:10:08 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Position by IT for Change and some other NGOs on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <030d01cea5b3$2cc32a80$86497f80$@gmail.com> References: <521E2A9E.7070004@itforchange.net> <030d01cea5b3$2cc32a80$86497f80$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Now after the fact, let me concur with the choice, as Michael describes, to endorse both the BestBits statement and that from IT For Change. As I did. Until we have a global solution - one born of political realities, but steeped in democratic principle - all the mischief that human nature so currently displays will continue to run rife. No statement is going to satisfy all views. What we can hope for, and surely must encourage, are positions that head in the right direction. David On Aug 30, 2013, at 3:00 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Below is my response to the APC message (I'm currently an Associate > (individual) member of APC… > > Thanks for this Anriette and all... > > I'll be endorsing the ITfC statement along with the BestBits > statement which I don't see as being incompatible. > > I think the major difference between the two and where I'm > suggesting that individual members might consider endorsement of > both statements is that the IT for Change document begins the > process of placing the overall issues of Internet governance into > the larger (geo) political context into which the Snowden > revelations have firmly placed them. > > I don't believe it is possible now to think about or take action in > the Internet governance space without recognizing the degree to > which that space is seen by certain parties (as articulated by > various of Snowden's NSA documents) as being of sovereign and > "national security" level importance. What that means is that what > Internet governance mechanisms are proposed/responded to have to be > understood within the broader context of global governance and the > possible distribution of power/control within that framework. > > I would point you folks to the recent blogpost by Byron Holland the > Executive Director of the Canadian Internet Registry Authority > (CIRA) reflecting on recent events in the Internet governance space > and how, post-Snowden, all of that needs to be reconsidered... > http://blog.cira.ca/2013/08/the-internet-as-we-know-it-is-dead/?goback=%2Egde_110405_member_268692395#%21 > > http://tinyurl.com/pywp46b > > I don't necessarily agree with the specifics of the institutional > approaches identified in the ITfC document. But that some sort of > global (and globally authorized) mechanism is required to counter > the very clear attempts to design Internet governance in such a way > as to ensure future and permanent enshrinement of the dominance of > certain national and corporate interests is I believe manifestly > evident. A "hands off the Internet" approach, does I believe > mitigate in direct opposition to the interests of civil society and > particularly civil society in LDC's in support of a free, open, > transparent and responsive Internet as a basis for overcoming social > and economic inequalities. > > What Snowden/NSA makes clear I believe, is that if the Internet is > to be developed as a resource for all rather than as a tool > benefiting the interests of only some then mechanisms which allow > for the broadest base of input into Internet governance need to be > created -- how, what and by whom I think is what we need to be > discussing--I think that Snowden has given us sufficient insight to > recognize that the question of whether such is necessary and most > certainly from a civil society perspective needs no longer to be > discussed. > > Mike Gurstein > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > ] On Behalf Of Anja Kovacs > Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2013 1:24 AM > To: Valeria Betancourt > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Position by IT for Change and some other > NGOs on enhanced cooperation > > Dear all, > > While the Internet Democracy Project is not a member of APC, and > though we do have differences of opinion with APC (e.g. on how > severe the threat of backgtracking on the Tunis agenda is), we > broadly agree with APC's views on the IT for Change statement as > outlined by Valeria. We will not be able to sign the IT for Change > statement. > > It is oftentimes made to seem as if there are only two options where > Internet governance arrangements are concerned: the status quo and a > more centralised form of governance, the latter often (though not > always) imagined as involving greater government control. We believe > that there is a third way, and one that has far greater potential > for a politics of justice, which is that of distributed governance. > We will be submitting a submission to the WGEC along these lines. > > Best regards, > > Anja > > > On 30 August 2013 20:02, Valeria Betancourt wrote: > Dear all, > > We are busy compiling an APC's network response and we will submit > our own statement. We will also endorse the Best Bits statement, to > which we contributed to. > > While we appreciate the effort that has gone into it and many of the > points raised, APC will not endorse the IT for Change statement. > APC members are independent so while some individual APC members > might endorse it, APC as an organisation won't. Some of the main > reasons why we have made that decision are explained at the end of > this message. We thought it is useful to share our thinking in these > spacea as a contribution to the debate. > > Best, > > Valeria > ------------------------ > > * The basic case for "global governance of the Internet" is simply > not made. The evidence for the proposed new mechanisms is weak, > laden with polemic, and with a political bias that is not corrected > by balanced, > judicious weighing of options nor informed by practical experience > (this in relation to ICANN and the technical community in particular). > > * The statement takes government and an internet-centric approach to > policy making and suggests that a global internet policy making > framework convention and new body is desirable. This overlooks and > would > undermine the many other approaches to policy making currently > mandated by international law including rights based, environmental, > and development among others. we have seen in the intellectual > property field, for example, what happens when UN bodies are set up > with topic specific mandates for global related policy issues. > > * To place the internet as the centre for public policy making is a > grave conceptual error in our view -rather a better conceptual > approach is to focus on internet related aspects of policy issues > (such as health, education, discrimination, access, > telecommunciations