From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Mon Jul  1 13:06:38 2013
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 13:06:38 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Flashmob in Sao Paulo for Marco Civil approval :-)
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAfKcmFmRW5oPKhm_deWyt+5pbt-YsEDDxjP3c5vcq7ofA@mail.gmail.com>

*Sorry for cross-posting:*

But this Wednesday, folks are organizing a FlashMob at MASP, Sao Paulo, in
support of Marco Civil.

More details if you are around:
https://www.facebook.com/events/539413272773506/

There will be short films showings on topics like Net Neutrality (see
video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIRnRhrpCDE&feature=youtu.be) and
speeches from Pedro Ekman (Intervozes), Renata Mielli (Barão de
Itararé), Sérgio
Amadeu (CGI) e Veridiana Alimonti (IDEC and CGI), Leonardo Sakamoto (Blog
do Sakamoto) and Renato Rovai (Revista Fórum).

Please, join the mob at twitter. Tag #MarcoCivil. And please, leave your
supporting comments at:

https://www.facebook.com/events/539413272773506/


Thank you,

-- 
*Carolina Rossini*
http://carolinarossini.net/
+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130701/07f320d6/attachment.htm>

From avri at acm.org  Tue Jul  9 07:58:05 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 13:58:05 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Questionnaire
References: <084c01ce7c87$9f70c4c0$de524e40$@ch>
Message-ID: <EF59CEBC-4CE2-41E1-B855-1DF9790B640B@acm.org>



Begin forwarded message:

> From: Peter Major <pmajor at BLUEWIN.CH>
> Subject: Questionnaire
> Date: 9 July 2013 11:35:17 GMT+02:00
> To: WGEC at LIST.UNICC.ORG
> Reply-To: UN CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation <WGEC at LIST.UNICC.ORG>
> 
> Dear WGEC Members,
>  
> I am pleased to inform you that our questionnaire has been posted on the CSTD websitehttp://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD.aspx. It can be filled out online or can be downloaded as PDF. The deadline for submission is 15 August 2013.
> In case you have comments, remarks or suggestions please send your mail to the Secretariat.
> I look forward to receiving many responses to our questionnaire and to continue our work based on the responses in our second meeting.
>  
> Best regards,
>  
> Peter
>                       

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130709/ee0d061d/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Tue Jul  9 11:09:02 2013
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina)
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 11:09:02 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Job Opening: Associate Director at CITP Princeton
References: <CAGeBMkd=msA3BPA_SPJRCYXiET8YX+Vutb8XY943NHUnnH=PZg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <19710F29-6DEE-4817-ACA7-919B9FFEFCB9@gmail.com>



Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Steve Schultze <sjschultze at gmail.com>
> Date: July 9, 2013, 9:49:42 AM EDT
> To: Berkman Friends <berkmanfriends at eon.law.harvard.edu>
> Subject: [berkmanfriends] Job Opening: Associate Director at CITP Princeton
> 
> Forward at will.
> 
> "Take Over My Dream Job: Associate Director at CITP"
> https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/sjs/take-over-my-dream-job-associate-director-at-citp/
> 
> ===
> The Center for Information Technology Policy is an interdisciplinary
> center at Princeton University. CITP is a nexus of expertise in
> technology, engineering, public policy, and the social sciences. In
> keeping with the strong University tradition of service, the Center's
> research, teaching, and events address digital technologies as they
> interact with society.
> 
> The Associate Director is the primary public face of CITP and plays a
> vital role in the management and direction of the Center, as the
> principal administrator for our core research, education and outreach
> both on campus and beyond. This individual develops, plans and
> executes the Center's lecture series, workshops and policy briefings;
> Recruits visiting researchers and policy experts, coordinating the
> selection and appointment process; Contributes to the Center's
> research initiatives; Promotes and supports the Center's undergraduate
> certificate offerings and other student programs; Develops the Center
> budget in collaboration with the Director and is responsible for the
> careful and appropriate management of Center funds; Edits the Center's
> research blog; Performs day-to-day Center operations; Cultivates high
> profile research collaborations and joint public events with other
> institutions; Manages public communications through the web site and
> print materials; Coordinates grant writing as appropriate.
> 
> More here: https://jobs.princeton.edu/applicants/jsp/shared/position/JobDetails_css.jsp?postingId=196665
> ===
> ----------
> You are subscribed to the BerkmanFriends discussion list.
> 
> Mailing list options: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/lists/info/berkmanfriends
> Mailing list members: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/lists/review/berkmanfriends
> 
> Reminder: emails sent through this list are considered on-record unless
> otherwise noted.
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130709/1b651525/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Tue Jul  9 11:23:00 2013
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina)
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 11:23:00 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: New Citizen Lab Report: Some Devices Wander by
 Mistake: Planet Blue Coat Redux
References: <CE7A2416-EC2A-424B-A237-2F26575F7137@citizenlab.org>
Message-ID: <3C512FF3-C3C6-406D-82CC-63699A812BB4@gmail.com>



Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Robert Guerra" <robert at citizenlab.org>
> Date: July 9, 2013, 10:19:10 AM EDT
> To: "Carolina Rossini" <carolina.rossini at gmail.com>
> Cc: Ronald Deibert <r.deibert at utoronto.ca>
> Subject: New Citizen Lab Report: Some Devices Wander by Mistake: Planet Blue Coat Redux
> Reply-To: r.deibert at utoronto.ca
> 
> Dear colleague, 
> 
> I am pleased to announce the latest Citizen Lab publication:
> 
> Some Devices Wander by Mistake: Planet Blue Coat Redux
> Morgan Marquis-Boire (project leader), Collin Anderson (lead technical research), Jakub Dalek (lead technical research), Sarah McKune (lead legal research), John Scott-Railton (lead legal research), Ron Deibert, Adam Senft, Matthew Carrieri, and Saad Khan.
> 
> In this report, our third on Blue Coat Systems, we use a combination of network measurement and scanning methods and tools to identify instances of Blue Coat ProxySG and PacketShaper devices. This kind of equipment can be used to secure and maintain networks, but it can also be used to implement politically-motivated restrictions on access to information, and monitor and record private communications.
> 
> We found Blue Coat devices on public networks of 83 countries (20 countries with both ProxySG and PacketShaper, 56 countries with PacketShaper only, and 7 countries with ProxySG only). Included in these countries are regimes with questionable human rights records, and three countries that are subject to US sanctions: Iran, Syria, and Sudan. 
> 
> Our findings raise questions around the sale of “dual-use” communication technologies to national jurisdictions where the implementation of such technology has not been publicly debated or shaped by the rule of law. The issues raised by this report go beyond one company and its products and services, and underscore the imperatives of addressing the global public policy implications of internationally-marketed communications infrastructure and services.
> 
> Alongside the publication of our report, we have sent a letter to representatives of Blue Coat and its major investor, the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan (OTPP), inquiring about their human rights due diligence processes, and commit to publishing in full their reply.
>  
> Read the full report [PDF]: https://citizenlab.org/storage/bluecoat/CitLab-PlanetBlueCoatRedux-FINAL.pdf
> 
> View the map: https://citizenlab.org/storage/bluecoat/fig1.jpg
> 
> Explore the data: http://goo.gl/EG7Oc
> 
> Read the Washington Post article; http://goo.gl/0BxtD
> 
> Email the Citizen Lab: info at citizenlab.org
> 
> Ronald Deibert
> Director, the Citizen Lab 
> and the Canada Centre for Global Security Studies
> Munk School of Global Affairs
> University of Toronto
> (416) 946-8916
> PGP: http://deibert.citizenlab.org/pubkey.txt
> http://deibert.citizenlab.org/
> twitter.com/citizenlab
> r.deibert at utoronto.ca
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130709/6ed250c4/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Wed Jul 10 16:54:07 2013
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina)
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 16:54:07 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] INVITE 7/16: Safeguarding Human Rights in Times of
 Surveillance
References: <1114107833155.1101890603586.172873.7.18163501@scheduler.constantcontact.com>
Message-ID: <4A30BD7C-2541-4594-B98B-F4915366F8AC@gmail.com>

Live webcast will be available. Join us! 
Sorry for cross posting.
Carol 

Carolina Rossini
Rossini at newamerica.net 
Project Director - Latin America Resource Center 
Open Technology Institute 
New America Foundation 

Begin forwarded message:

> From: New America Foundation <communications at newamerica.net>
> Date: July 10, 2013, 4:39:17 PM EDT
> To: carolina.rossini at gmail.com
> Subject: INVITE 7/16: Safeguarding Human Rights in Times of Surveillance
> Reply-To: communications at newamerica.net
> 
> 
>  Safeguarding Human Rights in Times of Surveillance   
>  
> Tuesday, July 16, 2013
> 2:00 -3:30 p.m.  
> 
> New America Foundation
> 1899 L St. NW Suite 400
> Washington DC, 20036
>   
> 
>  
>   
> The Open Technology Institute and Global Partners Present: Frank La Rue, U.N. Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression  
>  
> As Brazil formally asks the U.S. to explain how American surveillance programs harm Brazilians, and the European Parliament insists that this "serious violation" of its peoples' rights warrants an inquiry into state surveillance, the U.S. must confront its global human rights commitments to people beyond the purview of the U.S. Constitution.
>  
> The United States has increasingly played a leadership role in international internet human rights battles. A cross-regional statement that the U.S. signed on June 10 emphasized online security measures must be "consistent with states' obligations under international human rights law and full respect for human rights must be maintained." The tension between this stance and the recent surveillance revelations has created a moment, as a global society, to discuss and implement appropriate checks and balances for the protection of privacy and freedom of expression online. U.N. Special Rapporteur Frank la Rue offers an authoritative view on privacy and freedom of expression, setting global standards for international behavior.
>  
> Join us on July 16 for a conversation with Frank La Rue, who has developed landmark reports and guided the U.N. in taking a strong stand for human rights online. 
>   
> Agenda
>  
> Welcome Remarks
> Sascha Meinrath
> Director, Open Technology Institute and Vice President, New America Foundation
>  
> Featured Speaker
> Frank La Rue
> Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, United Nations
>  
> Moderator
> Gene Kimmelman
> Director, Internet Freedom and Human Rights Program, New America Foundation 
> Senior Associate, GP Digital
>  
> GP Digital is part of Global Partners & Associates, which works with governments, agencies and other organizations to improve the use of human rights frameworks in shaping public policy.
>  
> The Open Technology Institute is part of New America Foundation and formulates policy and regulatory reforms to support open architectures and open source innovations and facilitates the development and implementation of open technologies and communications networks.
>  
> To RSVP for the event, click on the red button or go to the event page:   
> http://newamerica.net/events/2013/human_rights_surveillance 
> 
> For questions, contact Stephanie Gunter at New America at (202) 596-3367 or gunter at newamerica.net.
>  www.NewAmerica.net 
>  
>   	
> This email was sent to carolina.rossini at gmail.com by communications at newamerica.net |  
> Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy.
> New America Foundation | 1899 L Street, NW | Suite 400 | Washington | DC | 20036
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130710/301163fb/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Thu Jul 11 09:52:21 2013
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 09:52:21 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] U.S. public opinion shifting in favor of civil liberties
 v national security
In-Reply-To: <CAEFsAsorjPZCAVbC55kdOebNTAT5+=2AJRmzoqcwA9PMbUssUw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEFsAsorjPZCAVbC55kdOebNTAT5+=2AJRmzoqcwA9PMbUssUw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAdNWvYzgY8Th5dLhr_SsGm=vbqGOBkj2yhOwpOV2-s7iw@mail.gmail.com>

*
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/10/public-opinion-shifts-on-security-liberty-balance/
*

Public Opinion Shifts on Security-Liberty BalanceBy NATE
SILVER<http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/author/nate-silver/>

A new Quinnipiac poll has found a significant shift in public
opinion<http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1919>
on
the trade-off between civil liberties and national security. In the new
survey, released on Wednesday, 45 percent of the public said they thought
the government’s antiterrorism policies have “gone too far in restricting
the average person’s civil liberties” — as compared with 40 percent who
said they have “not gone far enough to adequately protect the country.”


-- 
*Carolina Rossini*
http://carolinarossini.net/
+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130711/b65a7822/attachment.htm>

From mshears at cdt.org  Fri Jul 12 10:36:25 2013
From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears)
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 15:36:25 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] CDT webinar invitation: Global Citizens and the U.S.
 Security Surveillance Dragnet
In-Reply-To: <51E00ED5.4020509@cdt.org>
References: <51E00ED5.4020509@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <51E01469.3050904@cdt.org>




Apologies for cross-posting.

In case the links in the invitation do not work:

Please respond to ellanso at cdt.org if you wish to participate in the webinar

For CDT's NSA Surveillance Resource page please visit: 
https://www.cdt.org/content/nsa-surveillance

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







-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130712/dd827ff9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 110379 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130712/dd827ff9/attachment.png>

From joy at apc.org  Sun Jul 14 09:16:22 2013
From: joy at apc.org (joy)
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 01:16:22 +1200
Subject: [bestbits] Navi Pillay on Mass Surveillance
Message-ID: <51E2A4A6.50006@apc.org>


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
 
Hi - sharing this statement fyi
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/Media.aspx?IsMediaPage=true&LangID=E
Joy
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
 
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJR4qSmAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqZj0IALKqOfK4RCDgrnEsVsD4KGiz
mCtOVzbk8rSh74ygPx7+4Dd5+WBSURJf7HcJVGhVQnZnZJ+058w8MiJfJGamJiAM
zc0WHWaHv0GCdrondhIWY7IKsKhmLv76W0LkQPKEKGiRQ8azJQMs9ocPQ9x9w+23
04wghmVq4e42ZFRsGRFSSo6w33OIxF+uWJbvGvVyze0C8x9QOk7i9l9ACuyJRmsy
vhfcCNAbXluTB4xHIT8KpXnXvV6H7rcorrlkRwkXpR400iSBKuzylupAb917YPsC
Q6o/UpyX7lDqnmf5blwYLS/s4A3MWjlsBBRqkFqAeYs1H61JQSc4SWgZqL6X+DA=
=Zh9W
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


From jeremy at ciroap.org  Mon Jul 15 00:01:14 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 12:01:14 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] Re: Best Bits steering group
In-Reply-To: <51DA674C.5060305@ciroap.org>
References: <51DA674C.5060305@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <C4F9A5DD-9764-4B86-874C-5AA17509093B@ciroap.org>

On 08/07/13 15:16, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> Best Bits came into being as a very loose, grassroots coalition, and this has worked very well.  At the same time, it has now reached a point of maturity (and influence) where the benefits of institutionalising it a bit more strongly would probably outweigh the risks of doing so.
> 
> To this end, a few volunteers have come (or been prodded!) forward to serve as an initial steering group.  Since we don't already have a democratic procedure for selecting such a steering group, we haven't tried to invent one.  Rather, it will be the steering group itself that is responsible for recommending such a procedure for the rest of us to adopt.

Just to report back quickly that the first act of the interim steering group has been to co-opt two more members to join them, who will be someone from APC (to be confirmed), and Marianne Franklin.  This could continue, but we think that a small team of six, plus the two co-optees, will be sufficient for us to move towards establishing a more democratic selection process.

Meanwhile, here are some other points to bring you up to date (not exclusive):
Recently the Enhanced Cooperation Working Group has released its questionnaire.  We are going to be developing a draft joint response to this on the EC sub-list, and releasing it here when ready.  This should not prevent anyone from writing their own response!  See https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1zMI-GHo4Fv9pwAfmuTqFd-sd4zquvREfB4850NXhP7E/viewform?pli=1&hl=en.
Our annual meeting in Bali is coming together, with venue details to be revealed soon.  Although we already have a rough outline of the programme, it remains open to suggestions in light of more recent events, such as the PRISM surveillance scandal and the ITU's decision to keep the CWG-Internet closed.
Our two IGF workshops at which we will present the results of our annual meeting to the broader community of stakeholders were both accepted and all of the panelists are confirmed.  For the one that I'm coordinating, the panel consists of members of the CSTD Working Group, including members from other stakeholder groups viz. Baher Esmat from ICANN, Ellen Blackler from Disney and Alexandre Fontenelle from Brazil.
I am pursuing a lead which would provide travel funding and administrative support to Best Bits.  I have a phone call with the prospective funders today and will report back soon.  Meanwhile with the trickle of mainly in-kind support that we already have, work has slowly been progressing on upgrades to our website.  Enhancements to the shared calendar facility are now being tested and will be unveiled soon.
On the other hand it is unlikely that any travel funding will come through in time for the Asia-Pacific Regional IGF in September, so our proposed workshop at that event might not go ahead unless a sufficient number can make it, or another funding source comes forward.  Sorry about this.

-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130715/10c81316/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Mon Jul 15 10:47:14 2013
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 10:47:14 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] EPIC petition
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAcp1KNbwwCrdzy5gxBjfQ43-mV6QiZkvur9Kdto3j7jAg@mail.gmail.com>


From mshears at cdt.org  Wed Jul 17 06:40:12 2013
From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears)
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 11:40:12 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] REMINDER - CDT webinar invitation: Global Citizens and
 the U.S. Security Surveillance Dragnet
In-Reply-To: <51E00ED5.4020509@cdt.org>
References: <51E00ED5.4020509@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <51E6748C.9060906@cdt.org>




Apologies for cross-posting.

In case the links in the invitation do not work:

Please respond to ellanso at cdt.org if you wish to participate in the webinar

For CDT's NSA Surveillance Resource page please visit: 
https://www.cdt.org/content/nsa-surveillance

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







-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130717/c848376f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 110379 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130717/c848376f/attachment.png>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Mon Jul  1 15:14:32 2013
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 15:14:32 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: NSA
In-Reply-To: <1783108270.2064996146@nt.ntDB.mail.salsalabs.com>
References: <1783108270.2064996146@nt.ntDB.mail.salsalabs.com>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAdVV-yMsu6zSWSyogtbWC3MD0N8v46H41n61x+_1si0nQ@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Fight for the Future <info at fightforthefuture.org>
Date: Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 2:56 PM
Subject: NSA
To: carolina.rossini at gmail.com


 Dear IDL members--

Recent leaks show that the U.S. Government and the NSA have turned the
Internet into the most massive surveillance tool in history, constantly
monitoring and invading the privacy of people all over the world.

This July 4, as the U.S. celebrates its independence, we’re organizing a
huge online protest for privacy-- in support of actions on the ground in
cities around the country.

Click here to join thousands of websites that will protest on July 4th to
demand an end to NSA
spying.<http://nt.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=jYZ9L09BjR8DeLwkwy13dvp%2B3pj%2Focsf>

We just started outreach and we’ve already got EFF, Wordpress, 4chan,
Reddit, Namecheap, Imgur, Mozilla, Fark, TOR, BoingBoing, and Cheezburger
signed up to participate. This will be our largest IDL protest since SOPA.
We need you too!


<http://nt.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=wnPyjKv8XUkDeLwkwy13dvp%2B3pj%2Focsf>Millions
have already taken action, but it’s going to take more than just petition
signatures to stop the NSA from spying on the world’s Internet users. The
U.S. government wants to forget its own Constitution. We’re going to make
that completely impossible.

Grassroots Internet users have organized Restore the
Fourth<http://nt.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=pmDMWEwZBUUDeLwkwy13dvp%2B3pj%2Focsf>protests
on the ground all over the U.S. on the 4th of July. Building off
the energy of the
StopWatching.us<http://nt.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=wCpZYqhWQTIDeLwkwy13dvp%2B3pj%2Focsf>coalition
(which now has over 500,000 signers), and aiming to amplify the
protests on the ground, we’re raising the Internet Defense League’s “Cat
Signal” on July 4th, asking websites and organizations to show call out the
NSA by displaying the text of the 4th Amendment.

If you already have the IDL’s “all
campaigns<http://nt.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=1cAAyBmryTQGxo6Bera3zbyFHj8lUzME>”
code installed, you’re all set. The Cat Signal will be raised at midnight
on July 4th and will turn off at midnight on July 5th. We’ll send out
campaign specific code on Tuesday, for those who just want to participate
in this action, but what we need you to do right now is help spread the
word. We need to ramp this up and get everyone on board. If you have
Twitter or Facebook, click the link below, if not, please blog, share, call
your friends and tell them. This is going to be epic, so get everyone.

We need you on this one. Click here to join our Thunderclap and help make
this protest HUGE.<http://nt.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=PnSp0DcLQToDeLwkwy13dvp%2B3pj%2Focsf>

This is a watershed moment for our basic rights to free speech, freedom of
association, and privacy. What the NSA is doing is
illegal<http://nt.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=Do0Yk26561oDeLwkwy13dvp%2B3pj%2Focsf>,
even as we wrote this email, we learned more details about the real-time
eavesdropping abilities of
PRISM<http://nt.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=s7Y3SkRN1FYDeLwkwy13dvp%2B3pj%2Focsf>.
 We are at the moment where we decide if the government should have the
power to track, target, profile, and deem suspicious any one of us based on
our small everyday movements. The first in line are probably the
journalists we depend on, any of our friends or family who are even
slightly political. This is why privacy matters -- it does not allow the
government to unreasonably persecute anyone.

There’s many ways to fight the NSA. Click here to see all the ways that you
can participate on July 4th, online and in the
streets.<http://nt.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=OZEMn%2BU64QsDeLwkwy13dvp%2B3pj%2Focsf>

Given who we already have participating, this could be our biggest IDL
action yet. Will you join? We’re counting on you.

Sincerely,
Holmes and Tiffiniy
Internet Defense League

SOURCES:

1) The Guardian, “NSA collected U.S. email records in bulk for more than 2
years under Obama”<http://nt.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=CpZMxJP66%2BADeLwkwy13dvp%2B3pj%2Focsf>

<http://nt.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=pOSYCdIqc6wDeLwkwy13dvp%2B3pj%2Focsf>

2) Washington Post, “Here’s everything we know about how the NSA’s secret
programs work”<http://nt.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=bhE40L0ZdYMDeLwkwy13dvp%2B3pj%2Focsf>

<http://nt.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=ceukihQxxCsDeLwkwy13dvp%2B3pj%2Focsf>

3) Slate, “Obama Has Charged More Under Espionage Act Than All Other
Presidents Combined”<http://nt.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=Lxob6NqZY5UDeLwkwy13dvp%2B3pj%2Focsf>

<http://nt.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=mxP%2FTVEP730DeLwkwy13dvp%2B3pj%2Focsf>

4) Watch Glen Greenwald on Democracy Now as he proves that Dianne Feinstein
lied to the camera<http://nt.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=zT54bvmkP3sDeLwkwy13dvp%2B3pj%2Focsf>

<http://nt.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=fzTq0kR3LawDeLwkwy13dvp%2B3pj%2Focsf>5)
The Atlantic, “2 Senators Say the NSA is Still Feeding us False
Information”<http://nt.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=vJ%2F7Y7EZZdYDeLwkwy13dvp%2B3pj%2Focsf>



Click here to unsubscribe<http://nt.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=5UvqU8aRW9MGxo6Bera3zbyFHj8lUzME>
 **



-- 
*Carolina Rossini*
http://carolinarossini.net/
+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130701/e82dc456/attachment.htm>

From ben at witness.org  Wed Jul 17 15:08:18 2013
From: ben at witness.org (Ben Doernberg)
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 15:08:18 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Practical Impact of NSA/Surveillance on Human Rights
 Orgs
Message-ID: <CAB_JcHmmTfh2nBTvVGabUnpCvqjz1DWCzQg-RSxL8mLkoyk8Xw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

One topic that hasn't gotten enough public attention is the practical
impact of surveillance programs on human rights work. This is a subject
WITNESS is going to explore in a blog post next week, and I'm curious if
any of you are anticipating challenges in communicating and exchanging
information with each other and/or activists on the ground because of
concerns about surveillance by the NSA and its partners.

If there's an existing effort to document such impacts, or to communicate
this message to policymakers, please let me know!

Thanks,

Ben

-- 
Ben Doernberg
Program Associate - Citizen Journalism and Technology Advocacy
WITNESS
(718) 783-2000 x319
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130717/00750495/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Wed Jul 17 23:27:55 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 11:27:55 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: APrIGF Seoul 2013 Workshop Selection Result
References: <D520E1D0-EAC9-4D17-B7C3-69949815EFA3@aprigf.asia>
Message-ID: <3470A69D-189B-4305-874D-F4B1D03B3C3F@ciroap.org>

Can anyone who plans to go to Seoul for the APrIGF on 4-6 September, or who can make such plans without external funding assistance, please contact me as soon as possible?  We need to decide whether or not to go ahead with this workshop proposal, which has now been approved.

Thanks.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: APrIGF Secretariat <sec at aprigf.asia>
> Subject: APrIGF Seoul 2013 Workshop Selection Result
> Date: 16 July 2013 5:33:32 PM GMT+08:00
> To: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
> 
> Dear Jeremy,
> 
> We are happy to inform you that your workshop proposals titled: Internet Governance for Human Rights and Democracy is being accepted after the evaluation of the Program Committee.
> 
> The program draft will be posted shortly on the website. 
> 
> Please kindly finalize your workshop proposal by 5 Aug with the full list of speakers with the below information:
> - Email Contact 
> - Full Name & Title
> - Short biography & 1 Photo
> 
> Please also remind your speakers to arrange their accommodation early. You may book at the APrIGF rate online by Aug 5 otherwise the room availability will not be guaranteed: http://2013.rigf.asia/accommodation/
> 
> Should you need any visa assistance, please kindly refer to the information on our event website.
> 
> In case you have any enquires, please contact sec at aprigf.asia. 
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Yannis Li
> Secretariat of APrIGF
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Address: 12F, Daily House, 35-37 Haiphong Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, Hong Kong
> Tel: +852 5802 2500   ︳Fax: +852 5802 2502  ︳http://www.aprigf.asia
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130718/250fcd22/attachment.htm>

From shahzad at bytesforall.pk  Thu Jul 18 03:48:55 2013
From: shahzad at bytesforall.pk (Shahzad Ahmad)
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 12:48:55 +0500
Subject: [bestbits] Facebook's secret censorship deal with the Pakistan
 government
In-Reply-To: <CE0D8374.43613%shahzad@bytesforall.pk>
Message-ID: <CE0D9325.4365B%shahzad@bytesforall.pk>

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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130718/73f47133/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GNI-Facebook-Pakistan.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 430960 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130718/73f47133/attachment.pdf>

From shawna at apc.org  Thu Jul 18 13:28:27 2013
From: shawna at apc.org (Shawna Finnegan)
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 19:28:27 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Practical Impact of NSA/Surveillance on Human Rights
 Orgs
In-Reply-To: <CAB_JcHmmTfh2nBTvVGabUnpCvqjz1DWCzQg-RSxL8mLkoyk8Xw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAB_JcHmmTfh2nBTvVGabUnpCvqjz1DWCzQg-RSxL8mLkoyk8Xw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <51E825BB.2070908@apc.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi all,

I have been following this list for some time, but I don't think I
have introduced myself - I work with APC's Internet Rights programme.

Thanks for raising this point, Ben. I have also seen limited
discussion looking particularly at the impact NSA surveillance on
human rights defenders and activists.

Alfredo Lopez from May First/People Link has been writing about the
impact of PRISM surveillance on activists, and the importance of FLOSS
for activists to protect data:
http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/node/1842

APC wrote an issue paper on F/A online last year, which includes
discussion of the impact of surveillance on organising:
https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/freedom-peaceful-assembly-and-freedom-association

And there are of course activists in many countries, such as
Azerbaijan, who have felt the impact of government surveillance long
before PRISM, and who have adopted a number of strategies to protect
themselves:
http://www.genderit.org/articles/azerbaijan-when-online-security-synonymous-personal-safety

I am interested to read others' experiences, and personal practices
for avoiding surveillance. Did these recent revelations convince
anyone to abandon gmail, for example?

Cheers,

Shawna

On 13-07-17 09:08 PM, Ben Doernberg wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> One topic that hasn't gotten enough public attention is the
> practical impact of surveillance programs on human rights work.
> This is a subject WITNESS is going to explore in a blog post next
> week, and I'm curious if any of you are anticipating challenges in
> communicating and exchanging information with each other and/or
> activists on the ground because of concerns about surveillance by
> the NSA and its partners.
> 
> If there's an existing effort to document such impacts, or to
> communicate this message to policymakers, please let me know!
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ben
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQGcBAEBAgAGBQJR6CW7AAoJEHc+UzKH4N/1NScMANS1u/22qPnBhrf5JBChb8Bz
OPjHncFbB8AfKk3va07VZAwzYpPikLzW+19yxItZGaCasPm0KyeFATu86REcj7qn
fuogn8HsfMOzDJlXGozUeWQ01waogfIvq2LiTzcOWtLTdq6FdneEXSh0GaqbbMJ/
oKyCFGVLwPmkZi1g6KAPvTE6+DHsMYFSOiBMhLmhTKYOdndUNDz74ex+J4M0pNC0
lB7LjfyPWGyH5KxSuiby1r7o+t27CUqRWJmkdkTJyeC2J2orfeftO5vtf2TyFsX2
fkSksS9g4c0wRkhgFQlRIqCEnc+gI8LdanLWs+FWmBY+wQmO3cy4V1kSktKn0kGh
p0wJiopJFNhnE1KptNCDe94tXH8oFavy8YokInVRrEwdNOCudOSBwZKDLoyOWGhQ
fEJ8UhAsBj3KlCjF2wODEC2YZOn74zYixWcYcBftWInmQsBe6G+H3U83p6QqJmiA
PLoDw7XuSfFwNfQysfhu65NB/tNIMpJGO6RKRet8CQ==
=y4kK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Thu Jul 18 14:15:04 2013
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 14:15:04 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] video available - Frank La Rue at New America
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAeRrLgV+YCqFmVuS57XgwADS55jeYVmvpmb7bfZvX3DHA@mail.gmail.com>

http://www.newamerica.net/events/2013/human_rights_surveillance

Safeguarding Human Rights in Times of Surveillance
The Open Technology Institute and Global Partners Present: Frank La Rue,
U.N. Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression

-- 
*Carolina Rossini*
Project Director, Latin America Resource Center
New America Foundation
and
http://carolinarossini.net/
+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130718/0af91aaa/attachment.htm>

From joana at varonferraz.com  Thu Jul 18 19:21:04 2013
From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon)
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 00:21:04 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] WGEC questionnaire: doubt and suggestion
Message-ID: <CALTAiTpqkROKHWt_Q7h5Eo2+-fE131xjxGi_335WdpkFG9LL1w@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

I was talking with Marilia Maciel about the WGEC, particularly concerned
about which restrictions are set towards which institutions can answer the
questionnaire:
http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/2013_WGEC_Questionnaire.pdf

So this is just to confirm, perhaps with the participants of the WG, if
only organizations that are: WSIS accredited; ECOSOC accredited; ITU
accredited or those participating in the work of the CSTD (Pursuant to
ECOSOC Decisions 2011/237, 2011/238 or 2011/239) can participate. Or is it
open to anyone?

If so, I would suggest that any civil society organization that submit a
contribution could also post it's answers to the group here (as I don't
know if it is going to be public at the CSTD website). So we could compile
all the SC contributions and maybe even help the work of the WC. Just a
suggestion...
*
*
*Deadline for answers is Aug,15th *

all the best

joana

-- 

Joana Varon Ferraz
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) <http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/>
@joana_varon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130719/22f1ef81/attachment.htm>

From anriette at apc.org  Fri Jul 19 01:36:19 2013
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 07:36:19 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] WGEC questionnaire: doubt and suggestion
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTpqkROKHWt_Q7h5Eo2+-fE131xjxGi_335WdpkFG9LL1w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTpqkROKHWt_Q7h5Eo2+-fE131xjxGi_335WdpkFG9LL1w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <51E8D053.2060205@apc.org>

Dear Joana

I checked on this with Peter Major and he said that it is open to all.

But I have not seen this in writing yet - Peter had just had the news
when I spoke to him. He was, as chair, advocating for it to be open to all.

Anriette

On 19/07/2013 01:21, Joana Varon wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I was talking with Marilia Maciel about the WGEC, particularly concerned
> about which restrictions are set towards which institutions can answer the
> questionnaire:
> http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/2013_WGEC_Questionnaire.pdf
>
> So this is just to confirm, perhaps with the participants of the WG, if
> only organizations that are: WSIS accredited; ECOSOC accredited; ITU
> accredited or those participating in the work of the CSTD (Pursuant to
> ECOSOC Decisions 2011/237, 2011/238 or 2011/239) can participate. Or is it
> open to anyone?
>
> If so, I would suggest that any civil society organization that submit a
> contribution could also post it's answers to the group here (as I don't
> know if it is going to be public at the CSTD website). So we could compile
> all the SC contributions and maybe even help the work of the WC. Just a
> suggestion...
> *
> *
> *Deadline for answers is Aug,15th *
>
> 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 anja at internetdemocracy.in  Fri Jul 19 01:54:06 2013
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 11:24:06 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] WGEC questionnaire: doubt and suggestion
In-Reply-To: <51E8D053.2060205@apc.org>
References: <CALTAiTpqkROKHWt_Q7h5Eo2+-fE131xjxGi_335WdpkFG9LL1w@mail.gmail.com>
	<51E8D053.2060205@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHAq1KhU1FM2HAWLjkqkj=Mop5uwue1khGZJ-2YJCSVxrg@mail.gmail.com>

I think even those of us who do not fall within the limited categories
seemingly provided for by the WGEC for now should simply go ahead and
submit our contributions. It will be interesting to see what the WG will do
with them if the call hasn't been officially made open by then. And if the
WG indeed does not consider them, there are always other ways in which this
input could be made public and used.

Best,
Anja


On 19 July 2013 11:06, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:

> Dear Joana
>
> I checked on this with Peter Major and he said that it is open to all.
>
> But I have not seen this in writing yet - Peter had just had the news
> when I spoke to him. He was, as chair, advocating for it to be open to all.
>
> Anriette
>
> On 19/07/2013 01:21, Joana Varon wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I was talking with Marilia Maciel about the WGEC, particularly concerned
> > about which restrictions are set towards which institutions can answer
> the
> > questionnaire:
> >
> http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/2013_WGEC_Questionnaire.pdf
> >
> > So this is just to confirm, perhaps with the participants of the WG, if
> > only organizations that are: WSIS accredited; ECOSOC accredited; ITU
> > accredited or those participating in the work of the CSTD (Pursuant to
> > ECOSOC Decisions 2011/237, 2011/238 or 2011/239) can participate. Or is
> it
> > open to anyone?
> >
> > If so, I would suggest that any civil society organization that submit a
> > contribution could also post it's answers to the group here (as I don't
> > know if it is going to be public at the CSTD website). So we could
> compile
> > all the SC contributions and maybe even help the work of the WC. Just a
> > suggestion...
> > *
> > *
> > *Deadline for answers is Aug,15th *
> >
> > 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
>
>


-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130719/7b7bf196/attachment.htm>

From avri at ella.com  Fri Jul 19 02:37:11 2013
From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 08:37:11 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Re: WGEC questionnaire: doubt and suggestion
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTpqkROKHWt_Q7h5Eo2+-fE131xjxGi_335WdpkFG9LL1w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTpqkROKHWt_Q7h5Eo2+-fE131xjxGi_335WdpkFG9LL1w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A3B7FA95-1A1A-4B97-9CB2-0CFE12BEFF81@ella.com>

Hi,

While I was originally restricted, the restrictions have been removed and the current form is explicit about that.

The form includes the line:

"Other relevant entities involved in Internet related public policy issues are welcome to provide their input by filling out the questionnaire."


avri

On 19 Jul 2013, at 01:21, Joana Varon wrote:

> Dear all, 
> 
> I was talking with Marilia Maciel about the WGEC, particularly concerned about which restrictions are set towards which institutions can answer the questionnaire: http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/2013_WGEC_Questionnaire.pdf
> 
> So this is just to confirm, perhaps with the participants of the WG, if only organizations that are: WSIS accredited; ECOSOC accredited; ITU accredited or those participating in the work of the CSTD (Pursuant to ECOSOC Decisions 2011/237, 2011/238 or 2011/239) can participate. Or is it open to anyone? 
> 
> If so, I would suggest that any civil society organization that submit a contribution could also post it's answers to the group here (as I don't know if it is going to be public at the CSTD website). So we could compile all the SC contributions and maybe even help the work of the WC. Just a suggestion...
> 
> Deadline for answers is Aug,15th 
> 
> all the best
> 
> joana 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV)
> @joana_varon


From avri at acm.org  Fri Jul 19 03:09:38 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 09:09:38 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Re: WGEC questionnaire: doubt and suggestion
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTpqkROKHWt_Q7h5Eo2+-fE131xjxGi_335WdpkFG9LL1w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTpqkROKHWt_Q7h5Eo2+-fE131xjxGi_335WdpkFG9LL1w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0CD39BF5-7AD4-4636-91B0-B2349EC83232@acm.org>

Hi,

While it was originally restricted, the restrictions have been removed and the current form is explicit about that.

The new form includes the line:

"Other relevant entities involved in Internet related public policy issues are welcome to provide their input by filling out the questionnaire."


avri

On 19 Jul 2013, at 01:21, Joana Varon wrote:

> Dear all, 
> 
> I was talking with Marilia Maciel about the WGEC, particularly concerned about which restrictions are set towards which institutions can answer the questionnaire: http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/2013_WGEC_Questionnaire.pdf
> 
> So this is just to confirm, perhaps with the participants of the WG, if only organizations that are: WSIS accredited; ECOSOC accredited; ITU accredited or those participating in the work of the CSTD (Pursuant to ECOSOC Decisions 2011/237, 2011/238 or 2011/239) can participate. Or is it open to anyone? 
> 
> If so, I would suggest that any civil society organization that submit a contribution could also post it's answers to the group here (as I don't know if it is going to be public at the CSTD website). So we could compile all the SC contributions and maybe even help the work of the WC. Just a suggestion...
> 
> Deadline for answers is Aug,15th 
> 
> all the best
> 
> joana 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV)
> @joana_varon


From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Jul  2 02:33:45 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 12:03:45 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] =?UTF-8?Q?=22UN=E2=80=88must_step_in_to_stop_cyber_thr?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?eats=22?=
Message-ID: <51D27449.3050800@itforchange.net>


Below from an Indian newspaper.... 
http://www.deccanchronicle.com/130702/commentary-dc-comment/commentary/un%E2%80%88must-step-stop-cyber-threats 


Now that the chimera of the US as the unique upholder of Internet's 
values and people's rights on the Internet is so obviously 
exposed....... and we know that when US calls for a single unified 
global Internet, and its unique historic role in its governance (read, 
control), what really does it mean....

parminder


from the Deccan Chronicle


  UN must step in to stop cyber threats

DC | 2 hours 7 min ago


"This is not the Cold War anymore,” says an upset Germany. This was the 
mildest of rebukes thus far in the wake of the revelations about the 
American NSA courtesy Edward Snowden.
Spying has been taken into another dimension altogether and the present 
battle could well be called the “Great Cyber War”. The United States, 
caught spying, does not have a fig leaf of deniability.
This is not just Big Brother watching over its citizens, as portrayed in 
the landmark novel 1984. The US has crossed all limits and is now spying 
on its closest friends and thickest allies as well.
European Union nations have been forced to undertake security sweeps to 
ensure their computer systems are not being hacked into and their 
telephone conversations eavesdropped upon.
China, first typecast as the world’s original cyber bad boy, is 
mockingly pointing to its great rival across the seas to show the world 
there isn’t just one culprit in modern espionage. If all nations do not 
get together and sign a treaty to stop cyber espionage, things are only 
going to get worse for those who love privacy.
The United States’ spying on its allies takes the issue beyond the 
fundamental argument that the threat of terrorism overrides the tenets 
of privacy and justifies invasion of individual liberties. What the 
great National Security Agency spy programs of Maryland and Utah have 
been doing is to spy on governments, their trade, science, military and 
political secrets.
All explanations regarding PRISM and other programs studying only 
metadata, and not prying into individual interactions over the Internet 
and telephone, cut no ice with a world that is aghast at the temerity of 
the most powerful nation in a virtually unipolar world.
Much like Germany, India, too, protested so mildly that its voice was 
hardly heard when US secretary of state John Kerry came calling last 
week. So protective of his guest was our foreign minister, Salman 
Khurshid, that the media could not question the visiting dignitary on 
what his country’s real intentions are in setting up this elaborate 
$40-billion-plus spying apparatus that snoops on the world.
China came through far more aggressively in questioning the United 
States on all that the world has heard ever since a sub-contractor went 
on the lam and spilled the beans from Hong Kong with the help of WikiLeaks.
If clarity and transparency are the qualities most needed to cool 
tensions among nations and passions among privacy-seekers, what will 
really serve society is for the United Nations to pay serious attention 
to this crisis of confidence and come up with an action plan to mark 
cyber boundaries and make them as inviolable as possible by common consent.

***



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130702/819b7162/attachment.htm>

From joana at varonferraz.com  Fri Jul 19 10:17:12 2013
From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon)
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 15:17:12 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Re: WGEC questionnaire: doubt and suggestion
In-Reply-To: <0CD39BF5-7AD4-4636-91B0-B2349EC83232@acm.org>
References: <CALTAiTpqkROKHWt_Q7h5Eo2+-fE131xjxGi_335WdpkFG9LL1w@mail.gmail.com>
 <0CD39BF5-7AD4-4636-91B0-B2349EC83232@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CALTAiTpn-_wmhF1RTvcxGH07WoF5S4P4eJZu5Ojk-9ORk1v0=w@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you all for the clarifications.
Gonna give this follow up to our national scenario, as we have been having
some doubts about it.
all the best
joana


On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 8:09 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> While it was originally restricted, the restrictions have been removed and
> the current form is explicit about that.
>
> The new form includes the line:
>
> "Other relevant entities involved in Internet related public policy issues
> are welcome to provide their input by filling out the questionnaire."
>
>
> avri
>
> On 19 Jul 2013, at 01:21, Joana Varon wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I was talking with Marilia Maciel about the WGEC, particularly concerned
> about which restrictions are set towards which institutions can answer the
> questionnaire:
> http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/2013_WGEC_Questionnaire.pdf
> >
> > So this is just to confirm, perhaps with the participants of the WG, if
> only organizations that are: WSIS accredited; ECOSOC accredited; ITU
> accredited or those participating in the work of the CSTD (Pursuant to
> ECOSOC Decisions 2011/237, 2011/238 or 2011/239) can participate. Or is it
> open to anyone?
> >
> > If so, I would suggest that any civil society organization that submit a
> contribution could also post it's answers to the group here (as I don't
> know if it is going to be public at the CSTD website). So we could compile
> all the SC contributions and maybe even help the work of the WC. Just a
> suggestion...
> >
> > Deadline for answers is Aug,15th
> >
> > all the best
> >
> > joana
> >
> > --
> >
> > Joana Varon Ferraz
> > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV)
> > @joana_varon
>
>


-- 

-- 

Joana Varon Ferraz
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) <http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/>
@joana_varon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130719/13762864/attachment.htm>

From abrantly at ndi.org  Fri Jul 19 17:00:54 2013
From: abrantly at ndi.org (Aaron Brantly)
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 17:00:54 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Surveillance and Human Rights
Message-ID: <CAKQWhFy7bmgjAYqVUP_fS1n3MsKqc43y5yCrjF5626kaF-OR9A@mail.gmail.com>

Ben,

We are presenting a paper on the topic of the weaponization of cyberspace
and its adverse affects human rights at Citizen lab next week. The paper is
entitled: "Cyber Losers".

Once we have presented it. I will send you a copy. In the paper we created
a dataset of state cyber weapons capabilities across 10 countries and then
examined digital human rights violations in those countries across three
separate datasets. We hypothesized a correlation between weaponization and
digital human rights violations. The trends match indicating a relationship
between weaponization and the subsequent use of those tools on citizens
within countries.


Thanks,
Aaron

Aaron Brantly Ph.D. MPP

Senior Program Officer, ICT Team

National Democratic Institute

455 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Eighth Floor

Washington DC 20001

abrantly at ndi.org

www.demworks.org

www.ndi.org

202 725-3402 (Mob)
202 728-5414 (Off)

202 728-5523 (Fax)
abrantlyndi (Skype)
@abrantlyndi (Twitter)

Hi all,

One topic that hasn't gotten enough public attention is the practical
impact of surveillance programs on human rights work. This is a subject
WITNESS is going to explore in a blog post next week, and I'm curious if
any of you are anticipating challenges in communicating and exchanging
information with each other and/or activists on the ground because of
concerns about surveillance by the NSA and its partners.

If there's an existing effort to document such impacts, or to communicate
this message to policymakers, please let me know!

Thanks,

Ben

-- 
Ben Doernberg
Program Associate - Citizen Journalism and Technology Advocacy
WITNESS
(718) 783-2000 x319
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130719/6c94de52/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1229 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130719/6c94de52/attachment.jpg>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Sun Jul 21 10:48:47 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 22:48:47 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] Multistakeholder Preparatory Platform for WSIS+10
Message-ID: <0E4B79D6-1ED2-4FF1-9613-E9532E7ABD29@ciroap.org>

I haven't seen this mentioned here, perhaps because it's slightly off-topic because WSIS+10 is more ICT4D than IG, but it's perhaps worth passing along anyway.

For WSIS+10, there is now an open consultation process using a Multistakeholder Preparatory Platform designed on a similar model to the WTPF's IEG.  Its first physical meeting will be on 7-8 October in Geneva, and more details of the process are given here (no TIES account required):

http://www.itu.int/council/groups/wsis/docs/June-2013/WSIS10-MPP-Preparatory-Process.pdf

-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130721/c9e8f1a6/attachment.htm>

From Andrea.GLORIOSO at ec.europa.eu  Mon Jul 22 07:29:51 2013
From: Andrea.GLORIOSO at ec.europa.eu (Andrea.GLORIOSO at ec.europa.eu)
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:29:51 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] GIPO / call for expressions of interest / feasibility
 study for the Global Internet Policy Observatory
Message-ID: <0E54E4EA78DD6A40BC64BF9D0896005924CC04AE@S-DC-ESTJ02-J.net1.cec.eu.int>

[ Apologies if you receive this message more than once. Please feel free to distribute among your contacts ]


https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/global-internet-policy-observatory-call-expressions-interest

Global Internet Policy Observatory - call for expressions of interest for a feasibility study
In the context of the Global Internet Policy Observatory<https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/commission-plans-guide-through-global-internet-policy-labyrinth> (GIPO) initiative, the European Commission will launch soon a call for tenders for a service contract of a maximum value of EUR 50,000.

The purpose of this call for tenders is to develop a feasibility study which will provide:
*       an assessment of the technological requirements and available tools, to develop an online platform that would automatically collect and analyse information on Internet-related policy-making processes, as well as
*       a set of recommendations on the best "internal governance framework" for such platform in order to ensure the maximum levels of transparency, accountability, independence and inclusivity.

In addition, the successful contractor will be expected to provide:
*       an online website, accessible to the Commission's services and to any other party the Commission might wish to grant access to, which will be used by the Contractor to set-up "live" demonstration versions of a limited number of technological tools analysed.

The feasibility study is expected to last for a maximum duration of 4 months.
Interested economic operators can express their interest to participate in the call for tender until 2 September 2013, in writing, by sending an e-mail to:
*        CNECT-D1 at ec.europa.eu<mailto:CNECT-D1 at ec.europa.eu> and Andrea.Glorioso at ec.europa.eu<mailto:Andrea.Glorioso at ec.europa.eu>.

For clarity, the contracting authority will distribute the text of the call for tenders after 2 September 2013 and only to the economic operators which will have expressed their interest (as above) and to other economic operators as it deems appropriate, pursuant to the above-mentioned Rules of Application of the Financial Regulation.
For further information, please refer to http://ec.europa.eu/contracts_grants/index_en.htm.
 Processing your reply to the ex-ante advertisement will involve the recording and processing of personal data (such as your name and address). Such data will be processed pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data. Unless indicated otherwise, any personal data requested are required to register your interest to participate in the call for tender and will be processed solely for that purpose by the Data Controller. You are entitled to obtain access to your personal data on request and to rectify any such data that is inaccurate or incomplete. If you have any queries concerning the processing of your personal data, you may address them to the Data Controller. You have the right of recourse at any time to the European Data Protection Supervisor for matters relating to the processing of your personal data.
For the purpose of this ex-ante advertisement, the Data Controller shall be the Head of the Unit in charge of this call for tender:

Eddy Hartog, DG CONNECT, Unit D1

Any queries concerning the processing of personal data of the Candidate can be addressed by e-mail to the following contact person:

CNECT-DATA-PROTECTION-COORDINATOR at ec.europa.eu<mailto:CNECT-DATA-PROTECTION-COORDINATOR at ec.europa.eu>

by indicating the reference of the ex-ante advertisement.
This publication is made pursuant to Article 124.1 (b) of the Rules of Application of the Financial Regulation that provides for an ex ante publication on the Institutions' websites of contracts with a value up to 60.000 EUR.

Only the candidates invited by the contracting authority to participate in the procedure for awarding this low value contract will be admissible.

Best,

--
Andrea Glorioso (Mr)
European Commission - DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology
Unit D1 (International relations) + Task Force on Internet Policy Development
Avenue de Beaulieu 25 (4/64) / B-1049 / Brussels / Belgium
T: +32-2-29-97682 M: +32-460-797-682 E: Andrea.Glorioso at ec.europa.eu<mailto:Andrea.Glorioso at ec.europa.eu>
Twitter: @andreaglorioso
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro

The views expressed above are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission.
Les opinions exprimées ci-dessus n'engagent que leur auteur et ne sauraient en aucun cas être assimilées à une position officielle de la Commission européenne.

Be transparent - Sign up to the European Commission's Register of Interest Representatives http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regrin



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130722/90f8f48a/attachment.htm>

From ellanso at cdt.org  Tue Jul 23 21:08:18 2013
From: ellanso at cdt.org (Emma Llanso)
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 21:08:18 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Re: Call for comment: civil society letter to PCLOB re:
 human rights impacts of NSA surveillance of 'non-US persons'
Message-ID: <51EF2902.1080702@cdt.org>

Dear all,

As you may be aware, the US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board 
is accepting comments  commentary regarding the US government's 
surveillance programs under the PATRIOT Act and FISA.  (I've included 
some information about PCLOB below in case you're not familiar with this 
entity.)  I'd like to share with you a draft was put together by CDT, 
with feedback from a number of folks on this list, that focuses on the 
impact these programs have on the human rights of individuals outside 
the US: 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/17BWIev_DybbML3ObDCORkW83THrNGuJrHlV5sQLdYA0/edit?usp=sharing 


We feel that the draft text is at a point where it's ready to be 
shared with the broader Best Bits community for comment.  Please share 
any comments you have on the letter text with the whole list. (I will be 
traveling on Wednesday and so slow to respond to email.)  Ideally, we'd 
like to have a final draft of the letter text available to circulate 
during the day on Thursday, giving us about a week to solicit sign-on 
from as broad an array of groups as possible.  This is a very compressed 
timeframe, unfortunately, but the deadline for submitting comments is 
August 1st, so there is not much flexibility in the schedule.

The Best Bits interim steering committee has agreed to host the final 
letter text on the Best Bits website to facilitate sign-on once we've 
reached that point.

It's worth noting here that while a joint letter with broad 
international sign in is one way of getting the US government to 
consider the rights of non-US persons, so is flooding PCLOB with 
individual letters from international groups, so please feel free to 
adapt or build on to this letter and submit it separately. We 
intentionally did not make recommendations to PCLOB so as to garner 
broad sign on (more on that below), but individual letters are a good 
opportunity to make specific recommendations.

*Background on the letter:*
PCLOB will be preparing a report and is accepting comments 
<http://www.regulations.gov/#%21documentDetail;D=PCLOB-2013-0005-0001> 
(with no limitations on who can submit comments) until August 1st. As 
many of you know, it's been an uphill battle to get any attention on 
this critical issue of extraterritorial impacts of the US surveillance 
programs. PCLOB hosted an open hearing on the NSA program earlier in 
July, and there was unfortunately only a single reference to the human 
rights of people other than US citizens during the entire hearing.  We 
think this comment process is one of the better opportunities that 
groups from outside the US will have in making their opinions about the 
US surveillance activities heard.  I'd highly encourage organizations 
and individuals to make their own comments into this process, in 
addition to considering signing this letter.

As a final note, the letter intentionally does not lay out 
recommendations more specific than "take into consideration the human 
rights of individuals outside the US", for several reasons. First, it 
will likely be more difficult for a broad range of groups to sign onto 
something urging very specific legal or policy remedies.  Further, I 
wouldn't want to see a short, easily agreed set of recommendations (e.g. 
focusing on transparency) get interpreted to mean that those fixes are 
the only thing the US government needs to do to remedy the situation.  
Transparency is an important initial step, but it's far from the only 
action needed here (a point CDT will be emphasizing in our individual 
comments to PCLOB).  Again, I'd strongly recommend groups file 
individual comments as well, particularly if you have specific 
recommendations and actions for the Board.


Looking forward to your comments,
Emma


*PCLOB - WHAT IS IT?* - 
https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/privacy-and-civil-liberties-oversight-board

The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is an advisory body to 
assist the President and other senior Executive branch officials in 
ensuring that concerns with respect to privacy and civil liberties are 
appropriately considered in the implementation of all laws, regulations, 
and executive branch policies related to war against terrorism.

Recommended by the July 22, 2004, report of the National Commission on 
Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, the Privacy and Civil 
Liberties Oversight Board was established by the Intelligence Reform and 
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. It consists of five members appointed 
by and serving at the pleasure of the President. The Board is part of 
the White House Office within the Executive Office of the President and 
supported by an Executive Director and staff.

The Board advises the President and other senior executive branch 
officials to ensure that concerns with respect to privacy and civil 
liberties are appropriately considered in the implementation of all 
laws, regulations, and executive branch policies related to efforts to 
protect the Nation against terrorism. This includes advising on whether 
adequate guidelines, supervision, and oversight exist to protect these 
important legal rights of all Americans. In addition, the Board is 
specifically charged with responsibility for reviewing the terrorism 
information sharing practices of executive branch departments and 
agencies to determine whether guidelines designed to appropriately 
protect privacy and civil liberties are being followed, including those 
issued by the President on December 16, 2005. In the course of 
performing these functions within the executive branch, the Board seeks 
the views of private sector, non-profit and academic institutions, 
Members of Congress, and all other interested parties and individuals on 
these issues.

This agency has published 13 articles 
<https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/search?conditions%5Bagency_ids%5D%5B%5D=438&skip_results=1#advanced> 
since 1994.


-- 
Emma J. Llansó
Policy Counsel
Center for Democracy & Technology
1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20006
202-407-8818 | @cendemtech <https://twitter.com/#%21/CenDemTech> | 
@ellanso <https://twitter.com/#%21/ellanso>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130723/bc8bd925/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Jul 23 21:44:11 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 07:14:11 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: Call for comment: civil society letter to PCLOB
 re: human rights impacts of NSA surveillance of 'non-US persons'
In-Reply-To: <51EF2902.1080702@cdt.org>
References: <51EF2902.1080702@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <51EF316B.4030306@itforchange.net>


Generally a well written statement. However, it must be judged not only 
for what it says but also what it does not... The statement appeals to a 
US government agency to protect human rights of all citizens of the 
world, especially non US citizens, which is very well. It call for all 
security measures that the US  " must be subject to a strong legal 
framework" meaning here just a US legal framework.... I am not convinced 
that this constitutes an adequate remedy. All security measures should 
be subject to a strong global or international treaty/ legal framework 
as well.. That alone will work in an environment where we are all  
continually immersed in a (somewhat) globally seamless, or at least 
hyper-connected, digital space.

So, my specific question is, what stops us, as a global civil society 
group, from calling for a global/international legal framework to 
ensuring that all security related (and other) actions, of all states, 
including the US, are subject to a clear international regime based on 
human rights, and any such regime should have adequate enforcement 
capabilities.

Can we discuss this here...

While once in a while we as a global civil society group can make 
specific appeals to one government or the other, but I am unwilling to 
convert US government to be 'the' key duty bearer and appellate body for 
global justice. In doing this is a deeper politics, and that is my 
principal objection to this statement - not to what the statmement says, 
but what it does not. However, this problem can easily be addressed if 
the statement includes an appeal for global legal frameworks for the 
same purpose..... Are the framers of the statement willing to consider this?

Another unconnected point, I often see statements that are signed by 
various actors using the BestBits as a facilitating platform, without 
them being developed and signed on the behalf of the BestBits group/ 
coalition, then after being signed  propositioned as BestBits 
statements. Recently I saw such a reference in the press, about a 
statement that was never signed by the group as a whole being called as 
a BestBits statement. This proposed letter also refers to an earlier 
statement being of BestBits coalition whereas it was never signed by the 
group as a whole...

parminder



On Wednesday 24 July 2013 06:38 AM, Emma Llanso wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> As you may be aware, the US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight 
> Board is accepting comments  commentary regarding the US government's 
> surveillance programs under the PATRIOT Act and FISA.  (I've included 
> some information about PCLOB below in case you're not familiar with 
> this entity.)  I'd like to share with you a draft was put together by 
> CDT, with feedback from a number of folks on this list, that focuses 
> on the impact these programs have on the human rights of individuals 
> outside the US: 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/17BWIev_DybbML3ObDCORkW83THrNGuJrHlV5sQLdYA0/edit?usp=sharing 
>
>
> We feel that the draft text is at a point where it's ready to be 
> shared with the broader Best Bits community for comment.  Please share 
> any comments you have on the letter text with the whole list. (I will 
> be traveling on Wednesday and so slow to respond to email.)  Ideally, 
> we'd like to have a final draft of the letter text available to 
> circulate during the day on Thursday, giving us about a week to 
> solicit sign-on from as broad an array of groups as possible.  This is 
> a very compressed timeframe, unfortunately, but the deadline for 
> submitting comments is August 1st, so there is not much flexibility in 
> the schedule.
>
> The Best Bits interim steering committee has agreed to host the final 
> letter text on the Best Bits website to facilitate sign-on once we've 
> reached that point.
>
> It's worth noting here that while a joint letter with broad 
> international sign in is one way of getting the US government to 
> consider the rights of non-US persons, so is flooding PCLOB with 
> individual letters from international groups, so please feel free to 
> adapt or build on to this letter and submit it separately. We 
> intentionally did not make recommendations to PCLOB so as to garner 
> broad sign on (more on that below), but individual letters are a good 
> opportunity to make specific recommendations.
>
> *Background on the letter:*
> PCLOB will be preparing a report and is accepting comments 
> <http://www.regulations.gov/#%21documentDetail;D=PCLOB-2013-0005-0001> 
> (with no limitations on who can submit comments) until August 1st. As 
> many of you know, it's been an uphill battle to get any attention on 
> this critical issue of extraterritorial impacts of the US surveillance 
> programs. PCLOB hosted an open hearing on the NSA program earlier in 
> July, and there was unfortunately only a single reference to the human 
> rights of people other than US citizens during the entire hearing.  We 
> think this comment process is one of the better opportunities that 
> groups from outside the US will have in making their opinions about 
> the US surveillance activities heard.  I'd highly encourage 
> organizations and individuals to make their own comments into this 
> process, in addition to considering signing this letter.
>
> As a final note, the letter intentionally does not lay out 
> recommendations more specific than "take into consideration the human 
> rights of individuals outside the US", for several reasons.  First, it 
> will likely be more difficult for a broad range of groups to sign onto 
> something urging very specific legal or policy remedies.  Further, I 
> wouldn't want to see a short, easily agreed set of recommendations 
> (e.g. focusing on transparency) get interpreted to mean that those 
> fixes are the only thing the US government needs to do to remedy the 
> situation.  Transparency is an important initial step, but it's far 
> from the only action needed here (a point CDT will be emphasizing in 
> our individual comments to PCLOB).  Again, I'd strongly recommend 
> groups file individual comments as well, particularly if you have 
> specific recommendations and actions for the Board.
>
>
> Looking forward to your comments,
> Emma
>
>
> *PCLOB - WHAT IS IT?* - 
> https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/privacy-and-civil-liberties-oversight-board
>
> The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is an advisory body to 
> assist the President and other senior Executive branch officials in 
> ensuring that concerns with respect to privacy and civil liberties are 
> appropriately considered in the implementation of all laws, 
> regulations, and executive branch policies related to war against 
> terrorism.
>
> Recommended by the July 22, 2004, report of the National Commission on 
> Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, the Privacy and Civil 
> Liberties Oversight Board was established by the Intelligence Reform 
> and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. It consists of five members 
> appointed by and serving at the pleasure of the President. The Board 
> is part of the White House Office within the Executive Office of the 
> President and supported by an Executive Director and staff.
>
> The Board advises the President and other senior executive branch 
> officials to ensure that concerns with respect to privacy and civil 
> liberties are appropriately considered in the implementation of all 
> laws, regulations, and executive branch policies related to efforts to 
> protect the Nation against terrorism. This includes advising on 
> whether adequate guidelines, supervision, and oversight exist to 
> protect these important legal rights of all Americans. In addition, 
> the Board is specifically charged with responsibility for reviewing 
> the terrorism information sharing practices of executive branch 
> departments and agencies to determine whether guidelines designed to 
> appropriately protect privacy and civil liberties are being followed, 
> including those issued by the President on December 16, 2005. In the 
> course of performing these functions within the executive branch, the 
> Board seeks the views of private sector, non-profit and academic 
> institutions, Members of Congress, and all other interested parties 
> and individuals on these issues.
>
> This agency has published 13 articles 
> <https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/search?conditions%5Bagency_ids%5D%5B%5D=438&skip_results=1#advanced> 
> since 1994.
>
>
> -- 
> Emma J. Llansó
> Policy Counsel
> Center for Democracy & Technology
> 1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100
> Washington, DC 20006
> 202-407-8818 | @cendemtech <https://twitter.com/#%21/CenDemTech> | 
> @ellanso <https://twitter.com/#%21/ellanso>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130724/779bbbbb/attachment.htm>

From genekimmelman at gmail.com  Tue Jul 23 22:04:54 2013
From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman)
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 22:04:54 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Re: Call for comment: civil society letter to PCLOB
 re: human rights impacts of NSA surveillance of 'non-US persons'
In-Reply-To: <51EF316B.4030306@itforchange.net>
References: <51EF2902.1080702@cdt.org> <51EF316B.4030306@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <94BC60FF-AF14-46B8-B16D-6B6D01C40522@gmail.com>

I think Parminder raises some very important points.  I'd like to offer a quick observation and await other input:

1.  The question about how to refer to previous statements generated through some subgroup of BestBits is very legitimate; we may need a more precise description of the letter referred to and who the signatories were.  We still need to discuss at the next BestBits gathering what our rules of engagement and governance should be.