policy and so on). Even better, to put people at > the centre of policy making. We must never forget that the internet > does not exist in a parallel dimension. Nor can internet policy. > Creating a new UN body to focus on internet policy and identifying > which issues it should deal with is not going to be sustainable, or > effective. The internet touches on so many issues that no single > policy space could ever effectively deal with them all. > > * The imposition of a new global internet policy framework > determined and agreed by governments - and therefore being a top > down and central mechanism - contradicts the bottom-up multi- > stakeholder principles of > policy making and end to end principles of internet architecture: > it's just wrong. This is not to say that multi-stakeholder policy > processes are not flawed and still producing outcomes that reflect > the interest of those with power and resources. But creating new > frameworks and bodies will not address this automatically. > > * Most international agreements set MINIMUM standards because > governments generally can only agree on the lowest common > denominator - apart from generally resulting in inadequate policy, > it also risks back- tracking on the existing points of agreement in > the Tunis Agenda. > > * The statement proposes a new framework convention similar to the > convention on climate change. Such conventions are inevitably > negotiated and agreed by governments and not multi-stakeholder. in > addition, the > inequalities between States (a key source of friction in current > arrangements) will not be solved by the creation of new mechanisms > which the same States need to agree on - inevitably the politics > simply transfer, Rather than propose a new convention (most take > between 5-10 years to negotiate, assuming agreement can be reached), > it would be better to empower and strengthen existing mechanisms - > more ideas on > that separately. APC proposed a framework convention of this nature > immediately after Tunis in 2005. But after our work on the 'code of > good practice' for internet governance during which we looked > closely at environmental and climate change policy processes, and > our experience in observing governments in the CSTD when they try to > negotiate an annual resolution on WSIS follow up we decided against > this. > > * Finally, the focus on global internet public policy undermines the > role of national and regional IGFs and policy making processes many > of which have quite different politics and are still evolving to > suit their conditions. Not all these processes are inclusive, or > even legitimate, but they are not going to be fixed from above by > new agreements negotiated by governments. > > * On balance, then, we think more work is needed to develop options > which suit civil society and empower civil society as stakeholders > in policy making and that systematically try to consolidate current > achievements with regard to human rights on the internet in, for > example, the Human Rights Council. > > > On 28/08/2013, at 11:51, parminder wrote: > > > Apologies for cross posting > > Dear All > > IT for Change and some other NGOs plan to forward the following > position to the UN Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. Preceding > the position statement is a covering letter seeking support. You are > welcome to support this position any time before 12 noon GMT on 31st > Aug. We are happy to provide any additional information/ > clarification etc. Also happy to otherwise discuss this position, > and its different elements. We are motivated by the need to come up > with precise and clear institutional options at this stage. Politics > of inertia and not doing anything just serves the status quo. These > may not be the best institutional options, and we are ready to enter > into discussion with other groups on what instead would be the > better options. But, again, not doing anything is, in our opinion, > would be detrimental to global public interest. > > The web link to this position is athttp://www.itforchange.net/civil_society_input_to_the_UN_Working_Group_for_global_governance_of_the_Internet > . > > parminder > > > Covering letter / Background > > In May 2012, more than 60 civil society organisations and several > individuals participated in a campaign for 'democratising the global > governance of the Internet'. A joint letter signed by the > participants of this campaign inter alia asked for setting up a UN > Working Group towards this objective. Such a Working Group was set > up and has now asked for public inputs to formulate its > recommendations. > > In our joint letter, we had proposed some outlines for reforming the > current global governance architecture of the Internet. Time has > come now to make more clear and specific recommendations of the > actual institutional mechanism that we need. With most governments > more worried about their narrow geopolitical interests and > relationships with individual countries, it falls upon the civil > society to be bold and forward looking and put precise proposals on > the table that can then be taken forward by state actors. > > In a post-Snowden world, there is deep discomfort among almost all > countries, other than the US, with the manner in which the global > Internet is run and is evolving. The need for some global norms, > principles, rules, and necessary governance mechanisms for the > global Internet is being felt now as never before. The Internet can > no longer remain anchored to the political and business interests of > one country, or to serving global capital, as it is at present. As a > global commons, it is our collective democratic right and > responsibility to participate in the governance of the Internet, so > that it can become a vehicle for greater prosperity, equity and > social justice for all. > > We seek your support to join us in proposing the enclosed document > as an input to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. The > Working Group has sought public inputs through a questionnaire which > can be seen at http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD.aspx . The most > important question is at number 8, which seeks input with regard to > precise mechanism(s) that are required. Our response will mostly > address this all-important question. (You are also encouraged to, > separately, give a fuller response to the questionnaire on your > behalf or on behalf of your organization.) We will also like to give > wide media publicity to this civil society statement . > > We will be glad if you can send your response to us before the 30th > of August. We are of course happy to respond to any clarification or > additional information that you may want to seek in the above > regard. Please also circulate this to others who you think may want > to participate in this initiative. The global Internet governance > space seems to be dominated by those who push for neoliberal models > of governance. We must therefore have as many voices heard as > possible. > > (The statement is cut pasted below this email and may also be seen > here ) > > With best regard, > > Parminder > > > Parminder Jeet Singh > IT for Change > In special consultative status with the United Nations ECOSOC > www.ITforChange.net > T: 00-91-80-26654134 | T: 00-91-80-26536890 | Fax: 00-91-80-41461055 > A civil society input to the UN Working Group looking at > institutional mechanisms for global governance of the Internet > (Please write to itfc at itforchange.net before 29th Aug if you will > like to endorse this statement) > > Why global governance of the Internet? > Internet governance is seen largely in terms of national sovereignty > and security or as pertaining to free speech and privacy. We are of > the view that there exist many other equally important issues for > global Internet governance that arise from the whole gamut of rights > and aspirations of people – social, economic, cultural, political > and developmental. The relationship of the global Internet to > cultural diversity is one example. The Internet increasingly > determines not only the global flows of information but also of > cultures, and their commodification. No social process is exempt > from the influence of the Internet – from education to health and > governance. Social systems at national and local levels are being > transformed under the influence of the global Internet. > Instead of decentralizing power, the current structure of the global > Internet tends to centralize control in the hands of a small number > of companies. Some of these companies have near-monopoly power over > key areas of economic and social significance. Therefore, regulation > of global Internet business through pertinent competition law, > consumer law, open interoperability standards, etc, is becoming a > pressing need. Increasing statist controls need to be similarly > resisted. With the emergent paradigm of cloud computing presenting > the looming prospect of remote management of our digital lives from > different 'power centres' across the world, it is inconceivable that > we can do without appropriate democratic governance of the global > Internet. Post-Snowden, as many countries have begun to contemplate > and even embark upon measures for 'digital sovereignty', the only > way to preserve a global Internet is through formulating appropriate > global norms, principles and rules that will underpin its governance. > Background of this civil society input > A group of over 60 civil society organizations and several > individuals, made a statement on 'Democratizing the global > governance of the Internet' to the open consultations on 'enhanced > cooperation'1 called by the Chair of the UN Commission on Science > and Technology for Development (CSTD) on May 18th, 2012, in Geneva. > The statement inter alia sought the setting up of a CSTD Working > Group to address this issue. We are happy to note that such a > Working Group has been set up and has now called for public inputs > to make its recommendations. This document is an input to the > Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC) on the behalf of the > undersigned . > In the aforementioned statement of May 2012, the civil society > signatories had called for the following institutional developments > to take place in the global Internet governance architecture: > Our demands with respect to 'global' Internet Governance espouse a > simple and obvious democratic logic. On the technical governance > side, the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical > infrastructure, at present with the US government, should be > transferred to an appropriate, democratic and participative, multi- > lateral body, without disturbing the existing distributed > architecture of technical governance of the Internet in any > significant way. (However, improvements in the technical governance > systems are certainly needed.) On the side of larger Internet > related public policy-making on global social, economic, cultural > and political issues, the OECD-based model of global policy making, > as well as the default application of US laws, should be replaced by > a new UN-based democratic mechanism. Any such new arrangement should > be based on the principle of subsidiarity, and be innovative in > terms of its mandate, structure, and functions, to be adequate to > the unique requirements of global Internet governance. It must be > fully participative of all stakeholders, promoting the democratic > and innovative potential of the Internet. > As the WGEC deliberates on concrete ways to move forward, the time > is ripe to propose clear and specific institutional mechanisms for > democratizing the global governance of the Internet. We have, > therefore, expanded the above demands into specific mechanisms that > should be set in place for this purpose. > New global governance mechanisms are needed > We are of the view that it would be useful to have two distinct > mechanisms – one that looks at the global Internet-related public > policy issues in various social, economic, cultural and political > domains, and another that should undertake oversight of the > technical and operational functions related to the Internet > (basically, replacing the current unilateral oversight of the ICANN2 > by the US government). This will require setting up appropriate new > global governance bodies as well as a framework of international law > to facilitate their work, as follows. > A new UN body for Internet-related public policy issues: An anchor > global institution for taking up and addressing various public > policy issues pertaining to the Internet in an ongoing manner is > urgently required. It can be a committee attached to the UN General > Assembly or a more elaborate and relatively autonomous set up linked > loosely to the UN (as a specialized UN body). It should have a very > strong and institutionalized public consultative mechanism, in the > form of stakeholder advisory groups that are selected through formal > processes by different stakeholder constituencies, ensuring adequate > representativeness. (OECD's Committee on Computer, Information and > Communication Policy and India's recent proposal for a UN Committee > on Internet-related Policies are two useful, and somewhat similar, > models that can be looked at.) > This 'new body' will stay abreast of global Internet-related issues; > where necessary, develop international level public policies in the > concerned areas; seek appropriate harmonization of national level > policies, and; facilitate required treaties, conventions and > agreements. It will also have the necessary means to undertake > studies and present analyses in different policy areas. > Most Internet-related public policy issues are of a cross-cutting > nature, and involve overlaps with mandates of other existing global > governance bodies, like WIPO, UNESCO, WTO, UNDP, UNCTAD, ITU and so > on. Due to this reason, the proposed new 'body' will establish > appropriate relationships with all these other existing bodies, > including directing relevant public policy issues to them, receiving > their inputs and comments, and itself contributing specific Internet- > related perspectives to issues under the purview of these other > bodies. > > A new 'Internet Technical Oversight and Advisory Board': This board > will replace the US government's current oversight role over the > technical and operational functions performed by ICANN. The > membership of this oversight board can be of a techno-political > nature, i.e. consisting of people with specialized expertise but who > also have appropriate political backing, ascertained through a > democratic process. For instance, the board can be made of 10/15 > members, with 2/3 members each from five geographic regions (as > understood in the UN system). These members can perhaps be selected > through an appropriate process by the relevant technical standards > bodies and/or country domain name bodies of all the countries of the > respective region. (Other mechanisms for constituting the techno- > political membership of this board can also be considered.) > The Internet technical oversight and advisory board will seek to > ensure that the various technical and operational functions related > to the global Internet are undertaken by the relevant organizations > as per international law and public policy principles developed by > the concerned international bodies. With regard to ICANN, the role > of this board will more or less be exactly the same as exercised by > the US government in its oversight over ICANN. As for the > decentralized Internet standards development mechanisms, like the > Internet Engineering Task Force, these self organizing systems based > on voluntary adoption of standards will continue to work as at > present. The new board will have a very light touch and non-binding > role with regard to them. It will bring in imperatives from, and > advise these technical standards bodies on, international public > policies, international law and norms being developed by various > relevant bodies. > For this board to be able to fulfill its oversight mandate, ICANN > must become an international organization, without changing its > existing multistakeholder character in any substantial manner. It > would enter into a host country agreement with the US government (if > ICANN has to continue to be headquartered in the US). It would have > full immunity from US law and executive authority, and be guided > solely by international law, and be incorporated under it. > Supervision of the authoritative root zone server must also be > transferred to this oversight broad. The board will exercise this > role with the help of an internationalized ICANN. > This board will also advise the afore-mentioned new public policy > body on technical matters pertaining to the Internet policy making, > as well as take public policy inputs from it. > Framework Convention on the Internet: An appropriate international > legal framework will be required sooner than later for the above > bodies to function properly. Accordingly, one of the early tasks of > the proposed 'new body' dealing with Internet-related public policy > issues, discussed above, will be to help negotiate a 'Framework > Convention on the Internet' (somewhat like the Framework Convention > on Climate Change). Governance of the Internet concerns different > kinds of issues that are ever-evolving. It is, therefore, preferable > to formulate an enabling legal structure as a 'framework convention' > rather than as a specific treaty or convention that addresses only a > bounded set of issues. It may also be easier to initially agree to a > series of principles, protocols and processes that can then frame > further agreements, treaties etc on more specific issues. > Such a Framework Convention will thus enable appropriate and ongoing > global policy responses to various opportunities and challenges that > the fast-evolving phenomenon of the Internet throws up. It will also > formalize the basic architecture of the global governance of the > Internet; inter alia recognizing and legitimizing the existing role > and functions of the various bodies currently involved with managing > the technical and logical infrastructure of the Internet, including > the ICANN, Regional Internet Registries, Internet technical > standards bodies and so on. > Appropriate mechanisms for crisis response and dispute resolution in > relation to the global Internet, and the social activity dependent > on it, will also be required to be set up. > Relationship with the IGF > The UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was established as a > multistakeholder 'policy dialogue forum' by the World Summit on the > Information Society. The proposed global Internet policy mechanism, > especially the new UN based body, will maintain a close relationship > with the IGF. IGF affords a very new kind of participative mechanism > for policy making, whereby the participation realm is > institutionalized, and relatively independent of the policy making > structures. The IGF should preferably pre-discuss issues that are > taken up by this new policy body and present diverse perspectives > for its consideration. A good part of the agenda for this new body > can emerge from the IGF. Whenever possible, draft proposals to be > adopted by this new body should be shared with the IGF. > To perform such a participation enhancing role, the IGF must be > adequately strengthened and reformed, especially to address the > dominance of Northern corporatist interests in its current working. > It must be supported with public funds, and insulated from any > funding system that can bring in perverse influences on its agenda > and outcomes. Other required processes must also be put in place to > ensure that the IGF indeed brings in constituencies that are > typically under-represented, rather than provide further political > clout to the already dominant. > A participative body is only as good as the policy making mechanisms > that feed off it. To that extent, the meaningfulness and > effectiveness of the IGF itself requires a strong policy development > mechanism, as suggested in this document, to be linked to it. > Investing in the IGF is useful only if its outputs and contributions > lead to