2.  I fully support the idea of initiating a discussion of what type of global legal framework (or maybe normative framework) we should be galvanizing around.  Maybe even a simple call for the UN to engage a  discussion with all stakeholders fully represented, to consider how best to enforce human rights charters and principles, would be a path forward?  Maybe others have a better suggestion, but I wouldn't want the "perfect" to stand in the way of the "good enough" for the purpose of registering broad CSO interest in a global discussion and global policy engagement.

3.  Whether or not we can all agree on something related to the global legal framework, I also urge everyone to be pragmatic about the opportunity to register your views with the US-base PCLOB.  This is of course only one small piece of the legal struggle, but it is very important from a US NGO standpoint to expand the US debate beyond US citizens or residents.  The US needs global input to wake it up to its broader obligations.  This may  not be enough to change policy, but it is a critical enhancement to the US-based NGO advocacy that could have some impact on the US government.  So even if this is a flawed, partial solution, and should be connected to something related to broader global solution, I believe it could influence US policymakers.
On Jul 23, 2013, at 9:44 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> 
> Generally a well written statement. However, it must be judged not only for what it says but also what it does not... The statement appeals to a US government agency to protect human rights of all citizens of the world, especially non US citizens, which is very well. It call for all security measures that the US  " must be subject to a strong legal framework" meaning here just a US legal framework.... I am not convinced that this constitutes an adequate remedy. All security measures should be subject to a strong global or international treaty/ legal framework as well.. That alone will work in an environment where we are all  continually immersed in a (somewhat) globally seamless, or at least hyper-connected, digital space. 
> 
> So, my specific question is, what stops us, as a global civil society group, from calling for a global/international legal framework to ensuring that all security related (and other) actions, of all states, including the US, are subject to a clear international regime based on human rights, and any such regime should have adequate enforcement capabilities. 
> 
> Can we discuss this here...
> 
> While once in a while we as a global civil society group can make specific appeals to one government or the other, but I am unwilling to convert US government to be 'the' key duty bearer and appellate body for global justice. In doing this is a deeper politics, and that is my principal objection to this statement - not to what the statmement says, but what it does not. However, this problem can easily be addressed if the statement includes an appeal for global legal frameworks for the same purpose..... Are the framers of the statement willing to consider this?
> 
> Another unconnected point, I often see statements that are signed by various actors using the BestBits as a facilitating platform, without them being developed and signed on the behalf of the BestBits group/ coalition, then after being signed  propositioned as BestBits statements. Recently I saw such a reference in the press, about a statement that was never signed by the group as a whole being called as a BestBits statement. This proposed letter also refers to an earlier statement being of BestBits coalition whereas it was never signed by the group as a whole...
> 
> parminder 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 06:38 AM, Emma Llanso wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> As you may be aware, the US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is accepting comments  commentary regarding the US government's surveillance programs under the PATRIOT Act and FISA.  (I've included some information about PCLOB below in case you're not familiar with this entity.)  I'd like to share with you a draft was put together by CDT, with feedback from a number of folks on this list, that focuses on the impact these programs have on the human rights of individuals outside the US: https://docs.google.com/document/d/17BWIev_DybbML3ObDCORkW83THrNGuJrHlV5sQLdYA0/edit?usp=sharing 
>> 
>> We feel that the draft text is at a point where it's ready to be shared with the broader Best Bits community for comment.  Please share any comments you have on the letter text with the whole list. (I will be traveling on Wednesday and so slow to respond to email.)  Ideally, we'd like to have a final draft of the letter text available to circulate during the day on Thursday, giving us about a week to solicit sign-on from as broad an array of groups as possible.  This is a very compressed timeframe, unfortunately, but the deadline for submitting comments is August 1st, so there is not much flexibility in the schedule.
>> 
>> The Best Bits interim steering committee has agreed to host the final letter text on the Best Bits website to facilitate sign-on once we've reached that point.   
>> 
>> It's worth noting here that while a joint letter with broad international sign in is one way of getting the US government to consider the rights of non-US persons, so is flooding PCLOB with individual letters from international groups, so please feel free to adapt or build on to this letter and submit it separately. We intentionally did not make recommendations to PCLOB so as to garner broad sign on (more on that below), but individual letters are a good opportunity to make specific recommendations.
>> 
>> Background on the letter:
>> PCLOB will be preparing a report and is accepting comments (with no limitations on who can submit comments) until August 1st. As many of you know, it's been an uphill battle to get any attention on this critical issue of extraterritorial impacts of the US surveillance programs. PCLOB hosted an open hearing on the NSA program earlier in July, and there was unfortunately only a single reference to the human rights of people other than US citizens during the entire hearing.  We think this comment process is one of the better opportunities that groups from outside the US will have in making their opinions about the US surveillance activities heard.  I'd highly encourage organizations and individuals to make their own comments into this process, in addition to considering signing this letter.
>> 
>> As a final note, the letter intentionally does not lay out recommendations more specific than "take into consideration the human rights of individuals outside the US", for several reasons.  First, it will likely be more difficult for a broad range of groups to sign onto something urging very specific legal or policy remedies.  Further, I wouldn't want to see a short, easily agreed set of recommendations (e.g. focusing on transparency) get interpreted to mean that those fixes are the only thing the US government needs to do to remedy the situation.  Transparency is an important initial step, but it's far from the only action needed here (a point CDT will be emphasizing in our individual comments to PCLOB).  Again, I'd strongly recommend groups file individual comments as well, particularly if you have specific recommendations and actions for the Board.
>> 
>> 
>> Looking forward to your comments,
>> Emma
>> 
>> 
>> PCLOB - WHAT IS IT? - https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/privacy-and-civil-liberties-oversight-board
>>         
>> The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is an advisory body to assist the President and other senior Executive branch officials in ensuring that concerns with respect to privacy and civil liberties are appropriately considered in the implementation of all laws, regulations, and executive branch policies related to war against terrorism. 
>>         
>> Recommended by the July 22, 2004, report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board was established by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. It consists of five members appointed by and serving at the pleasure of the President. The Board is part of the White House Office within the Executive Office of the President and supported by an Executive Director and staff. 
>> 
>> The Board advises the President and other senior executive branch officials to ensure that concerns with respect to privacy and civil liberties are appropriately considered in the implementation of all laws, regulations, and executive branch policies related to efforts to protect the Nation against terrorism. This includes advising on whether adequate guidelines, supervision, and oversight exist to protect these important legal rights of all Americans. In addition, the Board is specifically charged with responsibility for reviewing the terrorism information sharing practices of executive branch departments and agencies to determine whether guidelines designed to appropriately protect privacy and civil liberties are being followed, including those issued by the President on December 16, 2005. In the course of performing these functions within the executive branch, the Board seeks the views of private sector, non-profit and academic institutions, Members of Congress, and all other interested parties and individuals on these issues.
>> 
>> This agency has published 13 articles since 1994.
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130723/d1ec3a18/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Tue Jul 23 22:39:56 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 10:39:56 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] Re: Call for comment: civil society letter to PCLOB
 re: human rights impacts of NSA surveillance of 'non-US persons'
In-Reply-To: <51EF316B.4030306@itforchange.net>
References: <51EF2902.1080702@cdt.org> <51EF316B.4030306@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <51EF3E7C.3000106@ciroap.org>

On 24/07/13 09:44, parminder wrote:
> However, this problem can easily be addressed if the statement
> includes an appeal for global legal frameworks for the same
> purpose..... Are the framers of the statement willing to consider this?

As you know, I am firmly in favour of this as an objective, and it's
part of what we're working through on the EC list (to be communicated
back to this main list once we have reached a stable point in the
discussion).  But it may be premature for us to call on the US to submit
to such a global legal framework before we ourselves have a firm
proposal in this regard.  So I would advocate keeping our ammunition
dry, ie. leaving it out of the letter for now, and coming out strongly
on this once we can make a good and broadly-agreed case for it.

> Another unconnected point, I often see statements that are signed by
> various actors using the BestBits as a facilitating platform, without
> them being developed and signed on the behalf of the BestBits group/
> coalition, then after being signed  propositioned as BestBits
> statements. Recently I saw such a reference in the press, about a
> statement that was never signed by the group as a whole being called
> as a BestBits statement. This proposed letter also refers to an
> earlier statement being of BestBits coalition whereas it was never
> signed by the group as a whole...

In Bali we did achieve unanimous endorsement of the group's outputs,
which honestly to me came as a (pleasant) surprise, as I had expected
that there would be some outlying views that could not be accommodated. 
Since then we have not aspired to achieve 100% sign-on before releasing
statements.  I feel that this will probably be the norm, and that there
is nothing wrong with that.

But I agree there should be particular form of words used to distinguish
between statements/letters that all Best Bits participants have accepted
unanimously, and those that have been endorsed only by a self-selected
group of participants.  How about calling the former a statement "of the
Best Bits coalition" and the latter a "statement of civil society
stakeholders disseminated through the Best Bits platform" - or is that
too wordy/inexact?

-- 

*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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130724/82b21328/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 261 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130724/82b21328/attachment.sig>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Jul 24 03:27:17 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 12:57:17 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: Call for comment: civil society letter to PCLOB
 re: human rights impacts of NSA surveillance of 'non-US persons'
In-Reply-To: <94BC60FF-AF14-46B8-B16D-6B6D01C40522@gmail.com>
References: <51EF2902.1080702@cdt.org> <51EF316B.4030306@itforchange.net> <94BC60FF-AF14-46B8-B16D-6B6D01C40522@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <51EF81D5.9090802@itforchange.net>


Thanks to Gene and Jeremy for their responses..

However, I see no argument here why the letter cannot ask US to also 
engage in developing global norms and agreements with regard to 
safeguards against invasion of privacy in name of security, and then 
adhering to these norms/ agreements. After all, US is a prime party to 
be appealed to if we are to move towards such global norms/ agreements, 
and it remains my firm belief that this thing can really be addressed 
only through global arrangements,

(Also, shouldnt US groups and US citizens also be concerned about 
invasion of their privacy by non US government agents.:

About Jeremy's arugment against seeking 'global legal frameworks' being 
that we ourselves are yet to propose anything concrete, does the 
proposed letter not ask the US government to develop new 'strong legal 
frameworks' without actually suggesting their precise forms.. Why cant 
we do the same for the global level even when we yet dont have our 
concrete institutional proposals ready (would we ever be :) )... At the 
domestic level of US gov, the letter simply asserts the need, at the 
principles level, of privacy protection through 'strong legal 
framework'. We can ask the same for the global system, at the level of 
principles.... Unless of course there is a difference of opinion here 
about the principle of a global framework itself, in which case it is 
precisely my point to discus it openly...

parminder



On Wednesday 24 July 2013 07:34 AM, Gene Kimmelman wrote:
> I think Parminder raises some very important points.  I'd like to 
> offer a quick observation and await other input:
>
> 1.  The question about how to refer to previous statements generated 
> through some subgroup of BestBits is very legitimate; we may need a 
> more precise description of the letter referred to and who the 
> signatories were.  We still need to discuss at the next BestBits 
> gathering what our rules of engagement and governance should be.
>
> 2.  I fully support the idea of initiating a discussion of what type 
> of global legal framework (or maybe normative framework) we should be 
> galvanizing around.  Maybe even a simple call for the UN to engage a 
>  discussion with all stakeholders fully represented, to consider how 
> best to enforce human rights charters and principles, would be a path 
> forward?  Maybe others have a better suggestion, but I wouldn't want 
> the "perfect" to stand in the way of the "good enough" for the purpose 
> of registering broad CSO interest in a global discussion and global 
> policy engagement.
>
> 3.  Whether or not we can all agree on something related to the global 
> legal framework, I also urge everyone to be pragmatic about the 
> opportunity to register your views with the US-base PCLOB.  This is of 
> course only one small piece of the legal struggle, but it is very 
> important from a US NGO standpoint to expand the US debate beyond US 
> citizens or residents.  The US needs global input to wake it up to its 
> broader obligations.  This may  not be enough to change policy, but it 
> is a critical enhancement to the US-based NGO advocacy that could have 
> some impact on the US government.  So even if this is a flawed, 
> partial solution, and should be connected to something related to 
> broader global solution, I believe it could influence US policymakers.
> On Jul 23, 2013, at 9:44 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>>
>> Generally a well written statement. However, it must be judged not 
>> only for what it says but also what it does not... The statement 
>> appeals to a US government agency to protect human rights of all 
>> citizens of the world, especially non US citizens, which is very 
>> well. It call for all security measures that the US  " must be 
>> subject to a strong legal framework" meaning here just a US legal 
>> framework.... I am not convinced that this constitutes an adequate 
>> remedy. All security measures should be subject to a strong global or 
>> international treaty/ legal framework as well.. That alone will work 
>> in an environment where we are all continually immersed in a 
>> (somewhat) globally seamless, or at least hyper-connected, digital 
>> space.
>>
>> So, my specific question is, what stops us, as a global civil society 
>> group, from calling for a global/international legal framework to 
>> ensuring that all security related (and other) actions, of all 
>> states, including the US, are subject to a clear international regime 
>> based on human rights, and any such regime should have adequate 
>> enforcement capabilities.
>>
>> Can we discuss this here...
>>
>> While once in a while we as a global civil society group can make 
>> specific appeals to one government or the other, but I am unwilling 
>> to convert US government to be 'the' key duty bearer and appellate 
>> body for global justice. In doing this is a deeper politics, and that 
>> is my principal objection to this statement - not to what the 
>> statmement says, but what it does not. However, this problem can 
>> easily be addressed if the statement includes an appeal for global 
>> legal frameworks for the same purpose..... Are the framers of the 
>> statement willing to consider this?
>>
>> Another unconnected point, I often see statements that are signed by 
>> various actors using the BestBits as a facilitating platform, without 
>> them being developed and signed on the behalf of the BestBits group/ 
>> coalition, then after being signed  propositioned as BestBits 
>> statements. Recently I saw such a reference in the press, about a 
>> statement that was never signed by the group as a whole being called 
>> as a BestBits statement. This proposed letter also refers to an 
>> earlier statement being of BestBits coalition whereas it was never 
>> signed by the group as a whole...
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 06:38 AM, Emma Llanso wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> As you may be aware, the US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight 
>>> Board is accepting comments commentary regarding the US government's 
>>> surveillance programs under the PATRIOT Act and FISA.  (I've 
>>> included some information about PCLOB below in case you're not 
>>> familiar with this entity.)  I'd like to share with you a draft was 
>>> put together by CDT, with feedback from a number of folks on this 
>>> list, that focuses on the impact these programs have on the human 
>>> rights of individuals outside the US: 
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/17BWIev_DybbML3ObDCORkW83THrNGuJrHlV5sQLdYA0/edit?usp=sharing 
>>>
>>>
>>> We feel that the draft text is at a point where it's ready to be 
>>> shared with the broader Best Bits community for comment.  Please 
>>> share any comments you have on the letter text with the whole list. 
>>> (I will be traveling on Wednesday and so slow to respond to email.)  
>>> Ideally, we'd like to have a final draft of the letter text 
>>> available to circulate during the day on Thursday, giving us about a 
>>> week to solicit sign-on from as broad an array of groups as 
>>> possible.  This is a very compressed timeframe, unfortunately, but 
>>> the deadline for submitting comments is August 1st, so there is not 
>>> much flexibility in the schedule.
>>>
>>> The Best Bits interim steering committee has agreed to host the 
>>> final letter text on the Best Bits website to facilitate sign-on 
>>> once we've reached that point.
>>>
>>> It's worth noting here that while a joint letter with broad 
>>> international sign in is one way of getting the US government to 
>>> consider the rights of non-US persons, so is flooding PCLOB with 
>>> individual letters from international groups, so please feel free to 
>>> adapt or build on to this letter and submit it separately. We 
>>> intentionally did not make recommendations to PCLOB so as to garner 
>>> broad sign on (more on that below), but individual letters are a 
>>> good opportunity to make specific recommendations.
>>>
>>> *Background on the letter:*
>>> PCLOB will be preparing a report and is accepting comments 
>>> <http://www.regulations.gov/#%21documentDetail;D=PCLOB-2013-0005-0001> 
>>> (with no limitations on who can submit comments) until August 1st. 
>>> As many of you know, it's been an uphill battle to get any attention 
>>> on this critical issue of extraterritorial impacts of the US 
>>> surveillance programs. PCLOB hosted an open hearing on the NSA 
>>> program earlier in July, and there was unfortunately only a single 
>>> reference to the human rights of people other than US citizens 
>>> during the entire hearing.  We think this comment process is one of 
>>> the better opportunities that groups from outside the US will have 
>>> in making their opinions about the US surveillance activities 
>>> heard.  I'd highly encourage organizations and individuals to make 
>>> their own comments into this process, in addition to considering 
>>> signing this letter.
>>>
>>> As a final note, the letter intentionally does not lay out 
>>> recommendations more specific than "take into consideration the 
>>> human rights of individuals outside the US", for several reasons.  
>>> First, it will likely be more difficult for a broad range of groups 
>>> to sign onto something urging very specific legal or policy 
>>> remedies.  Further, I wouldn't want to see a short, easily agreed 
>>> set of recommendations (e.g. focusing on transparency) get 
>>> interpreted to mean that those fixes are the only thing the US 
>>> government needs to do to remedy the situation.  Transparency is an 
>>> important initial step, but it's far from the only action needed 
>>> here (a point CDT will be emphasizing in our individual comments to 
>>> PCLOB).  Again, I'd strongly recommend groups file individual 
>>> comments as well, particularly if you have specific recommendations 
>>> and actions for the Board.
>>>
>>>
>>> Looking forward to your comments,
>>> Emma
>>>
>>>
>>> *PCLOB - WHAT IS IT?* - 
>>> https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/privacy-and-civil-liberties-oversight-board
>>>
>>> The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is an advisory body 
>>> to assist the President and other senior Executive branch officials 
>>> in ensuring that concerns with respect to privacy and civil 
>>> liberties are appropriately considered in the implementation of all 
>>> laws, regulations, and executive branch policies related to war 
>>> against terrorism.
>>>
>>> Recommended by the July 22, 2004, report of the National Commission 
>>> on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, the Privacy and Civil 
>>> Liberties Oversight Board was established by the Intelligence Reform 
>>> and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. It consists of five members 
>>> appointed by and serving at the pleasure of the President. The Board 
>>> is part of the White House Office within the Executive Office of the 
>>> President and supported by an Executive Director and staff.
>>>
>>> The Board advises the President and other senior executive branch 
>>> officials to ensure that concerns with respect to privacy and civil 
>>> liberties are appropriately considered in the implementation of all 
>>> laws, regulations, and executive branch policies related to efforts 
>>> to protect the Nation against terrorism. This includes advising on 
>>> whether adequate guidelines, supervision, and oversight exist to 
>>> protect these important legal rights of all Americans. In addition, 
>>> the Board is specifically charged with responsibility for reviewing 
>>> the terrorism information sharing practices of executive branch 
>>> departments and agencies to determine whether guidelines designed to 
>>> appropriately protect privacy and civil liberties are being 
>>> followed, including those issued by the President on December 16, 
>>> 2005. In the course of performing these functions within the 
>>> executive branch, the Board seeks the views of private sector, 
>>> non-profit and academic institutions, Members of Congress, and all 
>>> other interested parties and individuals on these issues.
>>>
>>> This agency has published 13 articles 
>>> <https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/search?conditions%5Bagency_ids%5D%5B%5D=438&skip_results=1#advanced> 
>>> since 1994.
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Emma J. Llansó
>>> Policy Counsel
>>> Center for Democracy & Technology
>>> 1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100
>>> Washington, DC 20006
>>> 202-407-8818 | @cendemtech <https://twitter.com/#%21/CenDemTech> | 
>>> @ellanso <https://twitter.com/#%21/ellanso>
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130724/04da6ed2/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Wed Jul 24 06:37:54 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 18:37:54 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] Re: Call for comment: civil society letter to PCLOB
 re: human rights impacts of NSA surveillance of 'non-US persons'
In-Reply-To: <51EF81D5.9090802@itforchange.net>
References: <51EF2902.1080702@cdt.org> <51EF316B.4030306@itforchange.net> <94BC60FF-AF14-46B8-B16D-6B6D01C40522@gmail.com> <51EF81D5.9090802@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <51EFAE82.2080306@ciroap.org>

On 24/07/13 15:27, parminder wrote:
>
> Thanks to Gene and Jeremy for their responses..
>
> However, I see no argument here why the letter cannot ask US to also
> engage in developing global norms and agreements with regard to
> safeguards against invasion of privacy in name of security, and then
> adhering to these norms/ agreements. After all, US is a prime party to
> be appealed to if we are to move towards such global norms/
> agreements, and it remains my firm belief that this thing can really
> be addressed only through global arrangements,

Perhaps the drafters can suggest some text to address this point, or
perhaps you can.

-- 

*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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130724/68411a62/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 261 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130724/68411a62/attachment.sig>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Tue Jul  2 03:05:18 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 11:05:18 +0400
Subject: [bestbits] =?UTF-8?Q?=22UN=E2=80=88must_step_in_to_stop_cyber?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?_threats=22?=
In-Reply-To: <51D27449.3050800@itforchange.net>
References: <51D27449.3050800@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <04b801ce76f2$8aec0590$a0c410b0$@gmail.com>

If this is to move beyond hand wringing into some sort of action then there will need to be some very concerted and high quality intervention from CS.  Many of those with an interest in these matters are quite compromised (including various of the larger states) and will have security appartuses which will be very reluctant to support initiatives.  

 

Many smaller states with an interest will not have expertise. 

 

Perhaps a working group of CS might be struck specifically to be thinking about measures that could be proposed concerning the control of security/privacy interventions at a global level. 

 

It would be great I think, (in fact necessary if possible) that this be truly multi-stakeholder with a very very signficant role for the Technical community, associated/sympathetic private sector and sympathetic governments, but I think that CS needs to take the lead in beginning some sort of formulation and the creation of the framework to undertake this work.

 

M

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 10:34 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
Subject: [bestbits] "UN must step in to stop cyber threats"

 


Below from an Indian newspaper.... http://www.deccanchronicle.com/130702/commentary-dc-comment/commentary/un%E2%80%88must-step-stop-cyber-threats 

Now that the chimera of the US as the unique upholder of Internet's values and people's rights on the Internet is so obviously exposed....... and we know that when US calls for a single unified global Internet, and its unique historic role in its governance (read, control), what really does it mean....

parminder 



from the Deccan Chronicle


UN must step in to stop cyber threats


DC | 2 hours 7 min ago 

 

 

"This is not the Cold War anymore,” says an upset Germany. This was the mildest of rebukes thus far in the wake of the revelations about the American NSA courtesy Edward Snowden.

 

Spying has been taken into another dimension altogether and the present battle could well be called the “Great Cyber War”. The United States, caught spying, does not have a fig leaf of deniability.

 

This is not just Big Brother watching over its citizens, as portrayed in the landmark novel 1984. The US has crossed all limits and is now spying on its closest friends and thickest allies as well.

 

European Union nations have been forced to undertake security sweeps to ensure their computer systems are not being hacked into and their telephone conversations eavesdropped upon.

 

China, first typecast as the world’s original cyber bad boy, is mockingly pointing to its great rival across the seas to show the world there isn’t just one culprit in modern espionage. If all nations do not get together and sign a treaty to stop cyber espionage, things are only going to get worse for those who love privacy.

 

The United States’ spying on its allies takes the issue beyond the fundamental argument that the threat of terrorism overrides the tenets of privacy and justifies invasion of individual liberties. What the great National Security Agency spy programs of Maryland and Utah have been doing is to spy on governments, their trade, science, military and political secrets. 

 

All explanations regarding PRISM and other programs studying only metadata, and not prying into individual interactions over the Internet and telephone, cut no ice with a world that is aghast at the temerity of the most powerful nation in a virtually unipolar world.

 

Much like Germany, India, too, protested so mildly that its voice was hardly heard when US secretary of state John Kerry came calling last week. So protective of his guest was our foreign minister, Salman Khurshid, that the media could not question the visiting dignitary on what his country’s real intentions are in setting up this elaborate $40-billion-plus spying apparatus that snoops on the world.

 

China came through far more aggressively in questioning the United States on all that the world has heard ever since a sub-contractor went on the lam and spilled the beans from Hong Kong with the help of WikiLeaks.

 

If clarity and transparency are the qualities most needed to cool tensions among nations and passions among privacy-seekers, what will really serve society is for the United Nations to pay serious attention to this crisis of confidence and come up with an action plan to mark cyber boundaries and make them as inviolable as possible by common consent.

 

***





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130702/9bbe72a3/attachment.htm>

From anriette at apc.org  Wed Jul 24 07:24:47 2013
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 13:24:47 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Re: Call for comment: civil society letter to PCLOB
 re: human rights impacts of NSA surveillance of 'non-US persons'
In-Reply-To: <51EF81D5.9090802@itforchange.net>
References: <51EF2902.1080702@cdt.org> <51EF316B.4030306@itforchange.net> <94BC60FF-AF14-46B8-B16D-6B6D01C40522@gmail.com> <51EF81D5.9090802@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <51EFB97F.9090702@apc.org>

Dear all

My view on the letter is to keep it focused on the Call for Comment by
the US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board regarding the US
government's surveillance programs under the PATRIOT Act and FISA.  I
think the letter is already too long.

The more focused and to the point (and brief) our comments are, the more
likely they will be discussed, forwarded, understood, etc. etc..
However, I do have a proposal for how to include a reference global
legal frameworks that does not change the basic character and purpose of
the letter as one that addresses an official US body.

This letter makes three key points:

* Government surveillance must be subject to a strong legal framework
that is transparent, necessary to achieve a legitimate goal and
proportionate to that goal, authorized by a competent judicial
authority, and subject to public oversight. 


*Surveillance of communications conducted under Section 702 must meets
international human rights standards for surveillance.


* In the context of online communications, the privacy and liberty
rights of non-U.S. persons outside the U.S. should bewithin the PCLOB's
statutory mandate.

We could add something along the following lines:

We believe findings and recommendations developed by the PCLOB that
ensure that protection of rights of US and non US persons in the context
of government surveillance would not only be consistent with the US
government's frequently stated commitment to 'freedom online'; it would
also constitute a valuable contribution to the eventual development of a
global framework for such protections.

Btw, this last sentence (quoted below) still uses the term 'Americans'.
Please change. I also think that it is best to say 'findings and
recommendations' rather than 'recommendations and findings' as the
former is likely to flow from the latter.

"We urge you to make recommendations and findings designed to protect
the human rights not only of Americans, but also of non-U.S. persons who
live outside the United States."

Ciao

Anriette

On 24/07/2013 09:27, parminder wrote:
>
> Thanks to Gene and Jeremy for their responses..
>
> However, I see no argument here why the letter cannot ask US to also
> engage in developing global norms and agreements with regard to
> safeguards against invasion of privacy in name of security, and then
> adhering to these norms/ agreements. After all, US is a prime party to
> be appealed to if we are to move towards such global norms/
> agreements, and it remains my firm belief that this thing can really
> be addressed only through global arrangements,
>
> (Also, shouldnt US groups and US citizens also be concerned about
> invasion of their privacy by non US government agents.:
>
> About Jeremy's arugment against seeking 'global legal frameworks'
> being that we ourselves are yet to propose anything concrete, does the
> proposed letter not ask the US government to develop new 'strong legal
> frameworks' without actually suggesting their precise forms.. Why cant
> we do the same for the global level even when we yet dont have our
> concrete institutional proposals ready (would we ever be :) )... At
> the domestic level of US gov, the letter simply asserts the need, at
> the principles level, of privacy protection through 'strong legal
> framework'. We can ask the same for the global system, at the level of
> principles.... Unless of course there is a difference of opinion here
> about the principle of a global framework itself, in which case it is
> precisely my point to discus it openly...
>
> parminder
>
>
>
> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 07:34 AM, Gene Kimmelman wrote:
>> I think Parminder raises some very important points.  I'd like to
>> offer a quick observation and await other input:
>>
>> 1.  The question about how to refer to previous statements generated
>> through some subgroup of BestBits is very legitimate; we may need a
>> more precise description of the letter referred to and who the
>> signatories were.  We still need to discuss at the next BestBits
>> gathering what our rules of engagement and governance should be.
>>
>> 2.  I fully support the idea of initiating a discussion of what type
>> of global legal framework (or maybe normative framework) we should be
>> galvanizing around.  Maybe even a simple call for the UN to engage a
>>  discussion with all stakeholders fully represented, to consider how
>> best to enforce human rights charters and principles, would be a path
>> forward?  Maybe others have a better suggestion, but I wouldn't want
>> the "perfect" to stand in the way of the "good enough" for the
>> purpose of registering broad CSO interest in a global discussion and
>> global policy engagement.
>>
>> 3.  Whether or not we can all agree on something related to the
>> global legal framework, I also urge everyone to be pragmatic about
>> the opportunity to register your views with the US-base PCLOB.  This
>> is of course only one small piece of the legal struggle, but it is
>> very important from a US NGO standpoint to expand the US debate
>> beyond US citizens or residents.  The US needs global input to wake
>> it up to its broader obligations.  This may  not be enough to change
>> policy, but it is a critical enhancement to the US-based NGO advocacy
>> that could have some impact on the US government.  So even if this is
>> a flawed, partial solution, and should be connected to something
>> related to broader global solution, I believe it could influence US
>> policymakers.
>> On Jul 23, 2013, at 9:44 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Generally a well written statement. However, it must be judged not
>>> only for what it says but also what it does not... The statement
>>> appeals to a US government agency to protect human rights of all
>>> citizens of the world, especially non US citizens, which is very
>>> well. It call for all security measures that the US  " must be
>>> subject to a strong legal framework" meaning here just a US legal
>>> framework.... I am not convinced that this constitutes an adequate
>>> remedy. All security measures should be subject to a strong global
>>> or international treaty/ legal framework as well.. That alone will
>>> work in an environment where we are all continually immersed in a
>>> (somewhat) globally seamless, or at least hyper-connected, digital
>>> space.
>>>
>>> So, my specific question is, what stops us, as a global civil
>>> society group, from calling for a global/international legal
>>> framework to ensuring that all security related (and other) actions,
>>> of all states, including the US, are subject to a clear
>>> international regime based on human rights, and any such regime
>>> should have adequate enforcement capabilities.
>>>
>>> Can we discuss this here...
>>>
>>> While once in a while we as a global civil society group can make
>>> specific appeals to one government or the other, but I am unwilling
>>> to convert US government to be 'the' key duty bearer and appellate
>>> body for global justice. In doing this is a deeper politics, and
>>> that is my principal objection to this statement - not to what the
>>> statmement says, but what it does not. However, this problem can
>>> easily be addressed if the statement includes an appeal for global
>>> legal frameworks for the same purpose..... Are the framers of the
>>> statement willing to consider this?
>>>
>>> Another unconnected point, I often see statements that are signed by
>>> various actors using the BestBits as a facilitating platform,
>>> without them being developed and signed on the behalf of the
>>> BestBits group/ coalition, then after being signed  propositioned as
>>> BestBits statements. Recently I saw such a reference in the press,
>>> about a statement that was never signed by the group as a whole
>>> being called as a BestBits statement. This proposed letter also
>>> refers to an earlier statement being of BestBits coalition whereas
>>> it was never signed by the group as a whole...
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 06:38 AM, Emma Llanso wrote:
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> As you may be aware, the US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight
>>>> Board is accepting comments commentary regarding the US
>>>> government's surveillance programs under the PATRIOT Act and FISA. 
>>>> (I've included some information about PCLOB below in case you're
>>>> not familiar with this entity.)  I'd like to share with you a draft
>>>> was put together by CDT, with feedback from a number of folks on
>>>> this list, that focuses on the impact these programs have on the
>>>> human rights of individuals outside the US:
>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/17BWIev_DybbML3ObDCORkW83THrNGuJrHlV5sQLdYA0/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We feel that the draft text is at a point where it's ready to be
>>>> shared with the broader Best Bits community for comment.  Please
>>>> share any comments you have on the letter text with the whole list.
>>>> (I will be traveling on Wednesday and so slow to respond to
>>>> email.)  Ideally, we'd like to have a final draft of the letter
>>>> text available to circulate during the day on Thursday, giving us
>>>> about a week to solicit sign-on from as broad an array of groups as
>>>> possible.  This is a very compressed timeframe, unfortunately, but
>>>> the deadline for submitting comments is August 1st, so there is not
>>>> much flexibility in the schedule.
>>>>
>>>> The Best Bits interim steering committee has agreed to host the
>>>> final letter text on the Best Bits website to facilitate sign-on
>>>> once we've reached that point.
>>>>
>>>> It's worth noting here that while a joint letter with broad
>>>> international sign in is one way of getting the US government to
>>>> consider the rights of non-US persons, so is flooding PCLOB with
>>>> individual letters from international groups, so please feel free
>>>> to adapt or build on to this letter and submit it separately. We
>>>> intentionally did not make recommendations to PCLOB so as to garner
>>>> broad sign on (more on that below), but individual letters are a
>>>> good opportunity to make specific recommendations.
>>>>
>>>> *Background on the letter:*
>>>> PCLOB will be preparing a report and is accepting comments
>>>> <http://www.regulations.gov/#%21documentDetail;D=PCLOB-2013-0005-0001>
>>>> (with no limitations on who can submit comments) until August 1st.
>>>> As many of you know, it's been an uphill battle to get any
>>>> attention on this critical issue of extraterritorial impacts of the
>>>> US surveillance programs. PCLOB hosted an open hearing on the NSA
>>>> program earlier in July, and there was unfortunately only a single
>>>> reference to the human rights of people other than US citizens
>>>> during the entire hearing.  We think this comment process is one of
>>>> the better opportunities that groups from outside the US will have
>>>> in making their opinions about the US surveillance activities
>>>> heard.  I'd highly encourage organizations and individuals to make
>>>> their own comments into this process, in addition to considering
>>>> signing this letter.
>>>>
>>>> As a final note, the letter intentionally does not lay out
>>>> recommendations more specific than "take into consideration the
>>>> human rights of individuals outside the US", for several reasons. 
>>>> First, it will likely be more difficult for a broad range of groups
>>>> to sign onto something urging very specific legal or policy
>>>> remedies.  Further, I wouldn't want to see a short, easily agreed
>>>> set of recommendations (e.g. focusing on transparency) get
>>>> interpreted to mean that those fixes are the only thing the US
>>>> government needs to do to remedy the situation.  Transparency is an
>>>> important initial step, but it's far from the only action needed
>>>> here (a point CDT will be emphasizing in our individual comments to
>>>> PCLOB).  Again, I'd strongly recommend groups file individual
>>>> comments as well, particularly if you have specific recommendations
>>>> and actions for the Board.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Looking forward to your comments,
>>>> Emma
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *PCLOB - WHAT IS IT?* -
>>>> https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/privacy-and-civil-liberties-oversight-board
>>>>
>>>> The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is an advisory body
>>>> to assist the President and other senior Executive branch officials
>>>> in ensuring that concerns with respect to privacy and civil
>>>> liberties are appropriately considered in the implementation of all
>>>> laws, regulations, and executive branch policies related to war
>>>> against terrorism.
>>>>
>>>> Recommended by the July 22, 2004, report of the National Commission
>>>> on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, the Privacy and Civil
>>>> Liberties Oversight Board was established by the Intelligence
>>>> Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. It consists of five
>>>> members appointed by and serving at the pleasure of the President.
>>>> The Board is part of the White House Office within the Executive
>>>> Office of the President and supported by an Executive Director and
>>>> staff.
>>>>
>>>> The Board advises the President and other senior executive branch
>>>> officials to ensure that concerns with respect to privacy and civil
>>>> liberties are appropriately considered in the implementation of all
>>>> laws, regulations, and executive branch policies related to efforts
>>>> to protect the Nation against terrorism. This includes advising on
>>>> whether adequate guidelines, supervision, and oversight exist to
>>>> protect these important legal rights of all Americans. In addition,
>>>> the Board is specifically charged with responsibility for reviewing
>>>> the terrorism information sharing practices of executive branch
>>>> departments and agencies to determine whether guidelines designed
>>>> to appropriately protect privacy and civil liberties are being
>>>> followed, including those issued by the President on December 16,
>>>> 2005. In the course of performing these functions within the
>>>> executive branch, the Board seeks the views of private sector,
>>>> non-profit and academic institutions, Members of Congress, and all
>>>> other interested parties and individuals on these issues.
>>>>
>>>> This agency has published 13 articles
>>>> <https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/search?conditions%5Bagency_ids%5D%5B%5D=438&skip_results=1#advanced>
>>>> since 1994.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Emma J. Llansó
>>>> Policy Counsel
>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology
>>>> 1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100
>>>> Washington, DC 20006
>>>> 202-407-8818 | @cendemtech <https://twitter.com/#%21/CenDemTech> |
>>>> @ellanso <https://twitter.com/#%21/ellanso>
>>>
>>
>
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130724/13f1ea1f/attachment.htm>

From genekimmelman at gmail.com  Wed Jul 24 07:36:05 2013
From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman)
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 07:36:05 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Re: Call for comment: civil society letter to PCLOB
 re: human rights impacts of NSA surveillance of 'non-US persons'
In-Reply-To: <51EFB97F.9090702@apc.org>
References: <51EF2902.1080702@cdt.org> <51EF316B.4030306@itforchange.net> <94BC60FF-AF14-46B8-B16D-6B6D01C40522@gmail.com> <51EF81D5.9090802@itforchange.net> <51EFB97F.9090702@apc.org>
Message-ID: <1844C05E-B004-418A-A3D4-70429238BD4E@gmail.com>

Thanks Anriette, excellent suggestions!
On Jul 24, 2013, at 7:24 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:

> Dear all
> 
> My view on the letter is to keep it focused on the Call for Comment by the US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board regarding the US government's surveillance programs under the PATRIOT Act and FISA.  I think the letter is already too long.
> 
> The more focused and to the point (and brief) our comments are, the more likely they will be discussed, forwarded, understood, etc. etc.. However, I do have a proposal for how to include a reference global legal frameworks that does not change the basic character and purpose of the letter as one that addresses an official US body.
> 
> This letter makes three key points:
> 
> * Government surveillance must be subject to a strong legal framework that is transparent, necessary to achieve a legitimate goal and proportionate to that goal, authorized by a competent judicial authority, and subject to public oversight.  
> 
> *Surveillance of communications conducted under Section 702 must meets international human rights standards for surveillance.
> 
> * In the context of online communications, the privacy and liberty rights of non-U.S. persons outside the U.S. should be within the PCLOB’s statutory mandate.
> 
> We could add something along the following lines:
> 
> We believe findings and recommendations developed by the PCLOB that ensure that protection of rights of US and non US persons in the context of government surveillance would not only be consistent with the US government's frequently stated commitment to 'freedom online'; it would also constitute a valuable contribution to the eventual development of a global framework for such protections. 
> 
> Btw, this last sentence (quoted below) still uses the term 'Americans'. Please change. I also think that it is best to say 'findings and recommendations' rather than 'recommendations and findings' as the former is likely to flow from the latter.
> 
> "We urge you to make recommendations and findings designed to protect the human rights not only of Americans, but also of non-U.S. persons who live outside the United States."
> 
> Ciao
> 
> Anriette
> 
> On 24/07/2013 09:27, parminder wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks to Gene and Jeremy for their responses.. 
>> 
>> However, I see no argument here why the letter cannot ask US to also engage in developing global norms and agreements with regard to safeguards against invasion of privacy in name of security, and then adhering to these norms/ agreements. After all, US is a prime party to be appealed to if we are to move towards such global norms/ agreements, and it remains my firm belief that this thing can really be addressed only through global arrangements, 
>> 
>> (Also, shouldnt US groups and US citizens also be concerned about invasion of their privacy by non US government agents.: 
>> 
>> About Jeremy's arugment against seeking 'global legal frameworks' being that we ourselves are yet to propose anything concrete, does the proposed letter not ask the US government to develop new 'strong legal frameworks' without actually suggesting their precise forms.. Why cant we do the same for the global level even when we yet dont have our concrete institutional proposals ready (would we ever be :) )... At the domestic level of US gov, the letter simply asserts the need, at the principles level, of privacy protection through 'strong legal framework'. We can ask the same for the global system, at the level of principles.... Unless of course there is a difference of opinion here about the principle of a global framework itself, in which case it is precisely my point to discus it openly... 
>> 
>> parminder 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 07:34 AM, Gene Kimmelman wrote: 
>>> I think Parminder raises some very important points.  I'd like to offer a quick observation and await other input: 
>>> 
>>> 1.  The question about how to refer to previous statements generated through some subgroup of BestBits is very legitimate; we may need a more precise description of the letter referred to and who the signatories were.  We still need to discuss at the next BestBits gathering what our rules of engagement and governance should be. 
>>> 
>>> 2.  I fully support the idea of initiating a discussion of what type of global legal framework (or maybe normative framework) we should be galvanizing around.  Maybe even a simple call for the UN to engage a  discussion with all stakeholders fully represented, to consider how best to enforce human rights charters and principles, would be a path forward?  Maybe others have a better suggestion, but I wouldn't want the "perfect" to stand in the way of the "good enough" for the purpose of registering broad CSO interest in a global discussion and global policy engagement. 
>>> 
>>> 3.  Whether or not we can all agree on something related to the global legal framework, I also urge everyone to be pragmatic about the opportunity to register your views with the US-base PCLOB.  This is of course only one small piece of the legal struggle, but it is very important from a US NGO standpoint to expand the US debate beyond US citizens or residents.  The US needs global input to wake it up to its broader obligations.  This may  not be enough to change policy, but it is a critical enhancement to the US-based NGO advocacy that could have some impact on the US government.  So even if this is a flawed, partial solution, and should be connected to something related to broader global solution, I believe it could influence US policymakers. 
>>> On Jul 23, 2013, at 9:44 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote: 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Generally a well written statement. However, it must be judged not only for what it says but also what it does not... The statement appeals to a US government agency to protect human rights of all citizens of the world, especially non US citizens, which is very well. It call for all security measures that the US  " must be subject to a strong legal framework" meaning here just a US legal framework.... I am not convinced that this constitutes an adequate remedy. All security measures should be subject to a strong global or international treaty/ legal framework as well.. That alone will work in an environment where we are all continually immersed in a (somewhat) globally seamless, or at least hyper-connected, digital space. 
>>>> 
>>>> So, my specific question is, what stops us, as a global civil society group, from calling for a global/international legal framework to ensuring that all security related (and other) actions, of all states, including the US, are subject to a clear international regime based on human rights, and any such regime should have adequate enforcement capabilities. 
>>>> 
>>>> Can we discuss this here... 
>>>> 
>>>> While once in a while we as a global civil society group can make specific appeals to one government or the other, but I am unwilling to convert US government to be 'the' key duty bearer and appellate body for global justice. In doing this is a deeper politics, and that is my principal objection to this statement - not to what the statmement says, but what it does not. However, this problem can easily be addressed if the statement includes an appeal for global legal frameworks for the same purpose..... Are the framers of the statement willing to consider this? 
>>>> 
>>>> Another unconnected point, I often see statements that are signed by various actors using the BestBits as a facilitating platform, without them being developed and signed on the behalf of the BestBits group/ coalition, then after being signed  propositioned as BestBits statements. Recently I saw such a reference in the press, about a statement that was never signed by the group as a whole being called as a BestBits statement. This proposed letter also refers to an earlier statement being of BestBits coalition whereas it was never signed by the group as a whole... 
>>>> 
>>>> parminder 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 06:38 AM, Emma Llanso wrote: 
>>>>> Dear all, 
>>>>> 
>>>>> As you may be aware, the US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is accepting comments commentary regarding the US government's surveillance programs under the PATRIOT Act and FISA.  (I've included some information about PCLOB below in case you're not familiar with this entity.)  I'd like to share with you a draft was put together by CDT, with feedback from a number of folks on this list, that focuses on the impact these programs have on the human rights of individuals outside the US: https://docs.google.com/document/d/17BWIev_DybbML3ObDCORkW83THrNGuJrHlV5sQLdYA0/edit?usp=sharing 
>>>>> 
>>>>> We feel that the draft text is at a point where it's ready to be shared with the broader Best Bits community for comment.  Please share any comments you have on the letter text with the whole list. (I will be traveling on Wednesday and so slow to respond to email.)  Ideally, we'd like to have a final draft of the letter text available to circulate during the day on Thursday, giving us about a week to solicit sign-on from as broad an array of groups as possible.  This is a very compressed timeframe, unfortunately, but the deadline for submitting comments is August 1st, so there is not much flexibility in the schedule. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> The Best Bits interim steering committee has agreed to host the final letter text on the Best Bits website to facilitate sign-on once we've reached that point. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> It's worth noting here that while a joint letter with broad international sign in is one way of getting the US government to consider the rights of non-US persons, so is flooding PCLOB with individual letters from international groups, so please feel free to adapt or build on to this letter and submit it separately. We intentionally did not make recommendations to PCLOB so as to garner broad sign on (more on that below), but individual letters are a good opportunity to make specific recommendations. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> *Background on the letter:* 
>>>>> PCLOB will be preparing a report and is accepting comments <http://www.regulations.gov/#%21documentDetail;D=PCLOB-2013-0005-0001> (with no limitations on who can submit comments) until August 1st. As many of you know, it's been an uphill battle to get any attention on this critical issue of extraterritorial impacts of the US surveillance programs. PCLOB hosted an open hearing on the NSA program earlier in July, and there was unfortunately only a single reference to the human rights of people other than US citizens during the entire hearing.  We think this comment process is one of the better opportunities that groups from outside the US will have in making their opinions about the US surveillance activities heard.  I'd highly encourage organizations and individuals to make their own comments into this process, in addition to considering signing this letter. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> As a final note, the letter intentionally does not lay out recommendations more specific than "take into consideration the human rights of individuals outside the US", for several reasons.  First, it will likely be more difficult for a broad range of groups to sign onto something urging very specific legal or policy remedies.  Further, I wouldn't want to see a short, easily agreed set of recommendations (e.g. focusing on transparency) get interpreted to mean that those fixes are the only thing the US government needs to do to remedy the situation.  Transparency is an important initial step, but it's far from the only action needed here (a point CDT will be emphasizing in our individual comments to PCLOB).  Again, I'd strongly recommend groups file individual comments as well, particularly if you have specific recommendations and actions for the Board. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Looking forward to your comments, 
>>>>> Emma 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> *PCLOB - WHAT IS IT?* - https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/privacy-and-civil-liberties-oversight-board
>>>>> 
>>>>> The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is an advisory body to assist the President and other senior Executive branch officials in ensuring that concerns with respect to privacy and civil liberties are appropriately considered in the implementation of all laws, regulations, and executive branch policies related to war against terrorism. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Recommended by the July 22, 2004, report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board was established by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. It consists of five members appointed by and serving at the pleasure of the President. The Board is part of the White House Office within the Executive Office of the President and supported by an Executive Director and staff. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> The Board advises the President and other senior executive branch officials to ensure that concerns with respect to privacy and civil liberties are appropriately considered in the implementation of all laws, regulations, and executive branch policies related to efforts to protect the Nation against terrorism. This includes advising on whether adequate guidelines, supervision, and oversight exist to protect these important legal rights of all Americans. In             addition, the Board is specifically charged with responsibility for reviewing the terrorism information sharing practices of executive branch departments and agencies to determine whether guidelines designed to appropriately protect privacy and civil liberties are being followed, including those issued by the President on December 16, 2005. In the course of performing these functions within the executive branch, the Board seeks the views of private sector, non-profit and academic institutions, Members of Congress, and all other interested parties and individuals on these issues. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> This agency has published 13 articles <https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/search?conditions%5Bagency_ids%5D%5B%5D=438&skip_results=1#advanced> since 1994. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Emma J. Llansó 
>>>>> Policy Counsel 
>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology 
>>>>> 1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100 
>>>>> Washington, DC 20006 
>>>>> 202-407-8818 | @cendemtech <https://twitter.com/#%21/CenDemTech> | @ellanso <https://twitter.com/#%21/ellanso> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------
> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130724/cabcbc0b/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Wed Jul 24 09:05:38 2013
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina)
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:05:38 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] =?UTF-8?Q?=3A_The_Price_of_Hypocrisy_-_Evgeny_Morozov_?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?on_Information_Consumerism_-_=C3=9Cberwachung_-_FAZ?=
References: <CAJHXwOAA-Lh1WKhw183xAtDGwW9jUMppatEOEe3Ki1QajMcFdw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B526E7A3-32A9-4B71-9B9E-6BF7A7DE1B51@gmail.com>

Great article. His point of close relationships is really interesting. 

> http://m.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/debatten/ueberwachung/information-consumerism-the-price-of-hypocrisy-12292374.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130724/e66c2815/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Wed Jul 24 09:33:27 2013
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:33:27 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Re: Call for comment: civil society letter to PCLOB
 re: human rights impacts of NSA surveillance of 'non-US persons'
In-Reply-To: <1844C05E-B004-418A-A3D4-70429238BD4E@gmail.com>
References: <51EF2902.1080702@cdt.org>
	<51EF316B.4030306@itforchange.net>
	<94BC60FF-AF14-46B8-B16D-6B6D01C40522@gmail.com>
	<51EF81D5.9090802@itforchange.net>
	<51EFB97F.9090702@apc.org>
	<1844C05E-B004-418A-A3D4-70429238BD4E@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAdWity3cqo+qLuNE-Rpz=rSGOf411HZA-4vUVYLBhKb-g@mail.gmail.com>

I will work on Anriette suggestions.

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:36 AM, Gene Kimmelman <genekimmelman at gmail.com>wrote:

> Thanks Anriette, excellent suggestions!
>
> On Jul 24, 2013, at 7:24 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>
> wrote:
>
>  Dear all
>
> My view on the letter is to keep it focused on the Call for Comment by the
> US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board regarding the US
> government's surveillance programs under the PATRIOT Act and FISA.  I think
> the letter is already too long.
>
> The more focused and to the point (and brief) our comments are, the more
> likely they will be discussed, forwarded, understood, etc. etc.. However, I
> do have a proposal for how to include a reference global legal frameworks
> that does not change the basic character and purpose of the letter as one
> that addresses an official US body.
>
> This letter makes three key points:
>
> * Government surveillance must be subject to a strong legal framework that
> is transparent, necessary to achieve a legitimate goal and proportionate to
> that goal, authorized by a competent judicial authority, and subject to
> public oversight.
>
> *Surveillance of communications conducted under Section 702 must meets
> international human rights standards for surveillance.
>
> * In the context of online communications, the privacy and liberty rights
> of non-U.S. persons outside the U.S. should be within the PCLOB’s
> statutory mandate.
>
> We could add something along the following lines:
>
> We believe findings and recommendations developed by the PCLOB that
> ensure that protection of rights of US and non US persons in the context of
> government surveillance would not only be consistent with the US
> government's frequently stated commitment to 'freedom online'; it would
> also constitute a valuable contribution to the eventual development of a
> global framework for such protections.
>
> Btw, this last sentence (quoted below) still uses the term 'Americans'.
> Please change. I also think that it is best to say 'findings and
> recommendations' rather than 'recommendations and findings' as the former
> is likely to flow from the latter.
>
> "We urge you to make recommendations and findings designed to protect the
> human rights not only of Americans, but also of non-U.S. persons who live
> outside the United States."
>
> Ciao
>
> Anriette
>
> On 24/07/2013 09:27, parminder wrote:
>
>
> Thanks to Gene and Jeremy for their responses..
>
> However, I see no argument here why the letter cannot ask US to also
> engage in developing global norms and agreements with regard to safeguards
> against invasion of privacy in name of security, and then adhering to these
> norms/ agreements. After all, US is a prime party to be appealed to if we
> are to move towards such global norms/ agreements, and it remains my firm
> belief that this thing can really be addressed only through global
> arrangements,
>
> (Also, shouldnt US groups and US citizens also be concerned about invasion
> of their privacy by non US government agents.:
>
> About Jeremy's arugment against seeking 'global legal frameworks' being
> that we ourselves are yet to propose anything concrete, does the proposed
> letter not ask the US government to develop new 'strong legal frameworks'
> without actually suggesting their precise forms.. Why cant we do the same
> for the global level even when we yet dont have our concrete institutional
> proposals ready (would we ever be :) )... At the domestic level of US gov,
> the letter simply asserts the need, at the principles level, of privacy
> protection through 'strong legal framework'. We can ask the same for the
> global system, at the level of principles.... Unless of course there is a
> difference of opinion here about the principle of a global framework
> itself, in which case it is precisely my point to discus it openly...
>
> parminder
>
>
>
> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 07:34 AM, Gene Kimmelman wrote:
>
> I think Parminder raises some very important points.  I'd like to offer a
> quick observation and await other input:
>
> 1.  The question about how to refer to previous statements generated
> through some subgroup of BestBits is very legitimate; we may need a more
> precise description of the letter referred to and who the signatories
> were.  We still need to discuss at the next BestBits gathering what our
> rules of engagement and governance should be.
>
> 2.  I fully support the idea of initiating a discussion of what type of
> global legal framework (or maybe normative framework) we should be
> galvanizing around.  Maybe even a simple call for the UN to engage a
>  discussion with all stakeholders fully represented, to consider how best
> to enforce human rights charters and principles, would be a path forward?
> Maybe others have a better suggestion, but I wouldn't want the "perfect" to
> stand in the way of the "good enough" for the purpose of registering broad
> CSO interest in a global discussion and global policy engagement.
>
> 3.  Whether or not we can all agree on something related to the global
> legal framework, I also urge everyone to be pragmatic about the opportunity
> to register your views with the US-base PCLOB.  This is of course only one
> small piece of the legal struggle, but it is very important from a US NGO
> standpoint to expand the US debate beyond US citizens or residents.  The US
> needs global input to wake it up to its broader obligations.  This may  not
> be enough to change policy, but it is a critical enhancement to the
> US-based NGO advocacy that could have some impact on the US government.  So
> even if this is a flawed, partial solution, and should be connected to
> something related to broader global solution, I believe it could influence
> US policymakers.
> On Jul 23, 2013, at 9:44 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net> <parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>
> Generally a well written statement. However, it must be judged not only
> for what it says but also what it does not... The statement appeals to a US
> government agency to protect human rights of all citizens of the world,
> especially non US citizens, which is very well. It call for all security
> measures that the US  " must be subject to a strong legal framework"
> meaning here just a US legal framework.... I am not convinced that this
> constitutes an adequate remedy. All security measures should be subject to
> a strong global or international treaty/ legal framework as well.. That
> alone will work in an environment where we are all continually immersed in
> a (somewhat) globally seamless, or at least hyper-connected, digital space.
>
> So, my specific question is, what stops us, as a global civil society
> group, from calling for a global/international legal framework to ensuring
> that all security related (and other) actions, of all states, including the
> US, are subject to a clear international regime based on human rights, and
> any such regime should have adequate enforcement capabilities.
>
> Can we discuss this here...
>
> While once in a while we as a global civil society group can make specific
> appeals to one government or the other, but I am unwilling to convert US
> government to be 'the' key duty bearer and appellate body for global
> justice. In doing this is a deeper politics, and that is my principal
> objection to this statement - not to what the statmement says, but what it
> does not. However, this problem can easily be addressed if the statement
> includes an appeal for global legal frameworks for the same purpose.....
> Are the framers of the statement willing to consider this?
>
> Another unconnected point, I often see statements that are signed by
> various actors using the BestBits as a facilitating platform, without them
> being developed and signed on the behalf of the BestBits group/ coalition,
> then after being signed  propositioned as BestBits statements. Recently I
> saw such a reference in the press, about a statement that was never signed
> by the group as a whole being called as a BestBits statement. This proposed
> letter also refers to an earlier statement being of BestBits coalition
> whereas it was never signed by the group as a whole...
>
> parminder
>
>
>
> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 06:38 AM, Emma Llanso wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> As you may be aware, the US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is
> accepting comments commentary regarding the US government's surveillance
> programs under the PATRIOT Act and FISA.  (I've included some information
> about PCLOB below in case you're not familiar with this entity.)  I'd like
> to share with you a draft was put together by CDT, with feedback from a
> number of folks on this list, that focuses on the impact these programs
> have on the human rights of individuals outside the US:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/17BWIev_DybbML3ObDCORkW83THrNGuJrHlV5sQLdYA0/edit?usp=sharing
>
> We feel that the draft text is at a point where it's ready to be shared
> with the broader Best Bits community for comment.  Please share any
> comments you have on the letter text with the whole list. (I will be
> traveling on Wednesday and so slow to respond to email.)  Ideally, we'd
> like to have a final draft of the letter text available to circulate during
> the day on Thursday, giving us about a week to solicit sign-on from as
> broad an array of groups as possible.  This is a very compressed timeframe,
> unfortunately, but the deadline for submitting comments is August 1st, so
> there is not much flexibility in the schedule.
>
> The Best Bits interim steering committee has agreed to host the final
> letter text on the Best Bits website to facilitate sign-on once we've
> reached that point.
>
> It's worth noting here that while a joint letter with broad international
> sign in is one way of getting the US government to consider the rights of
> non-US persons, so is flooding PCLOB with individual letters from
> international groups, so please feel free to adapt or build on to this
> letter and submit it separately. We intentionally did not make
> recommendations to PCLOB so as to garner broad sign on (more on that
> below), but individual letters are a good opportunity to make specific
> recommendations.
>
> *Background on the letter:*
> PCLOB will be preparing a report and is accepting comments
> <http://www.regulations.gov/#%21documentDetail;D=PCLOB-2013-0005-0001><http://www.regulations.gov/#%21documentDetail;D=PCLOB-2013-0005-0001>(with no limitations on who can submit comments) until August 1st. As many
> of you know, it's been an uphill battle to get any attention on this
> critical issue of extraterritorial impacts of the US surveillance programs.
> PCLOB hosted an open hearing on the NSA program earlier in July, and there
> was unfortunately only a single reference to the human rights of people
> other than US citizens during the entire hearing.  We think this comment
> process is one of the better opportunities that groups from outside the US
> will have in making their opinions about the US surveillance activities
> heard.  I'd highly encourage organizations and individuals to make their
> own comments into this process, in addition to considering signing this
> letter.
>
> As a final note, the letter intentionally does not lay out recommendations
> more specific than "take into consideration the human rights of individuals
> outside the US", for several reasons.  First, it will likely be more
> difficult for a broad range of groups to sign onto something urging very
> specific legal or policy remedies.  Further, I wouldn't want to see a
> short, easily agreed set of recommendations (e.g. focusing on transparency)
> get interpreted to mean that those fixes are the only thing the US
> government needs to do to remedy the situation.  Transparency is an
> important initial step, but it's far from the only action needed here (a
> point CDT will be emphasizing in our individual comments to PCLOB).  Again,
> I'd strongly recommend groups file individual comments as well,
> particularly if you have specific recommendations and actions for the
> Board.
>
>
> Looking forward to your comments,
> Emma
>
>
> *PCLOB - WHAT IS IT?* -
> https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/privacy-and-civil-liberties-oversight-board
>
> The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is an advisory body to
> assist the President and other senior Executive branch officials in
> ensuring that concerns with respect to privacy and civil liberties are
> appropriately considered in the implementation of all laws, regulations,
> and executive branch policies related to war against terrorism.
>
> Recommended by the July 22, 2004, report of the National Commission on
> Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, the Privacy and Civil Liberties
> Oversight Board was established by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
> Prevention Act of 2004. It consists of five members appointed by and
> serving at the pleasure of the President. The Board is part of the White
> House Office within the Executive Office of the President and supported by
> an Executive Director and staff.
>
> The Board advises the President and other senior executive branch
> officials to ensure that concerns with respect to privacy and civil
> liberties are appropriately considered in the implementation of all laws,
> regulations, and executive branch policies related to efforts to protect
> the Nation against terrorism. This includes advising on whether adequate
> guidelines, supervision, and oversight exist to protect these important
> legal rights of all Americans. In addition, the Board is specifically
> charged with responsibility for reviewing the terrorism information sharing
> practices of executive branch departments and agencies to determine whether
> guidelines designed to appropriately protect privacy and civil liberties
> are being followed, including those issued by the President on December 16,
> 2005. In the course of performing these functions within the executive
> branch, the Board seeks the views of private sector, non-profit and
> academic institutions, Members of Congress, and all other interested
> parties and individuals on these issues.
>
> This agency has published 13 articles
> <https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/search?conditions%5Bagency_ids%5D%5B%5D=438&skip_results=1#advanced><https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/search?conditions%5Bagency_ids%5D%5B%5D=438&skip_results=1#advanced>since 1994.
>
>
> --
> Emma J. Llansó
> Policy Counsel
> Center for Democracy & Technology
> 1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100
> Washington, DC 20006
> 202-407-8818 | @cendemtech <https://twitter.com/#%21/CenDemTech><https://twitter.com/#%21/CenDemTech>| @ellanso
> <https://twitter.com/#%21/ellanso> <https://twitter.com/#%21/ellanso>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>
>


-- 
*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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130724/88ff2fb8/attachment.htm>

From Andrew at gp-digital.org  Wed Jul 24 10:13:14 2013
From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt)
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 15:13:14 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Re: Call for comment: civil society letter to PCLOB
 re: human rights impacts of NSA surveillance of 'non-US persons'
In-Reply-To: <51EFB97F.9090702@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CE159F7A.2C746%andrew@global-partners.co.uk>

+1 from me
Andrew Puddephatt, Director          Global Partners and Associates
Development House, 56-64 Leonard St, EC2A 4LT, UK
Office 44 (0)207 549 0350
Mobile: +44 (0)771 339 9597
andrew at global-partners.co.uk<mailto:andrew at global-partners.co.uk>                  www.global-partners.co.uk<http://www.global-partners.co.uk/>

From: "anriette at apc.org<mailto:anriette at apc.org>" <anriette at apc.org<mailto:anriette at apc.org>>
Organization: Association for Progressive Communications
Reply-To: "anriette at apc.org<mailto:anriette at apc.org>" <anriette at apc.org<mailto:anriette at apc.org>>
Date: Wednesday, 24 July 2013 12:24
To: "parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>" <parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: Call for comment: civil society letter to PCLOB re: human rights impacts of NSA surveillance of 'non-US persons'

Dear all

My view on the letter is to keep it focused on the Call for Comment by the US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board regarding the US government's surveillance programs under the PATRIOT Act and FISA.  I think the letter is already too long.