something concrete. > Funding > An innovative way to fund the proposed new global Internet policy > mechanisms, and also the IGF, is to tap into the collections made by > the relevant bodies from allocation of names and numbers resources > pertaining to the global Internet (like the fee that ICANN collects > annually from each domain name owner). These accruals now run into > millions of dollars every year and could be adequate to fund a large > part of the needed mechanisms for democratic governance of the > global Internet. > In the end, we may add that there is nothing really very novel in > the above proposal for setting up new mechanisms for global > governance of the Internet. Similar models, for instance, were > proposed in the report of the Working Group on Internet Governance > that was set up during the World Summit on the Information Society, > back in 2004. > We hope that the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation will fulfill > its high mandate to lead the world towards the path of democratic > governance of the global commons of the Internet. > > 1The outcome documents of the World Summit on the Information > Society, held in 2005, employed this as a placeholder term giving > the mandate for further exploration of the necessary mechanisms for > global governance of the Internet. > > 2Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the US based > non-profit that manages much of technical and logical > infrastructural functions related to the Internet. > > > ------------- > Valeria Betancourt > Directora / Manager > Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication > and Information Policy Programme > Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for > Progressive Communications, APC > http://www.apc.org > > > > > > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Aug 31 22:30:36 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2013 09:30:36 +0700 Subject: [bestbits] How to end human rights violating communcations surveillance (was Re: Position by IT for Change...) In-Reply-To: <20130901040132.65217d8a@quill> References: <521E2A9E.7070004@itforchange.net> <030d01cea5b3$2cc32a80$86497f80$@gmail.com> <035f01cea5c3$7a5db390$6f191ab0$@gmail.com> <20130831220744.592c8d64@quill> <3CB796A02CAE419EAE5DB5686FE0E3E4@Toshiba> <20130901040132.65217d8a@quill> Message-ID: <007e01cea6bb$43fea4a0$cbfbede0$@gmail.com> Bravo, this is precisely the kind of discussion we need to be having (note, I have no useful insight into the technical details of what Norbert is proposing) but we need to be having this type of discussion preliminary to working together to figure out how to do the technical assessments required for these types of approaches (necessarily to be done by techies informed by policy folks) i.e. what sort of institutional mechanisms can make(and implement) these kinds of assessments (and initiatives) in a manner which elicits/warrants widespread trust. Of course, we also need to be working in parallel to this to identify the mechanisms which can move forward in the policy sphere including the framework agreements and broad based review councils all done in full recognition of geo-political realities of power and interest. As an aside it would be interesting to know how much of the $80 Billion or so annual budget of the US security establishment was spent on infiltrating and looking to influence the direction of civil society (and the technical community?) as for example in their role as a multi-stakeholder "partner" in various governance and other spheres both domestically and globally. Perhaps this information is something we could look forward to in a subsequent revelation from Mr. Snowden. M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2013 9:02 AM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Cc: IRP Subject: [bestbits] How to end human rights violating communcations surveillance (was Re: Position by IT for Change...) Ian Peter wrote: > not sure I am as pessimistic about this as both of you. There are > plenty of examples in history where international agreements have > regulated matters where countries have agreed, for the greater good, > to regulate or stop previous actions. The Geneva Convention is one > example, outlawing of poison gases after WW1 (worked for a while) is > another. > > I am sure also that regularly in trade treaties countries give up > certain actions in return for other advantages. > > In the case of the Internet, it may well be that an open available > trusted global network - which can only be achieved if espionage is > contained - is the greater good that leads to a decent regulatory > regime. I see two major problems with this optimistic scenario: On one hand the world trade system is already largely designed around the vision of the US and like-minded countries on how the world trade system should work, and the US is already a very central node in this world trade system. The US already has pretty much all of the advantages that a country could possibly have. I don't see what “other advantages” the US could possibly be offered in exchange for the US agreeing to give up the NSA's foreign surveillance activities which are obviously very important from the perspective of the US government. On the other hand, a lot of whatever trust that people used to have for the US as a “democratic country” that claims to be strongly committed to human rights has been permanently destroyed. This loss of credibility affects not only US government representatives and by extension government representatives from other Western countries. After all the crap with for example Microsoft claiming “Your Privacy Is Our Priority” while at the same time secretly cooperating with the NSA's efforts to undermine our privacy, every reasonable and well-informed person will similarly distrust technology vendors. Add to this that the US concerns about terrorist threats etc are not just a matter of mere paranoia. It would not be reasonable for the US to agree a simple and straightforward principle like never again wanting to know the contents of conversations of people outside the US. The US will have to insist that in situations of legitimate suspicion of plans for terrorist activities, surveillance activities will have to be conducted. Regardless of how the rules for handling that kind of exceptional situations would be designed precisely, if those rules meet both the requirements of international human rights law and the requirement of providing effective means of surveillance for suspected terrorists, those rules are not going to be totally simple and straightforward. Consequently, although certainly necessary, such rules are not going to help much in regard to rebuilding the trust that has been destroyed. I conclude that without trustworthy efforts to create effective technical protections of communications privacy, a “trusted global network” cannot be achieved in the post-Snowden world. Nota bene, I'm not advocating for trying to make surveillance totally impossible. What we IMO need in the post-Snowden world is 1) trustworthy end-to-end encryption of all non-public Internet communication content, 2) trustworthy protection of the software on the computers and other communication devices against remote compromise, 3) redesigned communication protocols which ensure that at no point in the communication channel between the endpoints, information about both communication endpoints is visible in unencrypted form, and 4) trustworthy anti-surveillance monitoring which would likely detect the problem in the case of a system compromise that results in significant quantities of communication channel endpoint information leaking out. When all of that has been achieved, surveillance of the communications content and communications metadata of specific persons will still be possible, but it'll be expensive enough that cost economics will force it to be limited to specific persons where there is significant reason to consider them a major threat. It is the human rights violating automated mass surveillance which must be brought to an end. Greetings, Norbert From nb at bollow.ch Sat Aug 31 14:14:55 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 20:14:55 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Position by IT for Change and some other NGOs on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <521E2A9E.7070004@itforchange.net> <030d01cea5b3$2cc32a80$86497f80$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20130831201455.76de5487@quill> David Allen wrote: > Now after the fact, let me concur with the choice, as Michael > describes, to endorse both the BestBits statement and that from IT > For Change. As I did. > > Until we have a global solution - one born of political realities, > but steeped in democratic principle - all the mischief that human > nature so currently displays will continue to run rife. > > No statement is going to satisfy all views. What we can hope for, > and surely must encourage, are positions that head in the right > direction. Well said! I agree wholeheartedly. Greetings, Norbert From cele at palermo.edu Mon Aug 19 09:51:08 2013 From: cele at palermo.edu (CELE) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 06:51:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [bestbits] Nuevo trabajo del CELE: responsabilidad de intermediarios / CELE's new document: intermediary liablity In-Reply-To: <520EA49A.9030005@palermo.edu> References: <520D0324.3070903@palermo.edu> <520EA49A.9030005@palermo.edu> Message-ID: <1376920268.33794.YahooMailNeo@web125204.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Nuevo trabajo del CELE: responsabilidad de intermediarios / CELE's new document: intermediary liablity English version below Las llaves del ama de llaves: la estrategia de los intermediarios en Internet y el impacto en el entorno digital De manera creciente se viene discutiendo en Latinoamérica sobre la responsabilidad que deben tener los intermediarios en Internet por las acciones de sus usuarios. Para los Estados y algunos actores privados, los intermediarios –la empresa que nos presta la conexión o la red social que usamos diariamente– están llamados a ejercer como guardianes en la red para combatir la difamación y la piratería en línea, entre otros. Éste, sin embargo, no es un debate limitado a los intereses del Estado y de las empresas que ofrecen servicios en la red. El entorno digital se ha convertido en una extensión del espacio físico, donde los ciudadanos ejercen derechos como el acceso a la información, la educación y la libertad de expresión. En esa medida, las soluciones regulatorias en este tema deben tomar en cuenta la tensión de derechos y los objetivos socialmente deseables. El objetivo de este nuevo documento de la Iniciativa por la Libertad de Expresión en Internet (iLEI) del CELE es ofrecer un sustento teórico y un contexto mínimo para el debate sobre la responsabilidad de los intermediarios en Internet con énfasis en los problemas relacionados con contenidos. El documento completo está disponible aquí   ACERCA DEL CELE   El Centro de Estudios para la Libertad de Expresión y Acceso a la Información (CELE) fue creado en el año 2009 en el ámbito de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de Palermo con el objetivo de proveer de investigaciones y estudios rigurosos a sectores de la sociedad civil, periodistas, instituciones gubernamentales e instituciones académicas dedicados a la defensa y a la promoción de estos derechos, especialmente en América Latina. La creación del CELE responde a la necesidad de construir espacios de debate y estudio dedicados a reflexionar sobre la importancia, los contenidos y los límites de estos derechos en la región. Para esto, el centro se propone dialogar y trabajar en conjunto con otras unidades académicas del país y de Latinoamérica. El CELE tiene como objetivo principal que sus investigaciones se constituyan en herramientas útiles para periodistas, instituciones gubernamentales, sectores privados y de la sociedad civil dedicados a la defensa y promoción de estos derechos, especialmente en América Latina. Teniendo en cuenta este objetivo, además de los estudios que considere necesarios, el centro encarará investigaciones solicitadas por estos grupos. El director del CELE es Eduardo Bertoni, Profesor de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de Palermo y ex-Relator Especial para la Libertad de Expresión en la Organización de los Estados Americanos.   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------       The gatekeeper’s keys: the strategy of intermediaries on the Internet and the impact on the digital surroundings   The responsibility that intermediaries must have regarding the behaviour of their users on the Internet has increasingly been discussed in Latin America. For States and certain private sectors, the intermediaries- the companies that provide the Internet connection or the social network we use every day- are called to act as gatekeepers on the network in order to combat defamation and online piracy, among others. This, however, is not a debate limited to the interests of the State and the companies offering services on the network. The digital environment has become an extension of the physical space, where citizens exercise rights such as access to information, education and freedom of expression. To that extent, regulatory solutions in this area should take into account the rights and power of socially desirable goals.   