The more focused and to the point (and brief) our comments are, the more likely they will be discussed, forwarded, understood, etc. etc.. However, I do have a proposal for how to include a reference global legal frameworks that does not change the basic character and purpose of the letter as one that addresses an official US body.

This letter makes three key points:


* Government surveillance must be subject to a strong legal framework that is transparent, necessary to achieve a legitimate goal and proportionate to that goal, authorized by a competent judicial authority, and subject to public oversight.

*Surveillance of communications conducted under Section 702 must meets international human rights standards for surveillance.

* In the context of online communications, the privacy and liberty rights of non-U.S. persons outside the U.S. should be within the PCLOB’s statutory mandate.

We could add something along the following lines:

We believe findings and recommendations developed by the PCLOB that ensure that protection of rights of US and non US persons in the context of government surveillance would not only be consistent with the US government's frequently stated commitment to 'freedom online'; it would also constitute a valuable contribution to the eventual development of a global framework for such protections.

Btw, this last sentence (quoted below) still uses the term 'Americans'. Please change. I also think that it is best to say 'findings and recommendations' rather than 'recommendations and findings' as the former is likely to flow from the latter.

"We urge you to make recommendations and findings designed to protect the human rights not only of Americans, but also of non-U.S. persons who live outside the United States."

Ciao

Anriette

On 24/07/2013 09:27, parminder wrote:

Thanks to Gene and Jeremy for their responses..

However, I see no argument here why the letter cannot ask US to also engage in developing global norms and agreements with regard to safeguards against invasion of privacy in name of security, and then adhering to these norms/ agreements. After all, US is a prime party to be appealed to if we are to move towards such global norms/ agreements, and it remains my firm belief that this thing can really be addressed only through global arrangements,

(Also, shouldnt US groups and US citizens also be concerned about invasion of their privacy by non US government agents.:

About Jeremy's arugment against seeking 'global legal frameworks' being that we ourselves are yet to propose anything concrete, does the proposed letter not ask the US government to develop new 'strong legal frameworks' without actually suggesting their precise forms.. Why cant we do the same for the global level even when we yet dont have our concrete institutional proposals ready (would we ever be :) )... At the domestic level of US gov, the letter simply asserts the need, at the principles level, of privacy protection through 'strong legal framework'. We can ask the same for the global system, at the level of principles.... Unless of course there is a difference of opinion here about the principle of a global framework itself, in which case it is precisely my point to discus it openly...

parminder



On Wednesday 24 July 2013 07:34 AM, Gene Kimmelman wrote:
I think Parminder raises some very important points.  I'd like to offer a quick observation and await other input:

1.  The question about how to refer to previous statements generated through some subgroup of BestBits is very legitimate; we may need a more precise description of the letter referred to and who the signatories were.  We still need to discuss at the next BestBits gathering what our rules of engagement and governance should be.

2.  I fully support the idea of initiating a discussion of what type of global legal framework (or maybe normative framework) we should be galvanizing around.  Maybe even a simple call for the UN to engage a  discussion with all stakeholders fully represented, to consider how best to enforce human rights charters and principles, would be a path forward?  Maybe others have a better suggestion, but I wouldn't want the "perfect" to stand in the way of the "good enough" for the purpose of registering broad CSO interest in a global discussion and global policy engagement.

3.  Whether or not we can all agree on something related to the global legal framework, I also urge everyone to be pragmatic about the opportunity to register your views with the US-base PCLOB.  This is of course only one small piece of the legal struggle, but it is very important from a US NGO standpoint to expand the US debate beyond US citizens or residents.  The US needs global input to wake it up to its broader obligations.  This may  not be enough to change policy, but it is a critical enhancement to the US-based NGO advocacy that could have some impact on the US government.  So even if this is a flawed, partial solution, and should be connected to something related to broader global solution, I believe it could influence US policymakers.
On Jul 23, 2013, at 9:44 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net><mailto:parminder at itforchange.net><mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:


Generally a well written statement. However, it must be judged not only for what it says but also what it does not... The statement appeals to a US government agency to protect human rights of all citizens of the world, especially non US citizens, which is very well. It call for all security measures that the US  " must be subject to a strong legal framework" meaning here just a US legal framework.... I am not convinced that this constitutes an adequate remedy. All security measures should be subject to a strong global or international treaty/ legal framework as well.. That alone will work in an environment where we are all continually immersed in a (somewhat) globally seamless, or at least hyper-connected, digital space.

So, my specific question is, what stops us, as a global civil society group, from calling for a global/international legal framework to ensuring that all security related (and other) actions, of all states, including the US, are subject to a clear international regime based on human rights, and any such regime should have adequate enforcement capabilities.

Can we discuss this here...

While once in a while we as a global civil society group can make specific appeals to one government or the other, but I am unwilling to convert US government to be 'the' key duty bearer and appellate body for global justice. In doing this is a deeper politics, and that is my principal objection to this statement - not to what the statmement says, but what it does not. However, this problem can easily be addressed if the statement includes an appeal for global legal frameworks for the same purpose..... Are the framers of the statement willing to consider this?

Another unconnected point, I often see statements that are signed by various actors using the BestBits as a facilitating platform, without them being developed and signed on the behalf of the BestBits group/ coalition, then after being signed  propositioned as BestBits statements. Recently I saw such a reference in the press, about a statement that was never signed by the group as a whole being called as a BestBits statement. This proposed letter also refers to an earlier statement being of BestBits coalition whereas it was never signed by the group as a whole...

parminder



On Wednesday 24 July 2013 06:38 AM, Emma Llanso wrote:
Dear all,

As you may be aware, the US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is accepting comments commentary regarding the US government's surveillance programs under the PATRIOT Act and FISA.  (I've included some information about PCLOB below in case you're not familiar with this entity.)  I'd like to share with you a draft was put together by CDT, with feedback from a number of folks on this list, that focuses on the impact these programs have on the human rights of individuals outside the US: https://docs.google.com/document/d/17BWIev_DybbML3ObDCORkW83THrNGuJrHlV5sQLdYA0/edit?usp=sharing

We feel that the draft text is at a point where it's ready to be shared with the broader Best Bits community for comment.  Please share any comments you have on the letter text with the whole list. (I will be traveling on Wednesday and so slow to respond to email.)  Ideally, we'd like to have a final draft of the letter text available to circulate during the day on Thursday, giving us about a week to solicit sign-on from as broad an array of groups as possible.  This is a very compressed timeframe, unfortunately, but the deadline for submitting comments is August 1st, so there is not much flexibility in the schedule.

The Best Bits interim steering committee has agreed to host the final letter text on the Best Bits website to facilitate sign-on once we've reached that point.

It's worth noting here that while a joint letter with broad international sign in is one way of getting the US government to consider the rights of non-US persons, so is flooding PCLOB with individual letters from international groups, so please feel free to adapt or build on to this letter and submit it separately. We intentionally did not make recommendations to PCLOB so as to garner broad sign on (more on that below), but individual letters are a good opportunity to make specific recommendations.

*Background on the letter:*
PCLOB will be preparing a report and is accepting comments <http://www.regulations.gov/#%21documentDetail;D=PCLOB-2013-0005-0001><http://www.regulations.gov/#%21documentDetail;D=PCLOB-2013-0005-0001> (with no limitations on who can submit comments) until August 1st. As many of you know, it's been an uphill battle to get any attention on this critical issue of extraterritorial impacts of the US surveillance programs. PCLOB hosted an open hearing on the NSA program earlier in July, and there was unfortunately only a single reference to the human rights of people other than US citizens during the entire hearing.  We think this comment process is one of the better opportunities that groups from outside the US will have in making their opinions about the US surveillance activities heard.  I'd highly encourage organizations and individuals to make their own comments into this process, in addition to considering signing this letter.

As a final note, the letter intentionally does not lay out recommendations more specific than "take into consideration the human rights of individuals outside the US", for several reasons.  First, it will likely be more difficult for a broad range of groups to sign onto something urging very specific legal or policy remedies.  Further, I wouldn't want to see a short, easily agreed set of recommendations (e.g. focusing on transparency) get interpreted to mean that those fixes are the only thing the US government needs to do to remedy the situation.  Transparency is an important initial step, but it's far from the only action needed here (a point CDT will be emphasizing in our individual comments to PCLOB).  Again, I'd strongly recommend groups file individual comments as well, particularly if you have specific recommendations and actions for the Board.


Looking forward to your comments,
Emma


*PCLOB - WHAT IS IT?* - https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/privacy-and-civil-liberties-oversight-board

The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is an advisory body to assist the President and other senior Executive branch officials in ensuring that concerns with respect to privacy and civil liberties are appropriately considered in the implementation of all laws, regulations, and executive branch policies related to war against terrorism.

Recommended by the July 22, 2004, report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board was established by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. It consists of five members appointed by and serving at the pleasure of the President. The Board is part of the White House Office within the Executive Office of the President and supported by an Executive Director and staff.

The Board advises the President and other senior executive branch officials to ensure that concerns with respect to privacy and civil liberties are appropriately considered in the implementation of all laws, regulations, and executive branch policies related to efforts to protect the Nation against terrorism. This includes advising on whether adequate guidelines, supervision, and oversight exist to protect these important legal rights of all Americans. In addition, the Board is specifically charged with responsibility for reviewing the terrorism information sharing practices of executive branch departments and agencies to determine whether guidelines designed to appropriately protect privacy and civil liberties are being followed, including those issued by the President on December 16, 2005. In the course of performing these functions within the executive branch, the Board seeks the views of private sector, non-profit and academic institutions, Members of Congress, and all other interested parties and individuals on these issues.

This agency has published 13 articles <https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/search?conditions%5Bagency_ids%5D%5B%5D=438&skip_results=1#advanced><https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/search?conditions%5Bagency_ids%5D%5B%5D=438&skip_results=1#advanced> since 1994.


--
Emma J. Llansó
Policy Counsel
Center for Democracy & Technology
1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20006
202-407-8818 | @cendemtech <https://twitter.com/#%21/CenDemTech><https://twitter.com/#%21/CenDemTech> | @ellanso <https://twitter.com/#%21/ellanso><https://twitter.com/#%21/ellanso>






--
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org<mailto:anriette at apc.org>
executive director, association for progressive communications
www.apc.org<http://www.apc.org>
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130724/142a193e/attachment.htm>

From mshears at cdt.org  Wed Jul 24 10:13:41 2013
From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears)
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 10:13:41 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Re: Call for comment: civil society letter to PCLOB
 re: human rights impacts of NSA surveillance of 'non-US persons'
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAdWity3cqo+qLuNE-Rpz=rSGOf411HZA-4vUVYLBhKb-g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <51EF2902.1080702@cdt.org> <51EF316B.4030306@itforchange.net> <94BC60FF-AF14-46B8-B16D-6B6D01C40522@gmail.com> <51EF81D5.9090802@itforchange.net> <51EFB97F.9090702@apc.org> <1844C05E-B004-418A-A3D4-70429238BD4E@gmail.com> <CAK-FJAdWity3cqo+qLuNE-Rpz=rSGOf411HZA-4vUVYLBhKb-g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <51EFE115.8080005@cdt.org>

Good discussion and important issues.  Parminder raises valid points 
about the need for us to have a more robust discussion around the need 
for global approaches and/or frameworks to protecting rights.

For this particular effort though I would, as suggested by Anriette, 
keep the focus on responding to the PCLOB and identifying our concerns 
within that framing.  I think the additional para as proposed by 
Anriette makes sense but I would suggest that we phrase it as "to the 
developing global framework" rather than "to the eventual development of 
a global framework." There are components of a global framework in place 
- for example, the rights (and obligations) that we seek to have 
governments uphold.  Hopefully the findings and recommendations of the 
PCLOB will lend themselves to strengthening/evolving the global framework.

Matthew

On 24/07/2013 09:33, Carolina Rossini wrote:
> I will work on Anriette suggestions.
>
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:36 AM, Gene Kimmelman 
> <genekimmelman at gmail.com <mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Thanks Anriette, excellent suggestions!
>
>     On Jul 24, 2013, at 7:24 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen
>     <anriette at apc.org <mailto:anriette at apc.org>> wrote:
>
>>     Dear all
>>
>>     My view on the letter is to keep it focused on the Call for
>>     Comment by the US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board
>>     regarding the US government's surveillance programs under the
>>     PATRIOT Act and FISA.  I think the letter is already too long.
>>
>>     The more focused and to the point (and brief) our comments are,
>>     the more likely they will be discussed, forwarded, understood,
>>     etc. etc.. However, I do have a proposal for how to include a
>>     reference global legal frameworks that does not change the basic
>>     character and purpose of the letter as one that addresses an
>>     official US body.
>>
>>     This letter makes three key points:
>>
>>     * Government surveillance must be subject to a strong legal
>>     framework that is transparent, necessary to achieve a legitimate
>>     goal and proportionate to that goal, authorized by a competent
>>     judicial authority, and subject to public oversight.
>>
>>     *Surveillance of communications conducted under Section 702 must
>>     meets international human rights standards for surveillance.
>>
>>     * In the context of online communications, the privacy and
>>     liberty rights of non-U.S. persons outside the U.S. should
>>     bewithin the PCLOB’s statutory mandate.
>>
>>     We could add something along the following lines:
>>
>>     We believe findings and recommendations developed by the PCLOB
>>     that ensure that protection of rights of US and non US persons in
>>     the context of government surveillance would not only be
>>     consistent with the US government's frequently stated commitment
>>     to 'freedom online'; it would also constitute a valuable
>>     contribution to the eventual development of a global framework
>>     for such protections.
>>
>>     Btw, this last sentence (quoted below) still uses the term
>>     'Americans'. Please change. I also think that it is best to say
>>     'findings and recommendations' rather than 'recommendations and
>>     findings' as the former is likely to flow from the latter.
>>
>>     "We urge you to make recommendations and findings designed to
>>     protect the human rights not only of Americans, but also of
>>     non-U.S. persons who live outside the United States."
>>
>>     Ciao
>>
>>     Anriette
>>
>>     On 24/07/2013 09:27, parminder wrote:
>>>
>>>     Thanks to Gene and Jeremy for their responses..
>>>
>>>     However, I see no argument here why the letter cannot ask US to
>>>     also engage in developing global norms and agreements with
>>>     regard to safeguards against invasion of privacy in name of
>>>     security, and then adhering to these norms/ agreements. After
>>>     all, US is a prime party to be appealed to if we are to move
>>>     towards such global norms/ agreements, and it remains my firm
>>>     belief that this thing can really be addressed only through
>>>     global arrangements,
>>>
>>>     (Also, shouldnt US groups and US citizens also be concerned
>>>     about invasion of their privacy by non US government agents.:
>>>
>>>     About Jeremy's arugment against seeking 'global legal
>>>     frameworks' being that we ourselves are yet to propose anything
>>>     concrete, does the proposed letter not ask the US government to
>>>     develop new 'strong legal frameworks' without actually
>>>     suggesting their precise forms.. Why cant we do the same for the
>>>     global level even when we yet dont have our concrete
>>>     institutional proposals ready (would we ever be :) )... At the
>>>     domestic level of US gov, the letter simply asserts the need, at
>>>     the principles level, of privacy protection through 'strong
>>>     legal framework'. We can ask the same for the global system, at
>>>     the level of principles.... Unless of course there is a
>>>     difference of opinion here about the principle of a global
>>>     framework itself, in which case it is precisely my point to
>>>     discus it openly...
>>>
>>>     parminder
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     On Wednesday 24 July 2013 07:34 AM, Gene Kimmelman wrote:
>>>>     I think Parminder raises some very important points.  I'd like
>>>>     to offer a quick observation and await other input:
>>>>
>>>>     1.  The question about how to refer to previous statements
>>>>     generated through some subgroup of BestBits is very legitimate;
>>>>     we may need a more precise description of the letter referred
>>>>     to and who the signatories were.  We still need to discuss at
>>>>     the next BestBits gathering what our rules of engagement and
>>>>     governance should be.
>>>>
>>>>     2.  I fully support the idea of initiating a discussion of what
>>>>     type of global legal framework (or maybe normative framework)
>>>>     we should be galvanizing around.  Maybe even a simple call for
>>>>     the UN to engage a  discussion with all stakeholders fully
>>>>     represented, to consider how best to enforce human rights
>>>>     charters and principles, would be a path forward?  Maybe others
>>>>     have a better suggestion, but I wouldn't want the "perfect" to
>>>>     stand in the way of the "good enough" for the purpose of
>>>>     registering broad CSO interest in a global discussion and
>>>>     global policy engagement.
>>>>
>>>>     3.  Whether or not we can all agree on something related to the
>>>>     global legal framework, I also urge everyone to be pragmatic
>>>>     about the opportunity to register your views with the US-base
>>>>     PCLOB.  This is of course only one small piece of the legal
>>>>     struggle, but it is very important from a US NGO standpoint to
>>>>     expand the US debate beyond US citizens or residents.  The US
>>>>     needs global input to wake it up to its broader obligations. 
>>>>     This may  not be enough to change policy, but it is a critical
>>>>     enhancement to the US-based NGO advocacy that could have some
>>>>     impact on the US government. So even if this is a flawed,
>>>>     partial solution, and should be connected to something related
>>>>     to broader global solution, I believe it could influence US
>>>>     policymakers.
>>>>     On Jul 23, 2013, at 9:44 PM, parminder
>>>>     <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>
>>>>     <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>
>>>>     <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     Generally a well written statement. However, it must be judged
>>>>>     not only for what it says but also what it does not... The
>>>>>     statement appeals to a US government agency to protect human
>>>>>     rights of all citizens of the world, especially non US
>>>>>     citizens, which is very well. It call for all security
>>>>>     measures that the US  " must be subject to a strong legal
>>>>>     framework" meaning here just a US legal framework.... I am not
>>>>>     convinced that this constitutes an adequate remedy. All
>>>>>     security measures should be subject to a strong global or
>>>>>     international treaty/ legal framework as well.. That alone
>>>>>     will work in an environment where we are all continually
>>>>>     immersed in a (somewhat) globally seamless, or at least
>>>>>     hyper-connected, digital space.
>>>>>
>>>>>     So, my specific question is, what stops us, as a global civil
>>>>>     society group, from calling for a global/international legal
>>>>>     framework to ensuring that all security related (and other)
>>>>>     actions, of all states, including the US, are subject to a
>>>>>     clear international regime based on human rights, and any such
>>>>>     regime should have adequate enforcement capabilities.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Can we discuss this here...
>>>>>
>>>>>     While once in a while we as a global civil society group can
>>>>>     make specific appeals to one government or the other, but I am
>>>>>     unwilling to convert US government to be 'the' key duty bearer
>>>>>     and appellate body for global justice. In doing this is a
>>>>>     deeper politics, and that is my principal objection to this
>>>>>     statement - not to what the statmement says, but what it does
>>>>>     not. However, this problem can easily be addressed if the
>>>>>     statement includes an appeal for global legal frameworks for
>>>>>     the same purpose..... Are the framers of the statement willing
>>>>>     to consider this?
>>>>>
>>>>>     Another unconnected point, I often see statements that are
>>>>>     signed by various actors using the BestBits as a facilitating
>>>>>     platform, without them being developed and signed on the
>>>>>     behalf of the BestBits group/ coalition, then after being
>>>>>     signed propositioned as BestBits statements. Recently I saw
>>>>>     such a reference in the press, about a statement that was
>>>>>     never signed by the group as a whole being called as a
>>>>>     BestBits statement. This proposed letter also refers to an
>>>>>     earlier statement being of BestBits coalition whereas it was
>>>>>     never signed by the group as a whole...
>>>>>
>>>>>     parminder
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     On Wednesday 24 July 2013 06:38 AM, Emma Llanso wrote:
>>>>>>     Dear all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     As you may be aware, the US Privacy and Civil Liberties
>>>>>>     Oversight Board is accepting comments commentary regarding
>>>>>>     the US government's surveillance programs under the PATRIOT
>>>>>>     Act and FISA.  (I've included some information about PCLOB
>>>>>>     below in case you're not familiar with this entity.)  I'd
>>>>>>     like to share with you a draft was put together by CDT, with
>>>>>>     feedback from a number of folks on this list, that focuses on
>>>>>>     the impact these programs have on the human rights of
>>>>>>     individuals outside the US:
>>>>>>     https://docs.google.com/document/d/17BWIev_DybbML3ObDCORkW83THrNGuJrHlV5sQLdYA0/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     We feel that the draft text is at a point where it's ready to
>>>>>>     be shared with the broader Best Bits community for comment.
>>>>>>     Please share any comments you have on the letter text with
>>>>>>     the whole list. (I will be traveling on Wednesday and so slow
>>>>>>     to respond to email.)  Ideally, we'd like to have a final
>>>>>>     draft of the letter text available to circulate during the
>>>>>>     day on Thursday, giving us about a week to solicit sign-on
>>>>>>     from as broad an array of groups as possible.  This is a very
>>>>>>     compressed timeframe, unfortunately, but the deadline for
>>>>>>     submitting comments is August 1st, so there is not much
>>>>>>     flexibility in the schedule.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     The Best Bits interim steering committee has agreed to host
>>>>>>     the final letter text on the Best Bits website to facilitate
>>>>>>     sign-on once we've reached that point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     It's worth noting here that while a joint letter with broad
>>>>>>     international sign in is one way of getting the US government
>>>>>>     to consider the rights of non-US persons, so is flooding
>>>>>>     PCLOB with individual letters from international groups, so
>>>>>>     please feel free to adapt or build on to this letter and
>>>>>>     submit it separately. We intentionally did not make
>>>>>>     recommendations to PCLOB so as to garner broad sign on (more
>>>>>>     on that below), but individual letters are a good opportunity
>>>>>>     to make specific recommendations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     *Background on the letter:*
>>>>>>     PCLOB will be preparing a report and is accepting comments
>>>>>>     <http://www.regulations.gov/#%21documentDetail;D=PCLOB-2013-0005-0001>
>>>>>>     <http://www.regulations.gov/#%21documentDetail;D=PCLOB-2013-0005-0001>
>>>>>>     (with no limitations on who can submit comments) until August
>>>>>>     1st. As many of you know, it's been an uphill battle to get
>>>>>>     any attention on this critical issue of extraterritorial
>>>>>>     impacts of the US surveillance programs. PCLOB hosted an open
>>>>>>     hearing on the NSA program earlier in July, and there was
>>>>>>     unfortunately only a single reference to the human rights of
>>>>>>     people other than US citizens during the entire hearing.  We
>>>>>>     think this comment process is one of the better opportunities
>>>>>>     that groups from outside the US will have in making their
>>>>>>     opinions about the US surveillance activities heard.  I'd
>>>>>>     highly encourage organizations and individuals to make their
>>>>>>     own comments into this process, in addition to considering
>>>>>>     signing this letter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     As a final note, the letter intentionally does not lay out
>>>>>>     recommendations more specific than "take into consideration
>>>>>>     the human rights of individuals outside the US", for several
>>>>>>     reasons.  First, it will likely be more difficult for a broad
>>>>>>     range of groups to sign onto something urging very specific
>>>>>>     legal or policy remedies. Further, I wouldn't want to see a
>>>>>>     short, easily agreed set of recommendations (e.g. focusing on
>>>>>>     transparency) get interpreted to mean that those fixes are
>>>>>>     the only thing the US government needs to do to remedy the
>>>>>>     situation.  Transparency is an important initial step, but
>>>>>>     it's far from the only action needed here (a point CDT will
>>>>>>     be emphasizing in our individual comments to PCLOB).  Again,
>>>>>>     I'd strongly recommend groups file individual comments as
>>>>>>     well, particularly if you have specific recommendations and
>>>>>>     actions for the Board.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Looking forward to your comments,
>>>>>>     Emma
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     *PCLOB - WHAT IS IT?* -
>>>>>>     https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/privacy-and-civil-liberties-oversight-board
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is an
>>>>>>     advisory body to assist the President and other senior
>>>>>>     Executive branch officials in ensuring that concerns with
>>>>>>     respect to privacy and civil liberties are appropriately
>>>>>>     considered in the implementation of all laws, regulations,
>>>>>>     and executive branch policies related to war against terrorism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Recommended by the July 22, 2004, report of the National
>>>>>>     Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, the
>>>>>>     Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board was established
>>>>>>     by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of
>>>>>>     2004. It consists of five members appointed by and serving at
>>>>>>     the pleasure of the President. The Board is part of the White
>>>>>>     House Office within the Executive Office of the President and
>>>>>>     supported by an Executive Director and staff.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     The Board advises the President and other senior executive
>>>>>>     branch officials to ensure that concerns with respect to
>>>>>>     privacy and civil liberties are appropriately considered in
>>>>>>     the implementation of all laws, regulations, and executive
>>>>>>     branch policies related to efforts to protect the Nation
>>>>>>     against terrorism. This includes advising on whether adequate
>>>>>>     guidelines, supervision, and oversight exist to protect these
>>>>>>     important legal rights of all Americans. In addition, the
>>>>>>     Board is specifically charged with responsibility for
>>>>>>     reviewing the terrorism information sharing practices of
>>>>>>     executive branch departments and agencies to determine
>>>>>>     whether guidelines designed to appropriately protect privacy
>>>>>>     and civil liberties are being followed, including those
>>>>>>     issued by the President on December 16, 2005. In the course
>>>>>>     of performing these functions within the executive branch,
>>>>>>     the Board seeks the views of private sector, non-profit and
>>>>>>     academic institutions, Members of Congress, and all other
>>>>>>     interested parties and individuals on these issues.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     This agency has published 13 articles
>>>>>>     <https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/search?conditions%5Bagency_ids%5D%5B%5D=438&skip_results=1#advanced>
>>>>>>     <https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/search?conditions%5Bagency_ids%5D%5B%5D=438&skip_results=1#advanced>
>>>>>>     since 1994.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     -- 
>>>>>>     Emma J. Llansó
>>>>>>     Policy Counsel
>>>>>>     Center for Democracy & Technology
>>>>>>     1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100
>>>>>>     Washington, DC 20006
>>>>>>     202-407-8818 <tel:202-407-8818> | @cendemtech
>>>>>>     <https://twitter.com/#%21/CenDemTech>
>>>>>>     <https://twitter.com/#%21/CenDemTech> | @ellanso
>>>>>>     <https://twitter.com/#%21/ellanso>
>>>>>>     <https://twitter.com/#%21/ellanso>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>     -- 
>>     ------------------------------------------------------
>>     anriette esterhuysenanriette at apc.org  <mailto:anriette at apc.org>
>>     executive director, association for progressive communications
>>     www.apc.org  <http://www.apc.org/>
>>     po box 29755, melville 2109
>>     south africa
>>     tel/fax+27 11 726 1692  <tel:%2B27%2011%20726%201692>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> *Carolina Rossini*
> /Project Director, Latin America Resource Center/
> Open Technology Institute
> *New America Foundation*
> //
> http://carolinarossini.net/
> + 1 6176979389
> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com <mailto:carolina.rossini at gmail.com>*
> skype: carolrossini
> @carolinarossini
>

-- 

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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130724/eaee14aa/attachment.htm>

From tisrael at cippic.ca  Wed Jul 24 10:25:06 2013
From: tisrael at cippic.ca (Tamir Israel)
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 10:25:06 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Re: Call for comment: civil society letter to PCLOB
 re: human rights impacts of NSA surveillance of 'non-US persons'
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAdWity3cqo+qLuNE-Rpz=rSGOf411HZA-4vUVYLBhKb-g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <51EF2902.1080702@cdt.org> <51EF316B.4030306@itforchange.net> <94BC60FF-AF14-46B8-B16D-6B6D01C40522@gmail.com> <51EF81D5.9090802@itforchange.net> <51EFB97F.9090702@apc.org> <1844C05E-B004-418A-A3D4-70429238BD4E@gmail.com> <CAK-FJAdWity3cqo+qLuNE-Rpz=rSGOf411HZA-4vUVYLBhKb-g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <51EFE3C2.4070400@cippic.ca>

Cloud storage is prob worth a mention, as that's where much of the
trouble comes from:
 para 2: "as well as individuals whose communications flow through the
U.S., even if they have no communications with anyone in the U.S." --->
"whose communications flow through *or are stored in* the United States,
even if...."

Best,
Tamir

On 7/24/2013 9:33 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote:
> I will work on Anriette suggestions.
>
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:36 AM, Gene Kimmelman <genekimmelman at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Thanks Anriette, excellent suggestions!
>>
>> On Jul 24, 2013, at 7:24 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  Dear all
>>
>> My view on the letter is to keep it focused on the Call for Comment by the
>> US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board regarding the US
>> government's surveillance programs under the PATRIOT Act and FISA.  I think
>> the letter is already too long.
>>
>> The more focused and to the point (and brief) our comments are, the more
>> likely they will be discussed, forwarded, understood, etc. etc.. However, I
>> do have a proposal for how to include a reference global legal frameworks
>> that does not change the basic character and purpose of the letter as one
>> that addresses an official US body.
>>
>> This letter makes three key points:
>>
>> * Government surveillance must be subject to a strong legal framework that
>> is transparent, necessary to achieve a legitimate goal and proportionate to
>> that goal, authorized by a competent judicial authority, and subject to
>> public oversight.
>>
>> *Surveillance of communications conducted under Section 702 must meets
>> international human rights standards for surveillance.
>>
>> * In the context of online communications, the privacy and liberty rights
>> of non-U.S. persons outside the U.S. should be within the PCLOB’s
>> statutory mandate.
>>
>> We could add something along the following lines:
>>
>> We believe findings and recommendations developed by the PCLOB that
>> ensure that protection of rights of US and non US persons in the context of
>> government surveillance would not only be consistent with the US
>> government's frequently stated commitment to 'freedom online'; it would
>> also constitute a valuable contribution to the eventual development of a
>> global framework for such protections.
>>
>> Btw, this last sentence (quoted below) still uses the term 'Americans'.
>> Please change. I also think that it is best to say 'findings and
>> recommendations' rather than 'recommendations and findings' as the former
>> is likely to flow from the latter.
>>
>> "We urge you to make recommendations and findings designed to protect the
>> human rights not only of Americans, but also of non-U.S. persons who live
>> outside the United States."
>>
>> Ciao
>>
>> Anriette
>>
>> On 24/07/2013 09:27, parminder wrote:
>>
>>
>> Thanks to Gene and Jeremy for their responses..
>>
>> However, I see no argument here why the letter cannot ask US to also
>> engage in developing global norms and agreements with regard to safeguards
>> against invasion of privacy in name of security, and then adhering to these
>> norms/ agreements. After all, US is a prime party to be appealed to if we
>> are to move towards such global norms/ agreements, and it remains my firm
>> belief that this thing can really be addressed only through global
>> arrangements,
>>
>> (Also, shouldnt US groups and US citizens also be concerned about invasion
>> of their privacy by non US government agents.:
>>
>> About Jeremy's arugment against seeking 'global legal frameworks' being
>> that we ourselves are yet to propose anything concrete, does the proposed
>> letter not ask the US government to develop new 'strong legal frameworks'
>> without actually suggesting their precise forms.. Why cant we do the same
>> for the global level even when we yet dont have our concrete institutional
>> proposals ready (would we ever be :) )... At the domestic level of US gov,
>> the letter simply asserts the need, at the principles level, of privacy
>> protection through 'strong legal framework'. We can ask the same for the
>> global system, at the level of principles.... Unless of course there is a
>> difference of opinion here about the principle of a global framework
>> itself, in which case it is precisely my point to discus it openly...
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 07:34 AM, Gene Kimmelman wrote:
>>
>> I think Parminder raises some very important points.  I'd like to offer a
>> quick observation and await other input:
>>
>> 1.  The question about how to refer to previous statements generated
>> through some subgroup of BestBits is very legitimate; we may need a more
>> precise description of the letter referred to and who the signatories
>> were.  We still need to discuss at the next BestBits gathering what our
>> rules of engagement and governance should be.
>>
>> 2.  I fully support the idea of initiating a discussion of what type of
>> global legal framework (or maybe normative framework) we should be
>> galvanizing around.  Maybe even a simple call for the UN to engage a
>>  discussion with all stakeholders fully represented, to consider how best
>> to enforce human rights charters and principles, would be a path forward?
>> Maybe others have a better suggestion, but I wouldn't want the "perfect" to
>> stand in the way of the "good enough" for the purpose of registering broad
>> CSO interest in a global discussion and global policy engagement.
>>
>> 3.  Whether or not we can all agree on something related to the global
>> legal framework, I also urge everyone to be pragmatic about the opportunity
>> to register your views with the US-base PCLOB.  This is of course only one
>> small piece of the legal struggle, but it is very important from a US NGO
>> standpoint to expand the US debate beyond US citizens or residents.  The US
>> needs global input to wake it up to its broader obligations.  This may  not
>> be enough to change policy, but it is a critical enhancement to the
>> US-based NGO advocacy that could have some impact on the US government.  So
>> even if this is a flawed, partial solution, and should be connected to
>> something related to broader global solution, I believe it could influence
>> US policymakers.
>> On Jul 23, 2013, at 9:44 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net> <parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Generally a well written statement. However, it must be judged not only
>> for what it says but also what it does not... The statement appeals to a US
>> government agency to protect human rights of all citizens of the world,
>> especially non US citizens, which is very well. It call for all security
>> measures that the US  " must be subject to a strong legal framework"
>> meaning here just a US legal framework.... I am not convinced that this
>> constitutes an adequate remedy. All security measures should be subject to
>> a strong global or international treaty/ legal framework as well.. That
>> alone will work in an environment where we are all continually immersed in
>> a (somewhat) globally seamless, or at least hyper-connected, digital space.
>>
>> So, my specific question is, what stops us, as a global civil society
>> group, from calling for a global/international legal framework to ensuring
>> that all security related (and other) actions, of all states, including the
>> US, are subject to a clear international regime based on human rights, and
>> any such regime should have adequate enforcement capabilities.
>>
>> Can we discuss this here...
>>
>> While once in a while we as a global civil society group can make specific
>> appeals to one government or the other, but I am unwilling to convert US
>> government to be 'the' key duty bearer and appellate body for global
>> justice. In doing this is a deeper politics, and that is my principal
>> objection to this statement - not to what the statmement says, but what it
>> does not. However, this problem can easily be addressed if the statement
>> includes an appeal for global legal frameworks for the same purpose.....
>> Are the framers of the statement willing to consider this?
>>
>> Another unconnected point, I often see statements that are signed by
>> various actors using the BestBits as a facilitating platform, without them
>> being developed and signed on the behalf of the BestBits group/ coalition,
>> then after being signed  propositioned as BestBits statements. Recently I
>> saw such a reference in the press, about a statement that was never signed
>> by the group as a whole being called as a BestBits statement. This proposed
>> letter also refers to an earlier statement being of BestBits coalition
>> whereas it was never signed by the group as a whole...
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 06:38 AM, Emma Llanso wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> As you may be aware, the US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is
>> accepting comments commentary regarding the US government's surveillance
>> programs under the PATRIOT Act and FISA.  (I've included some information
>> about PCLOB below in case you're not familiar with this entity.)  I'd like
>> to share with you a draft was put together by CDT, with feedback from a
>> number of folks on this list, that focuses on the impact these programs
>> have on the human rights of individuals outside the US:
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/17BWIev_DybbML3ObDCORkW83THrNGuJrHlV5sQLdYA0/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>> We feel that the draft text is at a point where it's ready to be shared
>> with the broader Best Bits community for comment.  Please share any
>> comments you have on the letter text with the whole list. (I will be
>> traveling on Wednesday and so slow to respond to email.)  Ideally, we'd
>> like to have a final draft of the letter text available to circulate during
>> the day on Thursday, giving us about a week to solicit sign-on from as
>> broad an array of groups as possible.  This is a very compressed timeframe,
>> unfortunately, but the deadline for submitting comments is August 1st, so
>> there is not much flexibility in the schedule.
>>
>> The Best Bits interim steering committee has agreed to host the final
>> letter text on the Best Bits website to facilitate sign-on once we've
>> reached that point.
>>
>> It's worth noting here that while a joint letter with broad international
>> sign in is one way of getting the US government to consider the rights of
>> non-US persons, so is flooding PCLOB with individual letters from
>> international groups, so please feel free to adapt or build on to this
>> letter and submit it separately. We intentionally did not make
>> recommendations to PCLOB so as to garner broad sign on (more on that
>> below), but individual letters are a good opportunity to make specific
>> recommendations.
>>
>> *Background on the letter:*
>> PCLOB will be preparing a report and is accepting comments
>> <http://www.regulations.gov/#%21documentDetail;D=PCLOB-2013-0005-0001><http://www.regulations.gov/#%21documentDetail;D=PCLOB-2013-0005-0001>(with no limitations on who can submit comments) until August 1st. As many
>> of you know, it's been an uphill battle to get any attention on this
>> critical issue of extraterritorial impacts of the US surveillance programs.
>> PCLOB hosted an open hearing on the NSA program earlier in July, and there
>> was unfortunately only a single reference to the human rights of people
>> other than US citizens during the entire hearing.  We think this comment
>> process is one of the better opportunities that groups from outside the US
>> will have in making their opinions about the US surveillance activities
>> heard.  I'd highly encourage organizations and individuals to make their
>> own comments into this process, in addition to considering signing this
>> letter.
>>
>> As a final note, the letter intentionally does not lay out recommendations
>> more specific than "take into consideration the human rights of individuals
>> outside the US", for several reasons.  First, it will likely be more
>> difficult for a broad range of groups to sign onto something urging very
>> specific legal or policy remedies.  Further, I wouldn't want to see a
>> short, easily agreed set of recommendations (e.g. focusing on transparency)
>> get interpreted to mean that those fixes are the only thing the US
>> government needs to do to remedy the situation.  Transparency is an
>> important initial step, but it's far from the only action needed here (a
>> point CDT will be emphasizing in our individual comments to PCLOB).  Again,
>> I'd strongly recommend groups file individual comments as well,
>> particularly if you have specific recommendations and actions for the
>> Board.
>>
>>
>> Looking forward to your comments,
>> Emma
>>
>>
>> *PCLOB - WHAT IS IT?* -
>> https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/privacy-and-civil-liberties-oversight-board
>>
>> The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is an advisory body to
>> assist the President and other senior Executive branch officials in
>> ensuring that concerns with respect to privacy and civil liberties are
>> appropriately considered in the implementation of all laws, regulations,
>> and executive branch policies related to war against terrorism.
>>
>> Recommended by the July 22, 2004, report of the National Commission on
>> Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, the Privacy and Civil Liberties
>> Oversight Board was established by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
>> Prevention Act of 2004. It consists of five members appointed by and
>> serving at the pleasure of the President. The Board is part of the White
>> House Office within the Executive Office of the President and supported by
>> an Executive Director and staff.
>>
>> The Board advises the President and other senior executive branch
>> officials to ensure that concerns with respect to privacy and civil
>> liberties are appropriately considered in the implementation of all laws,
>> regulations, and executive branch policies related to efforts to protect
>> the Nation against terrorism. This includes advising on whether adequate
>> guidelines, supervision, and oversight exist to protect these important
>> legal rights of all Americans. In addition, the Board is specifically
>> charged with responsibility for reviewing the terrorism information sharing
>> practices of executive branch departments and agencies to determine whether
>> guidelines designed to appropriately protect privacy and civil liberties
>> are being followed, including those issued by the President on December 16,
>> 2005. In the course of performing these functions within the executive
>> branch, the Board seeks the views of private sector, non-profit and
>> academic institutions, Members of Congress, and all other interested
>> parties and individuals on these issues.
>>
>> This agency has published 13 articles
>> <https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/search?conditions%5Bagency_ids%5D%5B%5D=438&skip_results=1#advanced><https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/search?conditions%5Bagency_ids%5D%5B%5D=438&skip_results=1#advanced>since 1994.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Emma J. Llansó
>> Policy Counsel
>> Center for Democracy & Technology
>> 1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100
>> Washington, DC 20006
>> 202-407-8818 | @cendemtech <https://twitter.com/#%21/CenDemTech><https://twitter.com/#%21/CenDemTech>| @ellanso
>> <https://twitter.com/#%21/ellanso> <https://twitter.com/#%21/ellanso>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130724/eff97071/attachment.htm>

From katitza at eff.org  Wed Jul 24 10:30:07 2013
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 10:30:07 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Re: Call for comment: civil society letter to PCLOB
 re: human rights impacts of NSA surveillance of 'non-US persons'
In-Reply-To: <51EFB97F.9090702@apc.org>
References: <51EF2902.1080702@cdt.org> <51EF316B.4030306@itforchange.net> <94BC60FF-AF14-46B8-B16D-6B6D01C40522@gmail.com> <51EF81D5.9090802@itforchange.net> <51EFB97F.9090702@apc.org>
Message-ID: <51EFE4EF.40403@eff.org>

Dear all,

It would be good to answer the consultation without voicing support for
a PCLOB investigation. In EFF, we are of the opinion that the PCLOB
isn't the right place for an investigation.

PCLOB is weak institution, so EFF concern is that its weaknesses foster
low, expectation politics/rhetoric.  EFF want a Church Committee,
investigation or at least an existing committee with congress or at
least an existing committee with congressional subpoena power to
investigate.

We have three or four blog posts with arguments about why we need
a special investigatory committee, and at the very least extant
committees, instead of the PCLOB to investigate.

For more information on our asks please check out:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/why-special-congressional-committee-must-be-created-investigate-nsas

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/response-nsa-we-need-new-church-commission-and-we-need-it-now


On 7/24/13 7:24 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> Dear all
> 
> My view on the letter is to keep it focused on the Call for Comment by
> the US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board regarding the US
> government's surveillance programs under the PATRIOT Act and FISA.  I
> think the letter is already too long.
> 
> The more focused and to the point (and brief) our comments are, the more
> likely they will be discussed, forwarded, understood, etc. etc..
> However, I do have a proposal for how to include a reference global
> legal frameworks that does not change the basic character and purpose of
> the letter as one that addresses an official US body.
> 
> This letter makes three key points:
> 
> * Government surveillance must be subject to a strong legal framework
> that is transparent, necessary to achieve a legitimate goal and
> proportionate to that goal, authorized by a competent judicial
> authority, and subject to public oversight. 
> 
> 
> *Surveillance of communications conducted under Section 702 must meets
> international human rights standards for surveillance.
> 
> 
> * In the context of online communications, the privacy and liberty
> rights of non-U.S. persons outside the U.S. should bewithin the PCLOB's
> statutory mandate.
> 
> We could add something along the following lines:
> 
> We believe findings and recommendations developed by the PCLOB that
> ensure that protection of rights of US and non US persons in the context
> of government surveillance would not only be consistent with the US
> government's frequently stated commitment to 'freedom online'; it would
> also constitute a valuable contribution to the eventual development of a
> global framework for such protections.
> 
> Btw, this last sentence (quoted below) still uses the term 'Americans'.
> Please change. I also think that it is best to say 'findings and
> recommendations' rather than 'recommendations and findings' as the
> former is likely to flow from the latter.
> 
> "We urge you to make recommendations and findings designed to protect
> the human rights not only of Americans, but also of non-U.S. persons who
> live outside the United States."
> 
> Ciao
> 
> Anriette
> 
> On 24/07/2013 09:27, parminder wrote:
>>
>> Thanks to Gene and Jeremy for their responses..
>>
>> However, I see no argument here why the letter cannot ask US to also
>> engage in developing global norms and agreements with regard to
>> safeguards against invasion of privacy in name of security, and then
>> adhering to these norms/ agreements. After all, US is a prime party to
>> be appealed to if we are to move towards such global norms/
>> agreements, and it remains my firm belief that this thing can really
>> be addressed only through global arrangements,
>>
>> (Also, shouldnt US groups and US citizens also be concerned about
>> invasion of their privacy by non US government agents.:
>>
>> About Jeremy's arugment against seeking 'global legal frameworks'
>> being that we ourselves are yet to propose anything concrete, does the
>> proposed letter not ask the US government to develop new 'strong legal
>> frameworks' without actually suggesting their precise forms.. Why cant
>> we do the same for the global level even when we yet dont have our
>> concrete institutional proposals ready (would we ever be :) )... At
>> the domestic level of US gov, the letter simply asserts the need, at
>> the principles level, of privacy protection through 'strong legal
>> framework'. We can ask the same for the global system, at the level of
>> principles.... Unless of course there is a difference of opinion here
>> about the principle of a global framework itself, in which case it is
>> precisely my point to discus it openly...
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 07:34 AM, Gene Kimmelman wrote:
>>> I think Parminder raises some very important points.  I'd like to
>>> offer a quick observation and await other input:
>>>
>>> 1.  The question about how to refer to previous statements generated
>>> through some subgroup of BestBits is very legitimate; we may need a
>>> more precise description of the letter referred to and who the
>>> signatories were.  We still need to discuss at the next BestBits
>>> gathering what our rules of engagement and governance should be.
>>>
>>> 2.  I fully support the idea of initiating a discussion of what type
>>> of global legal framework (or maybe normative framework) we should be
>>> galvanizing around.  Maybe even a simple call for the UN to engage a
>>>  discussion with all stakeholders fully represented, to consider how
>>> best to enforce human rights charters and principles, would be a path
>>> forward?  Maybe others have a better suggestion, but I wouldn't want
>>> the "perfect" to stand in the way of the "good enough" for the
>>> purpose of registering broad CSO interest in a global discussion and
>>> global policy engagement.
>>>
>>> 3.  Whether or not we can all agree on something related to the
>>> global legal framework, I also urge everyone to be pragmatic about
>>> the opportunity to register your views with the US-base PCLOB.  This
>>> is of course only one small piece of the legal struggle, but it is
>>> very important from a US NGO standpoint to expand the US debate
>>> beyond US citizens or residents.  The US needs global input to wake
>>> it up to its broader obligations.  This may  not be enough to change
>>> policy, but it is a critical enhancement to the US-based NGO advocacy
>>> that could have some impact on the US government.  So even if this is
>>> a flawed, partial solution, and should be connected to something
>>> related to broader global solution, I believe it could influence US
>>> policymakers.
>>> On Jul 23, 2013, at 9:44 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Generally a well written statement. However, it must be judged not
>>>> only for what it says but also what it does not... The statement
>>>> appeals to a US government agency to protect human rights of all
>>>> citizens of the world, especially non US citizens, which is very
>>>> well. It call for all security measures that the US  " must be
>>>> subject to a strong legal framework" meaning here just a US legal
>>>> framework.... I am not convinced that this constitutes an adequate
>>>> remedy. All security measures should be subject to a strong global
>>>> or international treaty/ legal framework as well.. That alone will
>>>> work in an environment where we are all continually immersed in a
>>>> (somewhat) globally seamless, or at least hyper-connected, digital
>>>> space.
>>>>
>>>> So, my specific question is, what stops us, as a global civil
>>>> society group, from calling for a global/international legal
>>>> framework to ensuring that all security related (and other) actions,
>>>> of all states, including the US, are subject to a clear
>>>> international regime based on human rights, and any such regime
>>>> should have adequate enforcement capabilities.
>>>>
>>>> Can we discuss this here...
>>>>
>>>> While once in a while we as a global civil society group can make
>>>> specific appeals to one government or the other, but I am unwilling
>>>> to convert US government to be 'the' key duty bearer and appellate
>>>> body for global justice. In doing this is a deeper politics, and
>>>> that is my principal objection to this statement - not to what the
>>>> statmement says, but what it does not. However, this problem can
>>>> easily be addressed if the statement includes an appeal for global
>>>> legal frameworks for the same purpose..... Are the framers of the
>>>> statement willing to consider this?
>>>>
>>>> Another unconnected point, I often see statements that are signed by
>>>> various actors using the BestBits as a facilitating platform,
>>>> without them being developed and signed on the behalf of the
>>>> BestBits group/ coalition, then after being signed  propositioned as
>>>> BestBits statements. Recently I saw such a reference in the press,
>>>> about a statement that was never signed by the group as a whole
>>>> being called as a BestBits statement. This proposed letter also
>>>> refers to an earlier statement being of BestBits coalition whereas
>>>> it was never signed by the group as a whole...
>>>>
>>>> parminder
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 06:38 AM, Emma Llanso wrote:
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>
>>>>> As you may be aware, the US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight
>>>>> Board is accepting comments commentary regarding the US
>>>>> government's surveillance programs under the PATRIOT Act and FISA. 
>>>>> (I've included some information about PCLOB below in case you're
>>>>> not familiar with this entity.)  I'd like to share with you a draft
>>>>> was put together by CDT, with feedback from a number of folks on
>>>>> this list, that focuses on the impact these programs have on the
>>>>> human rights of individuals outside the US:
>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/17BWIev_DybbML3ObDCORkW83THrNGuJrHlV5sQLdYA0/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We feel that the draft text is at a point where it's ready to be
>>>>> shared with the broader Best Bits community for comment.  Please
>>>>> share any comments you have on the letter text with the whole list.
>>>>> (I will be traveling on Wednesday and so slow to respond to
>>>>> email.)  Ideally, we'd like to have a final draft of the letter
>>>>> text available to circulate during the day on Thursday, giving us
>>>>> about a week to solicit sign-on from as broad an array of groups as
>>>>> possible.  This is a very compressed timeframe, unfortunately, but
>>>>> the deadline for submitting comments is August 1st, so there is not
>>>>> much flexibility in the schedule.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Best Bits interim steering committee has agreed to host the
>>>>> final letter text on the Best Bits website to facilitate sign-on
>>>>> once we've reached that point.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's worth noting here that while a joint letter with broad
>>>>> international sign in is one way of getting the US government to
>>>>> consider the rights of non-US persons, so is flooding PCLOB with
>>>>> individual letters from international groups, so please feel free
>>>>> to adapt or build on to this letter and submit it separately. We
>>>>> intentionally did not make recommendations to PCLOB so as to garner
>>>>> broad sign on (more on that below), but individual letters are a
>>>>> good opportunity to make specific recommendations.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Background on the letter:*
>>>>> PCLOB will be preparing a report and is accepting comments
>>>>> <http://www.regulations.gov/#%21documentDetail;D=PCLOB-2013-0005-0001>
>>>>> (with no limitations on who can submit comments) until August 1st.
>>>>> As many of you know, it's been an uphill battle to get any
>>>>> attention on this critical issue of extraterritorial impacts of the
>>>>> US surveillance programs. PCLOB hosted an open hearing on the NSA
>>>>> program earlier in July, and there was unfortunately only a single
>>>>> reference to the human rights of people other than US citizens
>>>>> during the entire hearing.  We think this comment process is one of
>>>>> the better opportunities that groups from outside the US will have
>>>>> in making their opinions about the US surveillance activities
>>>>> heard.  I'd highly encourage organizations and individuals to make
>>>>> their own comments into this process, in addition to considering
>>>>> signing this letter.
>>>>>
>>>>> As a final note, the letter intentionally does not lay out
>>>>> recommendations more specific than "take into consideration the
>>>>> human rights of individuals outside the US", for several reasons. 
>>>>> First, it will likely be more difficult for a broad range of groups
>>>>> to sign onto something urging very specific legal or policy
>>>>> remedies.  Further, I wouldn't want to see a short, easily agreed
>>>>> set of recommendations (e.g. focusing on transparency) get
>>>>> interpreted to mean that those fixes are the only thing the US
>>>>> government needs to do to remedy the situation.  Transparency is an
>>>>> important initial step, but it's far from the only action needed
>>>>> here (a point CDT will be emphasizing in our individual comments to
>>>>> PCLOB).  Again, I'd strongly recommend groups file individual
>>>>> comments as well, particularly if you have specific recommendations
>>>>> and actions for the Board.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Looking forward to your comments,
>>>>> Emma
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *PCLOB - WHAT IS IT?* -
>>>>> https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/privacy-and-civil-liberties-oversight-board
>>>>>
>>>>> The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is an advisory body
>>>>> to assist the President and other senior Executive branch officials
>>>>> in ensuring that concerns with respect to privacy and civil
>>>>> liberties are appropriately considered in the implementation of all
>>>>> laws, regulations, and executive branch policies related to war
>>>>> against terrorism.
>>>>>
>>>>> Recommended by the July 22, 2004, report of the National Commission
>>>>> on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, the Privacy and Civil
>>>>> Liberties Oversight Board was established by the Intelligence
>>>>> Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. It consists of five
>>>>> members appointed by and serving at the pleasure of the President.
>>>>> The Board is part of the White House Office within the Executive
>>>>> Office of the President and supported by an Executive Director and
>>>>> staff.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Board advises the President and other senior executive branch
>>>>> officials to ensure that concerns with respect to privacy and civil
>>>>> liberties are appropriately considered in the implementation of all
>>>>> laws, regulations, and executive branch policies related to efforts
>>>>> to protect the Nation against terrorism. This includes advising on
>>>>> whether adequate guidelines, supervision, and oversight exist to
>>>>> protect these important legal rights of all Americans. In addition,
>>>>> the Board is specifically charged with responsibility for reviewing
>>>>> the terrorism information sharing practices of executive branch
>>>>> departments and agencies to determine whether guidelines designed
>>>>> to appropriately protect privacy and civil liberties are being
>>>>> followed, including those issued by the President on December 16,
>>>>> 2005. In the course of performing these functions within the
>>>>> executive branch, the Board seeks the views of private sector,
>>>>> non-profit and academic institutions, Members of Congress, and all
>>>>> other interested parties and individuals on these issues.
>>>>>
>>>>> This agency has published 13 articles
>>>>> <https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/search?conditions%5Bagency_ids%5D%5B%5D=438&skip_results=1#advanced>
>>>>> since 1994.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Emma J. Llansó
>>>>> Policy Counsel
>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology
>>>>> 1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100
>>>>> Washington, DC 20006
>>>>> 202-407-8818 | @cendemtech <https://twitter.com/#%21/CenDemTech> |
>>>>> @ellanso <https://twitter.com/#%21/ellanso>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 


-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom
of speech since 1990
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0x9425A914.asc
Type: application/pgp-keys
Size: 2175 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130724/e77f67a0/attachment.key>

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Wed Jul 24 10:53:27 2013
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 20:23:27 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: Call for comment: civil society letter to PCLOB
 re: human rights impacts of NSA surveillance of 'non-US persons'
In-Reply-To: <51EFE4EF.40403@eff.org>
References: <51EF2902.1080702@cdt.org>
	<51EF316B.4030306@itforchange.net>
	<94BC60FF-AF14-46B8-B16D-6B6D01C40522@gmail.com>
	<51EF81D5.9090802@itforchange.net>
	<51EFB97F.9090702@apc.org>
	<51EFE4EF.40403@eff.org>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHCj0EnRFyPBpmdO7MDA-fSZMPDzeO-wSOj+68njYG=sDA@mail.gmail.com>

I also liked Anriette's language on the "development of a global framework
for protection", though I would suggest we slightly edit it to read "the
development of a global framework for the implementation of protections" or
something along those lines. The reason is that we already have a framework
for protections, ie the human rights framework, but that governments seem
to be happy to disregard this when it comes to surveillance.

Until governments worldwide give considerably greater evidence of their
willingness to make the protection of human rights an integral component of
their surveillance plans, I do not think that it is appropriate for civil
society to push for a more comprehensive global framework on security
issues in general.

On the issue of what constitutes a "Best Bits statement", the points made
here are important and we do indeed need greater clarity on this. At the
same time, it's also important to keep in mind that once statements are
shared with the wider world, maintaining a distinction between a statement
supported by all (though even on the Baku one I think we had one abstention
by the way, and in any case the Baku group was fairly small) and a
statement shared and promoted through the Best Bits platform might be
difficult - even if we are careful to make these distinctions, the wider
world might not.

Perhaps we should therefore simply go for a model in which ALL statements
are considered to be in the latter category, and focus our attention on
coming up with criteria for which type of statements are appropriate (or
not) for Best Bits instead? I am worried that sending out mixed messages
will only undermine the effectiveness of the advocacy efforts that go
through Best Bits, though I'd of course be very happy to hear other
possible solutions to that conundrum as well.