The aim of this new document by the Freedom of Expression on the Internet initiative (iLEI) of CELE is to offer a theoretical foundation and a minimum context for the debate on liability of Internet intermediaries, with emphasis on problems related to content.   The complete document (in Spanish) is available here     About CELE     The Center for Studies on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information (CELE) was founded in 2009 at the Palermo University Law School with the objective to provide rigorous research and studies to sectors of civil society, journalists, government institutions and the academic community that are dedicated to the promotion of those rights, primarily in Latin America. CELE was created in response to a need to construct spaces for debate and study dedicated to reflecting on the importance and the limits of freedom of expression and access to public information in the region. In order to accomplish this, the center proposes to create dialogue and collaborate with other academic entities in Argentina and in Latin America. CELE's principal objective is to produce reports that can be useful tools for those journalists, governmental institutions, and members of the private sector and civil society that are dedicated to the defense and promotion of these rights, especially in Latin America. In accordance with this objective, CELE will undertake research at the request of the aforementioned groups in addition to undertaking studies that CELE considers to be necessary. CELE's director is Eduardo Bertoni, a professor at Palermo University Lawschool and former Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression at the Organization of American States. UNIVERSIDAD DE PALERMO 2013   Facultad de Derecho Mario Bravo 1050 | Tel: 5199-4500 | www.palermo.edu/derecho CELE Centro de Estudios en Libertad de Expresión y Acceso a la Información www.palermo.edu/cele Si no desea recibir más e-mails de esta dirección, por favor, responda con el asunto REMOVER.   -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nb at bollow.ch Sat Aug 31 14:39:03 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 20:39:03 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Internet Democracy Project position on enhanced cooperation (was Re: Position by IT for Change...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20130831203903.7e66ba48@quill> Anja Kovacs wrote: > It is oftentimes made to seem as if there are only two options where > Internet governance arrangements are concerned: the status quo and a > more centralised form of governance, the latter often (though not > always) imagined as involving greater government control. We believe > that there is a third way, and one that has far greater potential for > a politics of justice, which is that of distributed governance. We > will be submitting a submission to the WGEC along these lines. Are you making this WGEC submission publicly available also? Greetings, Norbert From nb at bollow.ch Sat Aug 31 16:07:44 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 22:07:44 +0200 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Position by IT for Change and some other NGOs on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <521E2A9E.7070004@itforchange.net> <030d01cea5b3$2cc32a80$86497f80$@gmail.com> <035f01cea5c3$7a5db390$6f191ab0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20130831220744.592c8d64@quill> McTim wrote: > Am I happy > that the US snoops on both domestic and foreign voice and data > traffic? No, certainly not. Do I think that any kind of treaty or > int'l framework would stop them? Again the answer is no, certainly > not. I agree. The problem cannot be solved without effective encryption. Some kind of treaty or other international framework or other form of international cooperation might however help us get to the point where communications via the Internet are routinely encrypted in an effective manner. Greetings, Norbert From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Aug 31 16:34:56 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2013 06:34:56 +1000 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Position by IT for Change and some other NGOs on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <20130831220744.592c8d64@quill> References: <521E2A9E.7070004@itforchange.net><030d01cea5b3$2cc32a80$86497f80$@gmail.com><035f01cea5c3$7a5db390$6f191ab0$@gmail.com> <20130831220744.592c8d64@quill> Message-ID: <3CB796A02CAE419EAE5DB5686FE0E3E4@Toshiba> not sure I am as pessimistic about this as both of you. There are plenty of examples in history where international agreements have regulated matters where countries have agreed, for the greater good, to regulate or stop previous actions. The Geneva Convention is one example, outlawing of poison gases after WW1 (worked for a while) is another. I am sure also that regularly in trade treaties countries give up certain actions in return for other advantages. In the case of the Internet, it may well be that an open available trusted global network - which can only be achieved if espionage is contained - is the greater good that leads to a decent regulatory regime. Ian Peter -----Original Message----- From: Norbert Bollow Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2013 6:07 AM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; IRP Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Position by IT for Change and some other NGOs on enhanced cooperation McTim wrote: > Am I happy > that the US snoops on both domestic and foreign voice and data > traffic? No, certainly not. Do I think that any kind of treaty or > int'l framework would stop them? Again the answer is no, certainly > not. I agree. The problem cannot be solved without effective encryption. Some kind of treaty or other international framework or other form of international cooperation might however help us get to the point where communications via the Internet are routinely encrypted in an effective manner. Greetings, Norbert _______________________________________________ IRP mailing list IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp From avri at acm.org Sat Aug 31 16:47:10 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 16:47:10 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Internet Democracy Project position on enhanced cooperation (was Re: Position by IT for Change...) In-Reply-To: <20130831203903.7e66ba48@quill> References: <20130831203903.7e66ba48@quill> Message-ID: <8CD1100F-94E6-41AE-8401-5A702743DBCA@acm.org> On 31 Aug 2013, at 14:39, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Are you making this WGEC submission publicly available also? It has been my assumption that all contributions will be made public. But I can check to make sure that is the case. avri From jefsey at jefsey.com Sat Aug 31 20:51:14 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2013 02:51:14 +0200 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Position by IT for Change and some other NGOs on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <3CB796A02CAE419EAE5DB5686FE0E3E4@Toshiba> References: <521E2A9E.7070004@itforchange.net> <030d01cea5b3$2cc32a80$86497f80$@gmail.com> <035f01cea5c3$7a5db390$6f191ab0$@gmail.com> <20130831220744.592c8d64@quill> <3CB796A02CAE419EAE5DB5686FE0E3E4@Toshiba> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jefsey at jefsey.com Sat Aug 31 21:00:51 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2013 03:00:51 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Position by IT for Change and some other NGOs on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <521E2A9E.7070004@itforchange.net> <030d01cea5b3$2cc32a80$86497f80$@gmail.com> Message-ID: At 19:10 31/08/2013, David Allen wrote: > What we can hope for, and surely must encourage, are positions > that head in the right direction. Dear David, What is the definition to give to "direction"? What is the right direction? Who can uncovers and prove it to be right? Who has legitimacy to declare it right? Until know we had an internet referent supposed to provide everyone guidance on hos to influence those who design, utilize and manage the internet to work better (RFC 3935). This was the IAB. Through RFC 6852 the IAB has abandonned that role. And no one has replaced it (nor intends or is meant to). All I know is that an architectonic esthetic has been documented by the WSIS. This esthetic is documented as "a people centered information society". From this I can only try to analyze and catalyze a "nethiquette" based on our good will, best effort, and lack of experience in our anthropo+botic society and digitally extended universe. As long as the architectonic (what is to be the digital extension we are building to our 3D world) debate has not been carried, there is no way to target and support a global system concordance, that a multistakholder gouvernance can manage, and the operance service providers can neutraly propose. jfc From nb at bollow.ch Sat Aug 31 22:01:32 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2013 04:01:32 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] How to end human rights violating communcations surveillance (was Re: Position by IT for Change...) In-Reply-To: <3CB796A02CAE419EAE5DB5686FE0E3E4@Toshiba> References: <521E2A9E.7070004@itforchange.net> <030d01cea5b3$2cc32a80$86497f80$@gmail.com> <035f01cea5c3$7a5db390$6f191ab0$@gmail.com> <20130831220744.592c8d64@quill> <3CB796A02CAE419EAE5DB5686FE0E3E4@Toshiba> Message-ID: <20130901040132.65217d8a@quill> Ian Peter wrote: > not sure I am as pessimistic about this as both of you. There are > plenty of examples in history where international agreements have > regulated matters where countries have agreed, for the greater good, > to regulate or stop previous actions. The Geneva Convention is one > example, outlawing of poison gases after WW1 (worked for a while) is > another. > > I am sure also that regularly in trade treaties countries give up > certain actions in return for other advantages. > > In the case of the Internet, it may well be that an open available > trusted global network - which can only be achieved if espionage is > contained - is the greater good that leads to a decent regulatory > regime. I see two major problems with this optimistic scenario: On one hand the world trade system is already largely designed around the vision of the US and like-minded countries on how the world trade system should work, and the US is already a very central node in this world trade system. The US already has pretty much all of the advantages that a country could possibly have. I don't see what “other advantages” the US could possibly be offered in exchange for the US agreeing to give up the NSA's foreign surveillance activities which are obviously very important from the perspective of the US government. On the other hand, a lot of whatever trust that people used to have for the US as a “democratic country” that claims to be strongly committed to human rights has been permanently destroyed. This loss of credibility affects not only US government representatives and by extension government representatives from other Western countries. After all the crap with for example Microsoft claiming “Your Privacy Is Our Priority” while at the same time secretly cooperating with the NSA's efforts to undermine our privacy, every reasonable and well-informed person will similarly distrust technology vendors. Add to this that the US concerns about terrorist threats etc are not just a matter of mere paranoia. It would not be reasonable for the US to agree a simple and straightforward principle like never again wanting to know the contents of conversations of people outside the US. The US will have to insist that in situations of legitimate suspicion of plans for terrorist activities, surveillance activities will have to be conducted. Regardless of how the rules for handling that kind of exceptional situations would be designed precisely, if those rules meet both the requirements of international human rights law and the requirement of providing effective means of surveillance for suspected terrorists, those rules are not going to be totally simple and straightforward. Consequently, although certainly necessary, such rules are not going to help much in regard to rebuilding the trust that has been destroyed. I conclude that without trustworthy efforts to create effective technical protections of communications privacy, a “trusted global network” cannot be achieved in the post-Snowden world. Nota bene, I'm not advocating for trying to make surveillance totally impossible. What we IMO need in the post-Snowden world is 1) trustworthy end-to-end encryption of all non-public Internet communication content, 2) trustworthy protection of the software on the computers and other communication devices against remote compromise, 3) redesigned communication protocols which ensure that at no point in the communication channel between the endpoints, information about both communication endpoints is visible in unencrypted form, and 4) trustworthy anti-surveillance monitoring which would likely detect the problem in the case of a system compromise that results in significant quantities of communication channel endpoint information leaking out. When all of that has been achieved, surveillance of the communications content and communications metadata of specific persons will still be possible, but it'll be expensive enough that cost economics will force it to be limited to specific persons where there is significant reason to consider them a major threat. It is the human rights violating automated mass surveillance which must be brought to an end. Greetings, Norbert