Thanks and best,
Anja


On 24 July 2013 20:00, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> It would be good to answer the consultation without voicing support for
> a PCLOB investigation. In EFF, we are of the opinion that the PCLOB
> isn't the right place for an investigation.
>
> PCLOB is weak institution, so EFF concern is that its weaknesses foster
> low, expectation politics/rhetoric.  EFF want a Church Committee,
> investigation or at least an existing committee with congress or at
> least an existing committee with congressional subpoena power to
> investigate.
>
> We have three or four blog posts with arguments about why we need
> a special investigatory committee, and at the very least extant
> committees, instead of the PCLOB to investigate.
>
> For more information on our asks please check out:
>
>
> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/why-special-congressional-committee-must-be-created-investigate-nsas
>
>
> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/response-nsa-we-need-new-church-commission-and-we-need-it-now
>
>
> On 7/24/13 7:24 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> > Dear all
> >
> > My view on the letter is to keep it focused on the Call for Comment by
> > the US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board regarding the US
> > government's surveillance programs under the PATRIOT Act and FISA.  I
> > think the letter is already too long.
> >
> > The more focused and to the point (and brief) our comments are, the more
> > likely they will be discussed, forwarded, understood, etc. etc..
> > However, I do have a proposal for how to include a reference global
> > legal frameworks that does not change the basic character and purpose of
> > the letter as one that addresses an official US body.
> >
> > This letter makes three key points:
> >
> > * Government surveillance must be subject to a strong legal framework
> > that is transparent, necessary to achieve a legitimate goal and
> > proportionate to that goal, authorized by a competent judicial
> > authority, and subject to public oversight.
> >
> >
> > *Surveillance of communications conducted under Section 702 must meets
> > international human rights standards for surveillance.
> >
> >
> > * In the context of online communications, the privacy and liberty
> > rights of non-U.S. persons outside the U.S. should bewithin the PCLOB's
> > statutory mandate.
> >
> > We could add something along the following lines:
> >
> > We believe findings and recommendations developed by the PCLOB that
> > ensure that protection of rights of US and non US persons in the context
> > of government surveillance would not only be consistent with the US
> > government's frequently stated commitment to 'freedom online'; it would
> > also constitute a valuable contribution to the eventual development of a
> > global framework for such protections.
> >
> > Btw, this last sentence (quoted below) still uses the term 'Americans'.
> > Please change. I also think that it is best to say 'findings and
> > recommendations' rather than 'recommendations and findings' as the
> > former is likely to flow from the latter.
> >
> > "We urge you to make recommendations and findings designed to protect
> > the human rights not only of Americans, but also of non-U.S. persons who
> > live outside the United States."
> >
> > Ciao
> >
> > Anriette
> >
> > On 24/07/2013 09:27, parminder wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks to Gene and Jeremy for their responses..
> >>
> >> However, I see no argument here why the letter cannot ask US to also
> >> engage in developing global norms and agreements with regard to
> >> safeguards against invasion of privacy in name of security, and then
> >> adhering to these norms/ agreements. After all, US is a prime party to
> >> be appealed to if we are to move towards such global norms/
> >> agreements, and it remains my firm belief that this thing can really
> >> be addressed only through global arrangements,
> >>
> >> (Also, shouldnt US groups and US citizens also be concerned about
> >> invasion of their privacy by non US government agents.:
> >>
> >> About Jeremy's arugment against seeking 'global legal frameworks'
> >> being that we ourselves are yet to propose anything concrete, does the
> >> proposed letter not ask the US government to develop new 'strong legal
> >> frameworks' without actually suggesting their precise forms.. Why cant
> >> we do the same for the global level even when we yet dont have our
> >> concrete institutional proposals ready (would we ever be :) )... At
> >> the domestic level of US gov, the letter simply asserts the need, at
> >> the principles level, of privacy protection through 'strong legal
> >> framework'. We can ask the same for the global system, at the level of
> >> principles.... Unless of course there is a difference of opinion here
> >> about the principle of a global framework itself, in which case it is
> >> precisely my point to discus it openly...
> >>
> >> parminder
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 07:34 AM, Gene Kimmelman wrote:
> >>> I think Parminder raises some very important points.  I'd like to
> >>> offer a quick observation and await other input:
> >>>
> >>> 1.  The question about how to refer to previous statements generated
> >>> through some subgroup of BestBits is very legitimate; we may need a
> >>> more precise description of the letter referred to and who the
> >>> signatories were.  We still need to discuss at the next BestBits
> >>> gathering what our rules of engagement and governance should be.
> >>>
> >>> 2.  I fully support the idea of initiating a discussion of what type
> >>> of global legal framework (or maybe normative framework) we should be
> >>> galvanizing around.  Maybe even a simple call for the UN to engage a
> >>>  discussion with all stakeholders fully represented, to consider how
> >>> best to enforce human rights charters and principles, would be a path
> >>> forward?  Maybe others have a better suggestion, but I wouldn't want
> >>> the "perfect" to stand in the way of the "good enough" for the
> >>> purpose of registering broad CSO interest in a global discussion and
> >>> global policy engagement.
> >>>
> >>> 3.  Whether or not we can all agree on something related to the
> >>> global legal framework, I also urge everyone to be pragmatic about
> >>> the opportunity to register your views with the US-base PCLOB.  This
> >>> is of course only one small piece of the legal struggle, but it is
> >>> very important from a US NGO standpoint to expand the US debate
> >>> beyond US citizens or residents.  The US needs global input to wake
> >>> it up to its broader obligations.  This may  not be enough to change
> >>> policy, but it is a critical enhancement to the US-based NGO advocacy
> >>> that could have some impact on the US government.  So even if this is
> >>> a flawed, partial solution, and should be connected to something
> >>> related to broader global solution, I believe it could influence US
> >>> policymakers.
> >>> On Jul 23, 2013, at 9:44 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> >>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Generally a well written statement. However, it must be judged not
> >>>> only for what it says but also what it does not... The statement
> >>>> appeals to a US government agency to protect human rights of all
> >>>> citizens of the world, especially non US citizens, which is very
> >>>> well. It call for all security measures that the US  " must be
> >>>> subject to a strong legal framework" meaning here just a US legal
> >>>> framework.... I am not convinced that this constitutes an adequate
> >>>> remedy. All security measures should be subject to a strong global
> >>>> or international treaty/ legal framework as well.. That alone will
> >>>> work in an environment where we are all continually immersed in a
> >>>> (somewhat) globally seamless, or at least hyper-connected, digital
> >>>> space.
> >>>>
> >>>> So, my specific question is, what stops us, as a global civil
> >>>> society group, from calling for a global/international legal
> >>>> framework to ensuring that all security related (and other) actions,
> >>>> of all states, including the US, are subject to a clear
> >>>> international regime based on human rights, and any such regime
> >>>> should have adequate enforcement capabilities.
> >>>>
> >>>> Can we discuss this here...
> >>>>
> >>>> While once in a while we as a global civil society group can make
> >>>> specific appeals to one government or the other, but I am unwilling
> >>>> to convert US government to be 'the' key duty bearer and appellate
> >>>> body for global justice. In doing this is a deeper politics, and
> >>>> that is my principal objection to this statement - not to what the
> >>>> statmement says, but what it does not. However, this problem can
> >>>> easily be addressed if the statement includes an appeal for global
> >>>> legal frameworks for the same purpose..... Are the framers of the
> >>>> statement willing to consider this?
> >>>>
> >>>> Another unconnected point, I often see statements that are signed by
> >>>> various actors using the BestBits as a facilitating platform,
> >>>> without them being developed and signed on the behalf of the
> >>>> BestBits group/ coalition, then after being signed  propositioned as
> >>>> BestBits statements. Recently I saw such a reference in the press,
> >>>> about a statement that was never signed by the group as a whole
> >>>> being called as a BestBits statement. This proposed letter also
> >>>> refers to an earlier statement being of BestBits coalition whereas
> >>>> it was never signed by the group as a whole...
> >>>>
> >>>> parminder
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 06:38 AM, Emma Llanso wrote:
> >>>>> Dear all,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As you may be aware, the US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight
> >>>>> Board is accepting comments commentary regarding the US
> >>>>> government's surveillance programs under the PATRIOT Act and FISA.
> >>>>> (I've included some information about PCLOB below in case you're
> >>>>> not familiar with this entity.)  I'd like to share with you a draft
> >>>>> was put together by CDT, with feedback from a number of folks on
> >>>>> this list, that focuses on the impact these programs have on the
> >>>>> human rights of individuals outside the US:
> >>>>>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/17BWIev_DybbML3ObDCORkW83THrNGuJrHlV5sQLdYA0/edit?usp=sharing
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We feel that the draft text is at a point where it's ready to be
> >>>>> shared with the broader Best Bits community for comment.  Please
> >>>>> share any comments you have on the letter text with the whole list.
> >>>>> (I will be traveling on Wednesday and so slow to respond to
> >>>>> email.)  Ideally, we'd like to have a final draft of the letter
> >>>>> text available to circulate during the day on Thursday, giving us
> >>>>> about a week to solicit sign-on from as broad an array of groups as
> >>>>> possible.  This is a very compressed timeframe, unfortunately, but
> >>>>> the deadline for submitting comments is August 1st, so there is not
> >>>>> much flexibility in the schedule.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The Best Bits interim steering committee has agreed to host the
> >>>>> final letter text on the Best Bits website to facilitate sign-on
> >>>>> once we've reached that point.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's worth noting here that while a joint letter with broad
> >>>>> international sign in is one way of getting the US government to
> >>>>> consider the rights of non-US persons, so is flooding PCLOB with
> >>>>> individual letters from international groups, so please feel free
> >>>>> to adapt or build on to this letter and submit it separately. We
> >>>>> intentionally did not make recommendations to PCLOB so as to garner
> >>>>> broad sign on (more on that below), but individual letters are a
> >>>>> good opportunity to make specific recommendations.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *Background on the letter:*
> >>>>> PCLOB will be preparing a report and is accepting comments
> >>>>> <
> http://www.regulations.gov/#%21documentDetail;D=PCLOB-2013-0005-0001>
> >>>>> (with no limitations on who can submit comments) until August 1st.
> >>>>> As many of you know, it's been an uphill battle to get any
> >>>>> attention on this critical issue of extraterritorial impacts of the
> >>>>> US surveillance programs. PCLOB hosted an open hearing on the NSA
> >>>>> program earlier in July, and there was unfortunately only a single
> >>>>> reference to the human rights of people other than US citizens
> >>>>> during the entire hearing.  We think this comment process is one of
> >>>>> the better opportunities that groups from outside the US will have
> >>>>> in making their opinions about the US surveillance activities
> >>>>> heard.  I'd highly encourage organizations and individuals to make
> >>>>> their own comments into this process, in addition to considering
> >>>>> signing this letter.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As a final note, the letter intentionally does not lay out
> >>>>> recommendations more specific than "take into consideration the
> >>>>> human rights of individuals outside the US", for several reasons.
> >>>>> First, it will likely be more difficult for a broad range of groups
> >>>>> to sign onto something urging very specific legal or policy
> >>>>> remedies.  Further, I wouldn't want to see a short, easily agreed
> >>>>> set of recommendations (e.g. focusing on transparency) get
> >>>>> interpreted to mean that those fixes are the only thing the US
> >>>>> government needs to do to remedy the situation.  Transparency is an
> >>>>> important initial step, but it's far from the only action needed
> >>>>> here (a point CDT will be emphasizing in our individual comments to
> >>>>> PCLOB).  Again, I'd strongly recommend groups file individual
> >>>>> comments as well, particularly if you have specific recommendations
> >>>>> and actions for the Board.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Looking forward to your comments,
> >>>>> Emma
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *PCLOB - WHAT IS IT?* -
> >>>>>
> https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/privacy-and-civil-liberties-oversight-board
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is an advisory body
> >>>>> to assist the President and other senior Executive branch officials
> >>>>> in ensuring that concerns with respect to privacy and civil
> >>>>> liberties are appropriately considered in the implementation of all
> >>>>> laws, regulations, and executive branch policies related to war
> >>>>> against terrorism.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Recommended by the July 22, 2004, report of the National Commission
> >>>>> on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, the Privacy and Civil
> >>>>> Liberties Oversight Board was established by the Intelligence
> >>>>> Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. It consists of five
> >>>>> members appointed by and serving at the pleasure of the President.
> >>>>> The Board is part of the White House Office within the Executive
> >>>>> Office of the President and supported by an Executive Director and
> >>>>> staff.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The Board advises the President and other senior executive branch
> >>>>> officials to ensure that concerns with respect to privacy and civil
> >>>>> liberties are appropriately considered in the implementation of all
> >>>>> laws, regulations, and executive branch policies related to efforts
> >>>>> to protect the Nation against terrorism. This includes advising on
> >>>>> whether adequate guidelines, supervision, and oversight exist to
> >>>>> protect these important legal rights of all Americans. In addition,
> >>>>> the Board is specifically charged with responsibility for reviewing
> >>>>> the terrorism information sharing practices of executive branch
> >>>>> departments and agencies to determine whether guidelines designed
> >>>>> to appropriately protect privacy and civil liberties are being
> >>>>> followed, including those issued by the President on December 16,
> >>>>> 2005. In the course of performing these functions within the
> >>>>> executive branch, the Board seeks the views of private sector,
> >>>>> non-profit and academic institutions, Members of Congress, and all
> >>>>> other interested parties and individuals on these issues.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This agency has published 13 articles
> >>>>> <
> https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/search?conditions%5Bagency_ids%5D%5B%5D=438&skip_results=1#advanced
> >
> >>>>> since 1994.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Emma J. Llansó
> >>>>> Policy Counsel
> >>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology
> >>>>> 1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100
> >>>>> Washington, DC 20006
> >>>>> 202-407-8818 | @cendemtech <https://twitter.com/#%21/CenDemTech> |
> >>>>> @ellanso <https://twitter.com/#%21/ellanso>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
> Katitza Rodriguez
> International Rights Director
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> katitza at eff.org
> katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)
>
> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom
> of speech since 1990
>



-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130724/23c83808/attachment.htm>

From katitza at eff.org  Wed Jul 24 10:55:08 2013
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 10:55:08 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Re: Call for comment: civil society letter to PCLOB
 re: human rights impacts of NSA surveillance of 'non-US persons'
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHCj0EnRFyPBpmdO7MDA-fSZMPDzeO-wSOj+68njYG=sDA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <51EF2902.1080702@cdt.org> <51EF316B.4030306@itforchange.net> <94BC60FF-AF14-46B8-B16D-6B6D01C40522@gmail.com> <51EF81D5.9090802@itforchange.net> <51EFB97F.9090702@apc.org> <51EFE4EF.40403@eff.org> <CAJqNAHCj0EnRFyPBpmdO7MDA-fSZMPDzeO-wSOj+68njYG=sDA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <51EFEACC.2030002@eff.org>

We need to restore the rule of law instead of re-inventing new ones!



On 7/24/13 10:53 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
> I also liked Anriette's language on the "development of a global framework
> for protection", though I would suggest we slightly edit it to read "the
> development of a global framework for the implementation of protections" or
> something along those lines. The reason is that we already have a framework
> for protections, ie the human rights framework, but that governments seem
> to be happy to disregard this when it comes to surveillance.
> 
> Until governments worldwide give considerably greater evidence of their
> willingness to make the protection of human rights an integral component of
> their surveillance plans, I do not think that it is appropriate for civil
> society to push for a more comprehensive global framework on security
> issues in general.
> 
> On the issue of what constitutes a "Best Bits statement", the points made
> here are important and we do indeed need greater clarity on this. At the
> same time, it's also important to keep in mind that once statements are
> shared with the wider world, maintaining a distinction between a statement
> supported by all (though even on the Baku one I think we had one abstention
> by the way, and in any case the Baku group was fairly small) and a
> statement shared and promoted through the Best Bits platform might be
> difficult - even if we are careful to make these distinctions, the wider
> world might not.
> 
> Perhaps we should therefore simply go for a model in which ALL statements
> are considered to be in the latter category, and focus our attention on
> coming up with criteria for which type of statements are appropriate (or
> not) for Best Bits instead? I am worried that sending out mixed messages
> will only undermine the effectiveness of the advocacy efforts that go
> through Best Bits, though I'd of course be very happy to hear other
> possible solutions to that conundrum as well.
> 
> Thanks and best,
> Anja
> 
> 
> On 24 July 2013 20:00, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> wrote:
> 
>> Dear all,
>>
>> It would be good to answer the consultation without voicing support for
>> a PCLOB investigation. In EFF, we are of the opinion that the PCLOB
>> isn't the right place for an investigation.
>>
>> PCLOB is weak institution, so EFF concern is that its weaknesses foster
>> low, expectation politics/rhetoric.  EFF want a Church Committee,
>> investigation or at least an existing committee with congress or at
>> least an existing committee with congressional subpoena power to
>> investigate.
>>
>> We have three or four blog posts with arguments about why we need
>> a special investigatory committee, and at the very least extant
>> committees, instead of the PCLOB to investigate.
>>
>> For more information on our asks please check out:
>>
>>
>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/why-special-congressional-committee-must-be-created-investigate-nsas
>>
>>
>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/response-nsa-we-need-new-church-commission-and-we-need-it-now
>>
>>
>> On 7/24/13 7:24 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>> Dear all
>>>
>>> My view on the letter is to keep it focused on the Call for Comment by
>>> the US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board regarding the US
>>> government's surveillance programs under the PATRIOT Act and FISA.  I
>>> think the letter is already too long.
>>>
>>> The more focused and to the point (and brief) our comments are, the more
>>> likely they will be discussed, forwarded, understood, etc. etc..
>>> However, I do have a proposal for how to include a reference global
>>> legal frameworks that does not change the basic character and purpose of
>>> the letter as one that addresses an official US body.
>>>
>>> This letter makes three key points:
>>>
>>> * Government surveillance must be subject to a strong legal framework
>>> that is transparent, necessary to achieve a legitimate goal and
>>> proportionate to that goal, authorized by a competent judicial
>>> authority, and subject to public oversight.
>>>
>>>
>>> *Surveillance of communications conducted under Section 702 must meets
>>> international human rights standards for surveillance.
>>>
>>>
>>> * In the context of online communications, the privacy and liberty
>>> rights of non-U.S. persons outside the U.S. should bewithin the PCLOB's
>>> statutory mandate.
>>>
>>> We could add something along the following lines:
>>>
>>> We believe findings and recommendations developed by the PCLOB that
>>> ensure that protection of rights of US and non US persons in the context
>>> of government surveillance would not only be consistent with the US
>>> government's frequently stated commitment to 'freedom online'; it would
>>> also constitute a valuable contribution to the eventual development of a
>>> global framework for such protections.
>>>
>>> Btw, this last sentence (quoted below) still uses the term 'Americans'.
>>> Please change. I also think that it is best to say 'findings and
>>> recommendations' rather than 'recommendations and findings' as the
>>> former is likely to flow from the latter.
>>>
>>> "We urge you to make recommendations and findings designed to protect
>>> the human rights not only of Americans, but also of non-U.S. persons who
>>> live outside the United States."
>>>
>>> Ciao
>>>
>>> Anriette
>>>
>>> On 24/07/2013 09:27, parminder wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks to Gene and Jeremy for their responses..
>>>>
>>>> However, I see no argument here why the letter cannot ask US to also
>>>> engage in developing global norms and agreements with regard to
>>>> safeguards against invasion of privacy in name of security, and then
>>>> adhering to these norms/ agreements. After all, US is a prime party to
>>>> be appealed to if we are to move towards such global norms/
>>>> agreements, and it remains my firm belief that this thing can really
>>>> be addressed only through global arrangements,
>>>>
>>>> (Also, shouldnt US groups and US citizens also be concerned about
>>>> invasion of their privacy by non US government agents.:
>>>>
>>>> About Jeremy's arugment against seeking 'global legal frameworks'
>>>> being that we ourselves are yet to propose anything concrete, does the
>>>> proposed letter not ask the US government to develop new 'strong legal
>>>> frameworks' without actually suggesting their precise forms.. Why cant
>>>> we do the same for the global level even when we yet dont have our
>>>> concrete institutional proposals ready (would we ever be :) )... At
>>>> the domestic level of US gov, the letter simply asserts the need, at
>>>> the principles level, of privacy protection through 'strong legal
>>>> framework'. We can ask the same for the global system, at the level of
>>>> principles.... Unless of course there is a difference of opinion here
>>>> about the principle of a global framework itself, in which case it is
>>>> precisely my point to discus it openly...
>>>>
>>>> parminder
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 07:34 AM, Gene Kimmelman wrote:
>>>>> I think Parminder raises some very important points.  I'd like to
>>>>> offer a quick observation and await other input:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1.  The question about how to refer to previous statements generated
>>>>> through some subgroup of BestBits is very legitimate; we may need a
>>>>> more precise description of the letter referred to and who the
>>>>> signatories were.  We still need to discuss at the next BestBits
>>>>> gathering what our rules of engagement and governance should be.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.  I fully support the idea of initiating a discussion of what type
>>>>> of global legal framework (or maybe normative framework) we should be
>>>>> galvanizing around.  Maybe even a simple call for the UN to engage a
>>>>>  discussion with all stakeholders fully represented, to consider how
>>>>> best to enforce human rights charters and principles, would be a path
>>>>> forward?  Maybe others have a better suggestion, but I wouldn't want
>>>>> the "perfect" to stand in the way of the "good enough" for the
>>>>> purpose of registering broad CSO interest in a global discussion and
>>>>> global policy engagement.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3.  Whether or not we can all agree on something related to the
>>>>> global legal framework, I also urge everyone to be pragmatic about
>>>>> the opportunity to register your views with the US-base PCLOB.  This
>>>>> is of course only one small piece of the legal struggle, but it is
>>>>> very important from a US NGO standpoint to expand the US debate
>>>>> beyond US citizens or residents.  The US needs global input to wake
>>>>> it up to its broader obligations.  This may  not be enough to change
>>>>> policy, but it is a critical enhancement to the US-based NGO advocacy
>>>>> that could have some impact on the US government.  So even if this is
>>>>> a flawed, partial solution, and should be connected to something
>>>>> related to broader global solution, I believe it could influence US
>>>>> policymakers.
>>>>> On Jul 23, 2013, at 9:44 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>>>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Generally a well written statement. However, it must be judged not
>>>>>> only for what it says but also what it does not... The statement
>>>>>> appeals to a US government agency to protect human rights of all
>>>>>> citizens of the world, especially non US citizens, which is very
>>>>>> well. It call for all security measures that the US  " must be
>>>>>> subject to a strong legal framework" meaning here just a US legal
>>>>>> framework.... I am not convinced that this constitutes an adequate
>>>>>> remedy. All security measures should be subject to a strong global
>>>>>> or international treaty/ legal framework as well.. That alone will
>>>>>> work in an environment where we are all continually immersed in a
>>>>>> (somewhat) globally seamless, or at least hyper-connected, digital
>>>>>> space.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, my specific question is, what stops us, as a global civil
>>>>>> society group, from calling for a global/international legal
>>>>>> framework to ensuring that all security related (and other) actions,
>>>>>> of all states, including the US, are subject to a clear
>>>>>> international regime based on human rights, and any such regime
>>>>>> should have adequate enforcement capabilities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can we discuss this here...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While once in a while we as a global civil society group can make
>>>>>> specific appeals to one government or the other, but I am unwilling
>>>>>> to convert US government to be 'the' key duty bearer and appellate
>>>>>> body for global justice. In doing this is a deeper politics, and
>>>>>> that is my principal objection to this statement - not to what the
>>>>>> statmement says, but what it does not. However, this problem can
>>>>>> easily be addressed if the statement includes an appeal for global
>>>>>> legal frameworks for the same purpose..... Are the framers of the
>>>>>> statement willing to consider this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another unconnected point, I often see statements that are signed by
>>>>>> various actors using the BestBits as a facilitating platform,
>>>>>> without them being developed and signed on the behalf of the
>>>>>> BestBits group/ coalition, then after being signed  propositioned as
>>>>>> BestBits statements. Recently I saw such a reference in the press,
>>>>>> about a statement that was never signed by the group as a whole
>>>>>> being called as a BestBits statement. This proposed letter also
>>>>>> refers to an earlier statement being of BestBits coalition whereas
>>>>>> it was never signed by the group as a whole...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 06:38 AM, Emma Llanso wrote:
>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As you may be aware, the US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight
>>>>>>> Board is accepting comments commentary regarding the US
>>>>>>> government's surveillance programs under the PATRIOT Act and FISA.
>>>>>>> (I've included some information about PCLOB below in case you're
>>>>>>> not familiar with this entity.)  I'd like to share with you a draft
>>>>>>> was put together by CDT, with feedback from a number of folks on
>>>>>>> this list, that focuses on the impact these programs have on the
>>>>>>> human rights of individuals outside the US:
>>>>>>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/17BWIev_DybbML3ObDCORkW83THrNGuJrHlV5sQLdYA0/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We feel that the draft text is at a point where it's ready to be
>>>>>>> shared with the broader Best Bits community for comment.  Please
>>>>>>> share any comments you have on the letter text with the whole list.
>>>>>>> (I will be traveling on Wednesday and so slow to respond to
>>>>>>> email.)  Ideally, we'd like to have a final draft of the letter
>>>>>>> text available to circulate during the day on Thursday, giving us
>>>>>>> about a week to solicit sign-on from as broad an array of groups as
>>>>>>> possible.  This is a very compressed timeframe, unfortunately, but
>>>>>>> the deadline for submitting comments is August 1st, so there is not
>>>>>>> much flexibility in the schedule.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Best Bits interim steering committee has agreed to host the
>>>>>>> final letter text on the Best Bits website to facilitate sign-on
>>>>>>> once we've reached that point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's worth noting here that while a joint letter with broad
>>>>>>> international sign in is one way of getting the US government to
>>>>>>> consider the rights of non-US persons, so is flooding PCLOB with
>>>>>>> individual letters from international groups, so please feel free
>>>>>>> to adapt or build on to this letter and submit it separately. We
>>>>>>> intentionally did not make recommendations to PCLOB so as to garner
>>>>>>> broad sign on (more on that below), but individual letters are a
>>>>>>> good opportunity to make specific recommendations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Background on the letter:*
>>>>>>> PCLOB will be preparing a report and is accepting comments
>>>>>>> <
>> http://www.regulations.gov/#%21documentDetail;D=PCLOB-2013-0005-0001>
>>>>>>> (with no limitations on who can submit comments) until August 1st.
>>>>>>> As many of you know, it's been an uphill battle to get any
>>>>>>> attention on this critical issue of extraterritorial impacts of the
>>>>>>> US surveillance programs. PCLOB hosted an open hearing on the NSA
>>>>>>> program earlier in July, and there was unfortunately only a single
>>>>>>> reference to the human rights of people other than US citizens
>>>>>>> during the entire hearing.  We think this comment process is one of
>>>>>>> the better opportunities that groups from outside the US will have
>>>>>>> in making their opinions about the US surveillance activities
>>>>>>> heard.  I'd highly encourage organizations and individuals to make
>>>>>>> their own comments into this process, in addition to considering
>>>>>>> signing this letter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As a final note, the letter intentionally does not lay out
>>>>>>> recommendations more specific than "take into consideration the
>>>>>>> human rights of individuals outside the US", for several reasons.
>>>>>>> First, it will likely be more difficult for a broad range of groups
>>>>>>> to sign onto something urging very specific legal or policy
>>>>>>> remedies.  Further, I wouldn't want to see a short, easily agreed
>>>>>>> set of recommendations (e.g. focusing on transparency) get
>>>>>>> interpreted to mean that those fixes are the only thing the US
>>>>>>> government needs to do to remedy the situation.  Transparency is an
>>>>>>> important initial step, but it's far from the only action needed
>>>>>>> here (a point CDT will be emphasizing in our individual comments to
>>>>>>> PCLOB).  Again, I'd strongly recommend groups file individual
>>>>>>> comments as well, particularly if you have specific recommendations
>>>>>>> and actions for the Board.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Looking forward to your comments,
>>>>>>> Emma
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *PCLOB - WHAT IS IT?* -
>>>>>>>
>> https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/privacy-and-civil-liberties-oversight-board
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is an advisory body
>>>>>>> to assist the President and other senior Executive branch officials
>>>>>>> in ensuring that concerns with respect to privacy and civil
>>>>>>> liberties are appropriately considered in the implementation of all
>>>>>>> laws, regulations, and executive branch policies related to war
>>>>>>> against terrorism.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Recommended by the July 22, 2004, report of the National Commission
>>>>>>> on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, the Privacy and Civil
>>>>>>> Liberties Oversight Board was established by the Intelligence
>>>>>>> Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. It consists of five
>>>>>>> members appointed by and serving at the pleasure of the President.
>>>>>>> The Board is part of the White House Office within the Executive
>>>>>>> Office of the President and supported by an Executive Director and
>>>>>>> staff.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Board advises the President and other senior executive branch
>>>>>>> officials to ensure that concerns with respect to privacy and civil
>>>>>>> liberties are appropriately considered in the implementation of all
>>>>>>> laws, regulations, and executive branch policies related to efforts
>>>>>>> to protect the Nation against terrorism. This includes advising on
>>>>>>> whether adequate guidelines, supervision, and oversight exist to
>>>>>>> protect these important legal rights of all Americans. In addition,
>>>>>>> the Board is specifically charged with responsibility for reviewing
>>>>>>> the terrorism information sharing practices of executive branch
>>>>>>> departments and agencies to determine whether guidelines designed
>>>>>>> to appropriately protect privacy and civil liberties are being
>>>>>>> followed, including those issued by the President on December 16,
>>>>>>> 2005. In the course of performing these functions within the
>>>>>>> executive branch, the Board seeks the views of private sector,
>>>>>>> non-profit and academic institutions, Members of Congress, and all
>>>>>>> other interested parties and individuals on these issues.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This agency has published 13 articles
>>>>>>> <
>> https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/search?conditions%5Bagency_ids%5D%5B%5D=438&skip_results=1#advanced
>>>
>>>>>>> since 1994.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Emma J. Llansó
>>>>>>> Policy Counsel
>>>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology
>>>>>>> 1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100
>>>>>>> Washington, DC 20006
>>>>>>> 202-407-8818 | @cendemtech <https://twitter.com/#%21/CenDemTech> |
>>>>>>> @ellanso <https://twitter.com/#%21/ellanso>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Katitza Rodriguez
>> International Rights Director
>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>> katitza at eff.org
>> katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)
>>
>> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom
>> of speech since 1990
>>
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom
of speech since 1990
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0x9425A914.asc
Type: application/pgp-keys
Size: 2175 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130724/b7988c4c/attachment.key>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Jul  2 03:18:27 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 12:48:27 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] ICANN suspends closed generic top level domain bids
Message-ID: <51D27EC3.1010903@itforchange.net>


About the real business that ICANN does, and for whatever reasons avoids 
speaking much about.....

http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/icann-suspends-closed-generic-top-level-domain-bids/article4870401.ece

Return to frontpage <http://www.thehindu.com/>


      Technology <http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/> »
      Internet <http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/>

Published: July 2, 2013 00:09 IST | Updated: July 2, 2013 00:13 IST


  ICANN suspends closed generic top level domain bids

Karthik Subramanian


    Temporarily freezes move that could have led to global corporates
    monopolising the WWW by privatising domains like .beauty or .book

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Numbers and Names (ICANN) has put 
on hold a controversial decision to allot closed generic Top Level 
Domains (gTLD) to applicants. Governments and activists had feared that 
allotting such generic domains would lead to a global corporate monopoly 
over the World Wide Web, by claiming exclusive rights for domains such 
as /.book/ or /.beauty/.

“Hopefully this is the end for closed generic Top Level Domains 
applications and it is a victory for those who have raised their voice 
against it,” said Parminder Jeet Singh, executive director of 
Bangalore-based NGO ‘IT for Change.’

Last week, a newly reconstituted gTLD committee paid heed to the 
objections raised by ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee, which had 
in April pointed out several problems in the process of handing out 
gTLDs under a “single registrant” business model.

This differs from the regular business model for TLD names like /.com 
/or /.org/ where the domains names are then resold to other users in an 
open market on first come, first served basis. Under the single 
registrant model, companies like Amazon and Google could own exclusively 
/.book/ or ./cloud/, both generic name strings, thus paving the way for 
monopolistic branding. The process of handing out the contracts to 
applicants has been put on hold for closed generic top level domains. It 
is speculated that over such 70 contract bids have been identified by ICANN.

In April, the Government Advisory Committee of ICANN met in Beijing and 
prepared what was called as “Beijing Communiqué” in which it had raised, 
among other things, objections over applications for the generic TLDs 
.islam or .halal. It raised fears that the applicants did not have 
community backing. It also requested ICANN to not proceed beyond initial 
assessment for the bids for domains such as .shenzen, .date, .spa and a 
few others. Parminder Jeet Singh, had in an article in September in /The 
Hindu/, noted that ICANN was taking a decision on behalf of the people 
of the world in handing out generic domain names to corporates that had 
the wherewithal to pay the registration fee of $185,000. They also had 
the potential to invest in building business models on such monopoly use 
of generic terms as their private top level domains.

However, ICANN has not officially said it has dropped the processing of 
the closed gTLD applications, but has merely frozen it, pending further 
consultations with governments. Such consultations may take place when 
ICANN meets in Durban, South Africa, later this month.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130702/e9ca1106/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: logo.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 14000 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130702/e9ca1106/attachment.jpg>

From katitza at eff.org  Wed Jul 24 11:01:37 2013
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 11:01:37 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Re: Call for comment: civil society letter to PCLOB
 re: human rights impacts of NSA surveillance of 'non-US persons'
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHCj0EnRFyPBpmdO7MDA-fSZMPDzeO-wSOj+68njYG=sDA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <51EF2902.1080702@cdt.org> <51EF316B.4030306@itforchange.net> <94BC60FF-AF14-46B8-B16D-6B6D01C40522@gmail.com> <51EF81D5.9090802@itforchange.net> <51EFB97F.9090702@apc.org> <51EFE4EF.40403@eff.org> <CAJqNAHCj0EnRFyPBpmdO7MDA-fSZMPDzeO-wSOj+68njYG=sDA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <51EFEC51.3070209@eff.org>

On 7/24/13 10:53 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
> I also liked Anriette's language on the "development of a global framework
> for protection", though I would suggest we slightly edit it to read "the
> development of a global framework for the implementation of protections" or
> something along those lines. The reason is that we already have a framework
> for protections, ie the human rights framework, but that governments seem
> to be happy to disregard this when it comes to surveillance.
> 

Totally agreed with Anja!!!!

> 


-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom
of speech since 1990
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0x9425A914.asc
Type: application/pgp-keys
Size: 2175 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130724/dfa2ef8b/attachment.key>

From mshears at cdt.org  Wed Jul 24 11:16:29 2013
From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears)
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 11:16:29 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Re: Call for comment: civil society letter to PCLOB
 re: human rights impacts of NSA surveillance of 'non-US persons'
In-Reply-To: <51EF2902.1080702@cdt.org>
References: <51EF2902.1080702@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <51EFEFCD.4050802@cdt.org>

Hi all,

Thanks for the great suggestions on the letter.  As Emma mentioned below 
we should try and finalize as much possible the letter by end of day 
today so that we can circulate a final copy tomorrow.   This would give 
us a week or so for sign-ons prior to the Aug. 1 deadline.

Best.

Matthew

On 23/07/2013 21:08, Emma Llanso wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> As you may be aware, the US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight 
> Board is accepting comments  commentary regarding the US government's 
> surveillance programs under the PATRIOT Act and FISA.  (I've included 
> some information about PCLOB below in case you're not familiar with 
> this entity.)  I'd like to share with you a draft was put together by 
> CDT, with feedback from a number of folks on this list, that focuses 
> on the impact these programs have on the human rights of individuals 
> outside the US: 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/17BWIev_DybbML3ObDCORkW83THrNGuJrHlV5sQLdYA0/edit?usp=sharing 
>
>
> We feel that the draft text is at a point where it's ready to be 
> shared with the broader Best Bits community for comment.  Please share 
> any comments you have on the letter text with the whole list. (I will 
> be traveling on Wednesday and so slow to respond to email.)  Ideally, 
> we'd like to have a final draft of the letter text available to 
> circulate during the day on Thursday, giving us about a week to 
> solicit sign-on from as broad an array of groups as possible.  This is 
> a very compressed timeframe, unfortunately, but the deadline for 
> submitting comments is August 1st, so there is not much flexibility in 
> the schedule.
>
> The Best Bits interim steering committee has agreed to host the final 
> letter text on the Best Bits website to facilitate sign-on once we've 
> reached that point.
>
> It's worth noting here that while a joint letter with broad 
> international sign in is one way of getting the US government to 
> consider the rights of non-US persons, so is flooding PCLOB with 
> individual letters from international groups, so please feel free to 
> adapt or build on to this letter and submit it separately. We 
> intentionally did not make recommendations to PCLOB so as to garner 
> broad sign on (more on that below), but individual letters are a good 
> opportunity to make specific recommendations.
>
> *Background on the letter:*
> PCLOB will be preparing a report and is accepting comments 
> <http://www.regulations.gov/#%21documentDetail;D=PCLOB-2013-0005-0001> 
> (with no limitations on who can submit comments) until August 1st. As 
> many of you know, it's been an uphill battle to get any attention on 
> this critical issue of extraterritorial impacts of the US surveillance 
> programs. PCLOB hosted an open hearing on the NSA program earlier in 
> July, and there was unfortunately only a single reference to the human 
> rights of people other than US citizens during the entire hearing.  We 
> think this comment process is one of the better opportunities that 
> groups from outside the US will have in making their opinions about 
> the US surveillance activities heard.  I'd highly encourage 
> organizations and individuals to make their own comments into this 
> process, in addition to considering signing this letter.
>
> As a final note, the letter intentionally does not lay out 
> recommendations more specific than "take into consideration the human 
> rights of individuals outside the US", for several reasons.  First, it 
> will likely be more difficult for a broad range of groups to sign onto 
> something urging very specific legal or policy remedies.  Further, I 
> wouldn't want to see a short, easily agreed set of recommendations 
> (e.g. focusing on transparency) get interpreted to mean that those 
> fixes are the only thing the US government needs to do to remedy the 
> situation.  Transparency is an important initial step, but it's far 
> from the only action needed here (a point CDT will be emphasizing in 
> our individual comments to PCLOB).  Again, I'd strongly recommend 
> groups file individual comments as well, particularly if you have 
> specific recommendations and actions for the Board.
>
>
> Looking forward to your comments,
> Emma
>
>
> *PCLOB - WHAT IS IT?* - 
> https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/privacy-and-civil-liberties-oversight-board
>
> The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is an advisory body to 
> assist the President and other senior Executive branch officials in 
> ensuring that concerns with respect to privacy and civil liberties are 
> appropriately considered in the implementation of all laws, 
> regulations, and executive branch policies related to war against 
> terrorism.
>
> Recommended by the July 22, 2004, report of the National Commission on 
> Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, the Privacy and Civil 
> Liberties Oversight Board was established by the Intelligence Reform 
> and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. It consists of five members 
> appointed by and serving at the pleasure of the President. The Board 
> is part of the White House Office within the Executive Office of the 
> President and supported by an Executive Director and staff.
>
> The Board advises the President and other senior executive branch 
> officials to ensure that concerns with respect to privacy and civil 
> liberties are appropriately considered in the implementation of all 
> laws, regulations, and executive branch policies related to efforts to 
> protect the Nation against terrorism. This includes advising on 
> whether adequate guidelines, supervision, and oversight exist to 
> protect these important legal rights of all Americans. In addition, 
> the Board is specifically charged with responsibility for reviewing 
> the terrorism information sharing practices of executive branch 
> departments and agencies to determine whether guidelines designed to 
> appropriately protect privacy and civil liberties are being followed, 
> including those issued by the President on December 16, 2005. In the 
> course of performing these functions within the executive branch, the 
> Board seeks the views of private sector, non-profit and academic 
> institutions, Members of Congress, and all other interested parties 
> and individuals on these issues.
>
> This agency has published 13 articles 
> <https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/search?conditions%5Bagency_ids%5D%5B%5D=438&skip_results=1#advanced> 
> since 1994.
>
>
> -- 
> Emma J. Llansó
> Policy Counsel
> Center for Democracy & Technology
> 1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100
> Washington, DC 20006
> 202-407-8818 | @cendemtech <https://twitter.com/#%21/CenDemTech> | 
> @ellanso <https://twitter.com/#%21/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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130724/1b631c7e/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Jul 24 13:15:03 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 22:45:03 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: Call for comment: civil society letter to PCLOB
 re: human rights impacts of NSA surveillance of 'non-US persons'
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHCj0EnRFyPBpmdO7MDA-fSZMPDzeO-wSOj+68njYG=sDA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <51EF2902.1080702@cdt.org> <51EF316B.4030306@itforchange.net> <94BC60FF-AF14-46B8-B16D-6B6D01C40522@gmail.com> <51EF81D5.9090802@itforchange.net> <51EFB97F.9090702@apc.org> <51EFE4EF.40403@eff.org> <CAJqNAHCj0EnRFyPBpmdO7MDA-fSZMPDzeO-wSOj+68njYG=sDA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <51F00B97.20509@itforchange.net>


On Wednesday 24 July 2013 08:23 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
> I also liked Anriette's language on the "development of a global 
> framework for protection", though I would suggest we slightly edit it 
> to read "the development of a global framework for the implementation 
> of protections" or something along those lines. The reason is that we 
> already have a framework for protections, ie the human rights 
> framework, but that governments seem to be happy to disregard this 
> when it comes to surveillance.

But so does the US have in place all kinds of higher level principles 
that do cover such issues; then why does the letter ask for new legal 
frameworks from the US government? As the current frameworks in the US 
have been found inadequate, so could it be held true for the global 
human rights regime (arguably truer for the latter) - because it is an 
undeniable fact - although often selectively denied - that the digital 
space produces entirely new realities, which are also unprecedentedly 
global in nature.... More on US versus UN frameworks below...
>
> Until governments worldwide give considerably greater evidence of 
> their willingness to make the protection of human rights an integral 
> component of their surveillance plans, I do not think that it is 
> appropriate for civil society to push for a more comprehensive global 
> framework on security issues in general.

'Global framework on security? Whoever asked for one..... Are we asking 
the US government for new a framework on security, I thought we were 
asking for a new framework on privacy protection.... so also for the UN. 
Global framework for privacy protection, not for security.

So, pardon my use of ironic language to make my point, apparently we can 
ask the US to develop new legal frameworks, and trust that they would 
not come up with something worse then they have at present. However, we 
cannot at all trust the UN to not come up with legal frameworks worse 
than what we have at present, and therefore we should not ever even ask 
them for the same thing that we are ready to ask of the US.

To me, it boils down to trusting the US government to run the world more 
than we can trust the UN... This is something I am unwilling to do. If 
even Snowden did not teach us the right lesson, perhaps nothing ever 
would. I am afraid that all this is of a piece with a widespread 
tendency to trust US more than the UN with the trusteeship of the global 
Internet. I obviously cannot accept that. As I said in my first posting, 
it is a well written and argued letter, but the problem with it is not 
what it says, but with what it does not.

I am not against focussing a letter on a particular opportunity and end. 
However,  (1) PCLOB is not the wrong agency to advice the US government 
to consider global legal frameworks on privacy protection, especially 
now when Snowden disclosures tell us what other countries could also be 
doing, including to the US citizens, (2) I did want to have a discussion 
here on whether the group considers global frameworks as also a needed 
remedy for the problem in focus. I am unable to see how adding a line or 
two on global frameworks would throw the letter out of focus.....

parminder

>
> On the issue of what constitutes a "Best Bits statement", the points 
> made here are important and we do indeed need greater clarity on this. 
> At the same time, it's also important to keep in mind that once 
> statements are shared with the wider world, maintaining a distinction 
> between a statement supported by all (though even on the Baku one I 
> think we had one abstention by the way, and in any case the Baku group 
> was fairly small) and a statement shared and promoted through the Best 
> Bits platform might be difficult - even if we are careful to make 
> these distinctions, the wider world might not.
>
> Perhaps we should therefore simply go for a model in which ALL 
> statements are considered to be in the latter category, and focus our 
> attention on coming up with criteria for which type of statements are 
> appropriate (or not) for Best Bits instead? I am worried that sending 
> out mixed messages will only undermine the effectiveness of the 
> advocacy efforts that go through Best Bits, though I'd of course be 
> very happy to hear other possible solutions to that conundrum as well.
>
> Thanks and best,
> Anja
>
>
> On 24 July 2013 20:00, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org 
> <mailto:katitza at eff.org>> wrote:
>
>     Dear all,
>
>     It would be good to answer the consultation without voicing
>     support for
>     a PCLOB investigation. In EFF, we are of the opinion that the PCLOB
>     isn't the right place for an investigation.
>
>     PCLOB is weak institution, so EFF concern is that its weaknesses
>     foster
>     low, expectation politics/rhetoric.  EFF want a Church Committee,
>     investigation or at least an existing committee with congress or at
>     least an existing committee with congressional subpoena power to
>     investigate.
>
>     We have three or four blog posts with arguments about why we need
>     a special investigatory committee, and at the very least extant
>     committees, instead of the PCLOB to investigate.
>
>     For more information on our asks please check out:
>
>     https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/why-special-congressional-committee-must-be-created-investigate-nsas
>
>     https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/response-nsa-we-need-new-church-commission-and-we-need-it-now
>
>
>     On 7/24/13 7:24 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>     > Dear all
>     >
>     > My view on the letter is to keep it focused on the Call for
>     Comment by
>     > the US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board regarding the US
>     > government's surveillance programs under the PATRIOT Act and
>     FISA.  I
>     > think the letter is already too long.
>     >
>     > The more focused and to the point (and brief) our comments are,
>     the more
>     > likely they will be discussed, forwarded, understood, etc. etc..
>     > However, I do have a proposal for how to include a reference global
>     > legal frameworks that does not change the basic character and
>     purpose of
>     > the letter as one that addresses an official US body.
>     >
>     > This letter makes three key points:
>     >
>     > * Government surveillance must be subject to a strong legal
>     framework
>     > that is transparent, necessary to achieve a legitimate goal and
>     > proportionate to that goal, authorized by a competent judicial
>     > authority, and subject to public oversight.
>     >
>     >
>     > *Surveillance of communications conducted under Section 702 must
>     meets
>     > international human rights standards for surveillance.
>     >
>     >
>     > * In the context of online communications, the privacy and liberty
>     > rights of non-U.S. persons outside the U.S. should bewithin the
>     PCLOB's
>     > statutory mandate.
>     >
>     > We could add something along the following lines:
>     >
>     > We believe findings and recommendations developed by the PCLOB that
>     > ensure that protection of rights of US and non US persons in the
>     context
>     > of government surveillance would not only be consistent with the US
>     > government's frequently stated commitment to 'freedom online';
>     it would
>     > also constitute a valuable contribution to the eventual
>     development of a
>     > global framework for such protections.
>     >
>     > Btw, this last sentence (quoted below) still uses the term
>     'Americans'.
>     > Please change. I also think that it is best to say 'findings and
>     > recommendations' rather than 'recommendations and findings' as the
>     > former is likely to flow from the latter.
>     >
>     > "We urge you to make recommendations and findings designed to
>     protect
>     > the human rights not only of Americans, but also of non-U.S.
>     persons who
>     > live outside the United States."
>     >
>     > Ciao
>     >
>     > Anriette
>     >
>     > On 24/07/2013 09:27, parminder wrote:
>     >>
>     >> Thanks to Gene and Jeremy for their responses..
>     >>
>     >> However, I see no argument here why the letter cannot ask US to
>     also
>     >> engage in developing global norms and agreements with regard to
>     >> safeguards against invasion of privacy in name of security, and
>     then
>     >> adhering to these norms/ agreements. After all, US is a prime
>     party to
>     >> be appealed to if we are to move towards such global norms/
>     >> agreements, and it remains my firm belief that this thing can
>     really
>     >> be addressed only through global arrangements,
>     >>
>     >> (Also, shouldnt US groups and US citizens also be concerned about
>     >> invasion of their privacy by non US government agents.:
>     >>
>     >> About Jeremy's arugment against seeking 'global legal frameworks'
>     >> being that we ourselves are yet to propose anything concrete,
>     does the
>     >> proposed letter not ask the US government to develop new
>     'strong legal
>     >> frameworks' without actually suggesting their precise forms..
>     Why cant
>     >> we do the same for the global level even when we yet dont have our
>     >> concrete institutional proposals ready (would we ever be :) )... At
>     >> the domestic level of US gov, the letter simply asserts the
>     need, at
>     >> the principles level, of privacy protection through 'strong legal
>     >> framework'. We can ask the same for the global system, at the
>     level of
>     >> principles.... Unless of course there is a difference of
>     opinion here
>     >> about the principle of a global framework itself, in which case
>     it is
>     >> precisely my point to discus it openly...
>     >>
>     >> parminder
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 07:34 AM, Gene Kimmelman wrote:
>     >>> I think Parminder raises some very important points.  I'd like to
>     >>> offer a quick observation and await other input:
>     >>>
>     >>> 1.  The question about how to refer to previous statements
>     generated
>     >>> through some subgroup of BestBits is very legitimate; we may
>     need a
>     >>> more precise description of the letter referred to and who the
>     >>> signatories were.  We still need to discuss at the next BestBits
>     >>> gathering what our rules of engagement and governance should be.
>     >>>
>     >>> 2.  I fully support the idea of initiating a discussion of
>     what type
>     >>> of global legal framework (or maybe normative framework) we
>     should be
>     >>> galvanizing around.  Maybe even a simple call for the UN to
>     engage a
>     >>>  discussion with all stakeholders fully represented, to
>     consider how
>     >>> best to enforce human rights charters and principles, would be
>     a path
>     >>> forward?  Maybe others have a better suggestion, but I
>     wouldn't want
>     >>> the "perfect" to stand in the way of the "good enough" for the
>     >>> purpose of registering broad CSO interest in a global
>     discussion and
>     >>> global policy engagement.
>     >>>
>     >>> 3.  Whether or not we can all agree on something related to the
>     >>> global legal framework, I also urge everyone to be pragmatic about
>     >>> the opportunity to register your views with the US-base PCLOB.
>      This
>     >>> is of course only one small piece of the legal struggle, but it is
>     >>> very important from a US NGO standpoint to expand the US debate
>     >>> beyond US citizens or residents.  The US needs global input to
>     wake
>     >>> it up to its broader obligations.  This may  not be enough to
>     change
>     >>> policy, but it is a critical enhancement to the US-based NGO
>     advocacy
>     >>> that could have some impact on the US government.  So even if
>     this is
>     >>> a flawed, partial solution, and should be connected to something
>     >>> related to broader global solution, I believe it could
>     influence US
>     >>> policymakers.
>     >>> On Jul 23, 2013, at 9:44 PM, parminder
>     <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>
>     >>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net
>     <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>> wrote:
>     >>>
>     >>>>
>     >>>> Generally a well written statement. However, it must be
>     judged not
>     >>>> only for what it says but also what it does not... The statement
>     >>>> appeals to a US government agency to protect human rights of all
>     >>>> citizens of the world, especially non US citizens, which is very
>     >>>> well. It call for all security measures that the US  " must be
>     >>>> subject to a strong legal framework" meaning here just a US legal
>     >>>> framework.... I am not convinced that this constitutes an
>     adequate
>     >>>> remedy. All security measures should be subject to a strong
>     global
>     >>>> or international treaty/ legal framework as well.. That alone
>     will
>     >>>> work in an environment where we are all continually immersed in a
>     >>>> (somewhat) globally seamless, or at least hyper-connected,
>     digital
>     >>>> space.
>     >>>>
>     >>>> So, my specific question is, what stops us, as a global civil
>     >>>> society group, from calling for a global/international legal
>     >>>> framework to ensuring that all security related (and other)
>     actions,
>     >>>> of all states, including the US, are subject to a clear
>     >>>> international regime based on human rights, and any such regime
>     >>>> should have adequate enforcement capabilities.
>     >>>>
>     >>>> Can we discuss this here...
>     >>>>
>     >>>> While once in a while we as a global civil society group can make
>     >>>> specific appeals to one government or the other, but I am
>     unwilling
>     >>>> to convert US government to be 'the' key duty bearer and
>     appellate
>     >>>> body for global justice. In doing this is a deeper politics, and
>     >>>> that is my principal objection to this statement - not to
>     what the
>     >>>> statmement says, but what it does not. However, this problem can
>     >>>> easily be addressed if the statement includes an appeal for
>     global
>     >>>> legal frameworks for the same purpose..... Are the framers of the
>     >>>> statement willing to consider this?
>     >>>>
>     >>>> Another unconnected point, I often see statements that are
>     signed by
>     >>>> various actors using the BestBits as a facilitating platform,
>     >>>> without them being developed and signed on the behalf of the
>     >>>> BestBits group/ coalition, then after being signed
>      propositioned as
>     >>>> BestBits statements. Recently I saw such a reference in the
>     press,
>     >>>> about a statement that was never signed by the group as a whole
>     >>>> being called as a BestBits statement. This proposed letter also
>     >>>> refers to an earlier statement being of BestBits coalition
>     whereas
>     >>>> it was never signed by the group as a whole...
>     >>>>
>     >>>> parminder
>     >>>>
>     >>>>
>     >>>>
>     >>>> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 06:38 AM, Emma Llanso wrote:
>     >>>>> Dear all,
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> As you may be aware, the US Privacy and Civil Liberties
>     Oversight
>     >>>>> Board is accepting comments commentary regarding the US
>     >>>>> government's surveillance programs under the PATRIOT Act and
>     FISA.
>     >>>>> (I've included some information about PCLOB below in case you're
>     >>>>> not familiar with this entity.)  I'd like to share with you
>     a draft
>     >>>>> was put together by CDT, with feedback from a number of folks on
>     >>>>> this list, that focuses on the impact these programs have on the
>     >>>>> human rights of individuals outside the US:
>     >>>>>
>     https://docs.google.com/document/d/17BWIev_DybbML3ObDCORkW83THrNGuJrHlV5sQLdYA0/edit?usp=sharing
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> We feel that the draft text is at a point where it's ready to be
>     >>>>> shared with the broader Best Bits community for comment.  Please
>     >>>>> share any comments you have on the letter text with the
>     whole list.
>     >>>>> (I will be traveling on Wednesday and so slow to respond to
>     >>>>> email.)  Ideally, we'd like to have a final draft of the letter
>     >>>>> text available to circulate during the day on Thursday,
>     giving us
>     >>>>> about a week to solicit sign-on from as broad an array of
>     groups as
>     >>>>> possible.  This is a very compressed timeframe,
>     unfortunately, but
>     >>>>> the deadline for submitting comments is August 1st, so there
>     is not
>     >>>>> much flexibility in the schedule.
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> The Best Bits interim steering committee has agreed to host the
>     >>>>> final letter text on the Best Bits website to facilitate sign-on
>     >>>>> once we've reached that point.
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> It's worth noting here that while a joint letter with broad
>     >>>>> international sign in is one way of getting the US government to
>     >>>>> consider the rights of non-US persons, so is flooding PCLOB with
>     >>>>> individual letters from international groups, so please feel
>     free
>     >>>>> to adapt or build on to this letter and submit it separately. We
>     >>>>> intentionally did not make recommendations to PCLOB so as to
>     garner
>     >>>>> broad sign on (more on that below), but individual letters are a
>     >>>>> good opportunity to make specific recommendations.
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> *Background on the letter:*
>     >>>>> PCLOB will be preparing a report and is accepting comments
>     >>>>>
>     <http://www.regulations.gov/#%21documentDetail;D=PCLOB-2013-0005-0001>
>     >>>>> (with no limitations on who can submit comments) until
>     August 1st.
>     >>>>> As many of you know, it's been an uphill battle to get any
>     >>>>> attention on this critical issue of extraterritorial impacts
>     of the
>     >>>>> US surveillance programs. PCLOB hosted an open hearing on
>     the NSA
>     >>>>> program earlier in July, and there was unfortunately only a
>     single
>     >>>>> reference to the human rights of people other than US citizens
>     >>>>> during the entire hearing.  We think this comment process is
>     one of
>     >>>>> the better opportunities that groups from outside the US
>     will have
>     >>>>> in making their opinions about the US surveillance activities
>     >>>>> heard.  I'd highly encourage organizations and individuals
>     to make
>     >>>>> their own comments into this process, in addition to considering
>     >>>>> signing this letter.
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> As a final note, the letter intentionally does not lay out
>     >>>>> recommendations more specific than "take into consideration the
>     >>>>> human rights of individuals outside the US", for several
>     reasons.
>     >>>>> First, it will likely be more difficult for a broad range of
>     groups
>     >>>>> to sign onto something urging very specific legal or policy
>     >>>>> remedies.  Further, I wouldn't want to see a short, easily
>     agreed
>     >>>>> set of recommendations (e.g. focusing on transparency) get
>     >>>>> interpreted to mean that those fixes are the only thing the US
>     >>>>> government needs to do to remedy the situation.
>      Transparency is an
>     >>>>> important initial step, but it's far from the only action needed
>     >>>>> here (a point CDT will be emphasizing in our individual
>     comments to
>     >>>>> PCLOB).  Again, I'd strongly recommend groups file individual
>     >>>>> comments as well, particularly if you have specific
>     recommendations
>     >>>>> and actions for the Board.
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> Looking forward to your comments,
>     >>>>> Emma
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> *PCLOB - WHAT IS IT?* -
>     >>>>>
>     https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/privacy-and-civil-liberties-oversight-board
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is an
>     advisory body
>     >>>>> to assist the President and other senior Executive branch
>     officials
>     >>>>> in ensuring that concerns with respect to privacy and civil
>     >>>>> liberties are appropriately considered in the implementation
>     of all
>     >>>>> laws, regulations, and executive branch policies related to war
>     >>>>> against terrorism.
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> Recommended by the July 22, 2004, report of the National
>     Commission
>     >>>>> on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, the Privacy and
>     Civil
>     >>>>> Liberties Oversight Board was established by the Intelligence
>     >>>>> Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. It consists of five
>     >>>>> members appointed by and serving at the pleasure of the
>     President.
>     >>>>> The Board is part of the White House Office within the Executive
>     >>>>> Office of the President and supported by an Executive
>     Director and
>     >>>>> staff.
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> The Board advises the President and other senior executive
>     branch
>     >>>>> officials to ensure that concerns with respect to privacy
>     and civil
>     >>>>> liberties are appropriately considered in the implementation
>     of all
>     >>>>> laws, regulations, and executive branch policies related to
>     efforts
>     >>>>> to protect the Nation against terrorism. This includes
>     advising on
>     >>>>> whether adequate guidelines, supervision, and oversight exist to
>     >>>>> protect these important legal rights of all Americans. In
>     addition,
>     >>>>> the Board is specifically charged with responsibility for
>     reviewing
>     >>>>> the terrorism information sharing practices of executive branch
>     >>>>> departments and agencies to determine whether guidelines
>     designed
>     >>>>> to appropriately protect privacy and civil liberties are being
>     >>>>> followed, including those issued by the President on
>     December 16,
>     >>>>> 2005. In the course of performing these functions within the
>     >>>>> executive branch, the Board seeks the views of private sector,
>     >>>>> non-profit and academic institutions, Members of Congress,
>     and all
>     >>>>> other interested parties and individuals on these issues.
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> This agency has published 13 articles
>     >>>>>
>     <https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/search?conditions%5Bagency_ids%5D%5B%5D=438&skip_results=1#advanced>
>     >>>>> since 1994.
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> --
>     >>>>> Emma J. Llansó
>     >>>>> Policy Counsel
>     >>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology
>     >>>>> 1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100
>     >>>>> Washington, DC 20006
>     >>>>> 202-407-8818 | @cendemtech
>     <https://twitter.com/#%21/CenDemTech> |
>     >>>>> @ellanso <https://twitter.com/#%21/ellanso>
>     >>>>
>     >>>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >
>
>
>     --
>     Katitza Rodriguez
>     International Rights Director
>     Electronic Frontier Foundation
>     katitza at eff.org <mailto:katitza at eff.org>
>     katitza at datos-personales.org <mailto:katitza at datos-personales.org>
>     (personal email)
>
>     Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and
>     freedom
>     of speech since 1990
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130724/cf551255/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Wed Jul 24 15:00:07 2013
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 15:00:07 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Domino_effect_starts=3A_Vigilantismo=3A?=
 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_Gov=2E_do_Rio_emite_Decreto_p/_solicita=E7=E3o_de_registr?=
 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?os_telef=F4nicos_e_de_Internet?=
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAc2hpeB7QmZdDNVsYJb6=RiX9b5+HrL31H+dL+7qZwoLw@mail.gmail.com>

From Paranagua, an important (and frustrating news) comes from Brazil.

Sorry for cross-posting, but I never know who is in what list, in this is
relevant to all of these lists. :-)

In a executive Decree, the state of Rio de Janeiro, just published, as set
as law the obligation of telecom and ISP companies respond to personal data
and communications request in 24 hours, without court order.

The governor of Rio was the target of the protests, and the decree comes
under the justification of preventing vandalism...

This issue was not in the first draft of the decree presented to the
population earlier this month. Really sad news.

Carol

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Pedro Paranaguá <pedro.paranagua at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:45 PM
Subject: [sociedade-civil] Vigilantismo: Gov. do Rio emite Decreto p/
solicitação de registros telefônicos e de Internet
To: Lista da sociedade civil para discutir a reforma da lei de direitos
autorais <sociedade-civil at lists.gpopai.org>




Decreto de Cabral é ilegal, dizem juristas Solicitação de registros
telefônicos em investigações de protestos é criticada
23 de julho de 2013 | 21h 11


Felipe Werneck e Heloisa Aruth Sturm / RIO

Atualizado às 21h56

Juristas questionam a legalidade do decreto do governador Sérgio Cabral
(PMDB) publicado no Diário Oficial do Estado do Rio de anteontem que cria a
Comissão Especial de Investigação de Atos de Vandalismo em Manifestações
Públicas (CEIV). De acordo com o parágrafo único do artigo 3.º, as
operadoras de telefonia e provedores de internet “terão prazo máximo de 24
horas para atendimento dos pedidos de informações” do órgão.

A norma, cuja legalidade é questionada, não existia na versão do decreto
apresentada à imprensa pelo governador no dia 19. Cabral é o principal alvo
dos protestos. O grupo de investigação é formado pelo Ministério Público
Estadual (MPE), Secretaria de Segurança e Polícias Civil e Militar.

O advogado Técio Lins e Silva comparou o decreto n.º 44.302 a comissões de
inquérito criadas na ditadura militar e afirmou que “está entre o delírio e
o abuso de poder”. “É caso de impeachment, há uma violação clara de
direitos constitucionais.”

Mestre em direito constitucional, Paulo Rená também questionou a legalidade
do texto e afirmou que, na prática, ele “instaura um estado de exceção no
Rio e configura uso abusivo do poder estatal”. Segundo o jurista, a
previsão de obrigação sobre as empresas de telefonia e internet extrapola a
competência do governador. “É uma norma que só serve para ameaçar os
intermediários.”

O advogado Sérgio Bermudes disse que o parágrafo que exige das empresas de
telefonia e internet que entreguem informações de usuários é questionável,
mas não vê inconstitucionalidade. Para Bermudes, trata-se de “um expediente
canhestro inventado pelo governador para retirá-lo do foco, porque as
manifestações são contra ele.”

Ex-presidente do Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) e professor de direito
constitucional, Carlos Velloso disse não ver inconstitucionalidade, mas faz
uma ponderação: “Seria questionável, sim, se poderia o decreto estabelecer
prazo de 24 horas para atendimento”.

O professor de direito constitucional da Universidade Federal Fluminense
(UFF) Cláudio Souza Neto criticou a composição da comissão porque ela
“acaba militarizando a investigação criminal”.
*
Prioridade.* O artigo 3.º estabelece que solicitações e determinações da
comissão encaminhadas a todos os órgãos públicos e privados do Rio “terão
prioridade absoluta em relação a quaisquer outras atividades da sua
competência ou atribuição”. Segundo o artigo 2.º, a comissão poderá
“requisitar informações, realizar diligências e praticar quaisquer atos
necessários à instrução de procedimentos”.

A assessoria do procurador-geral de Justiça, Marfan Martins Vieira, afirmou
que “não haverá quebra de sigilo sem decisão judicial”. Em nota, o MPE
alegou que “o decreto limita-se a fixar prazo para resposta dos pedidos de
informação da comissão, sejam eles formulados diretamente ou por meio de
decisão judicial”.

Na segunda-feira, 22, o procurador que preside a comissão, Eduardo Lima
Neto, encerrou uma entrevista coletiva após dois minutos. “Estamos
construindo a forma de atuar e não posso revelar detalhes”, disse ele,
afirmando que “direitos serão respeitados” e que “policiais serão
investigados”. Neto não quis comentar a prisão na segunda-feira de dois
repórteres do grupo Mídia Ninja, acusados de incitar a violência.

*Acusação.* Na segunda-feira, 22, o MPE formalizou denúncia contra dois
homens acusados de vandalismo em manifestações realizadas nos dias 17 e 20
de junho. Eles são acusados por uso de explosivos, formação de quadrilha e
incitação ao crime, além de dano ao patrimônio. Foi requerida à Justiça a
prisão preventiva dos dois.

As polícias Civil e Militar foram procuradas para informar se estão
investigando a eventual participação de policiais na incitação à violência
durante a manifestação na rua do Palácio Guanabara na segunda-feira, 22. A
Polícia Civil afirmou que a comissão “vai analisar o vídeo”.

Em nota, a PM informou que mantém agentes do setor de Inteligência
acompanhando manifestações, “com o objetivo de obter informações e prever
movimentos, (...) importantes para as decisões de comando”. Mas que “esses
agentes trabalham apenas com a observação” e “imaginar que um policial vá
atirar um coquetel molotov em colegas de profissão, colocando suas vidas em
risco, é algo que ultrapassa os limites do bom senso e revela uma trama
sórdida para justificar a violência criminosa desses vândalos”.

*Nota. *O governo do Estado do Rio de Janeiro emitiu uma nota de
esclarecimento à imprensa:

"O decreto do Governo do Estado do Rio de Janeiro que cria a Comissão
Especial de Investigação de Atos de Vandalismo em Manifestações Públicas
(CEIV) sempre esteve em absoluta sintonia com o Ministério Público RJ e, em
momento algum, estabeleceu que a CEIV quebrasse sigilos. Somente à Justiça
caberá a quebra de sigilos solicitados pela Comissão Especial que é
presidida pelo MP-RJ".
http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/cidades,decreto-de-cabral-e-ilegal-dizem-juristas,1056604,0.htm

_______________________________________________
Essa é uma lista fechada. Por favor seja prudente ao redirecionar mensagens
para listas abertas
_______________________________________________
sociedade-civil mailing list
sociedade-civil at lists.gpopai.org
http://lists.gpopai.org/listinfo.cgi/sociedade-civil-gpopai.org




-- 
*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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130724/b3b982e7/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Wed Jul 24 15:00:46 2013
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 15:00:46 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_Domino_effect_starts=3A_Vigilanti?=
 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?smo=3A_Gov=2E_do_Rio_emite_Decreto_p/_solicita=E7=E3o_de_r?=
 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?egistros_telef=F4nicos_e_de_Internet?=
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAc2hpeB7QmZdDNVsYJb6=RiX9b5+HrL31H+dL+7qZwoLw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK-FJAc2hpeB7QmZdDNVsYJb6=RiX9b5+HrL31H+dL+7qZwoLw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAfQ962-AKZAtUiUPw46mAGOGuU=4zhuZbg64P2JLkBVKQ@mail.gmail.com>

This is the official text, if you read Portuguese -
https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/1014155_673339922695445_55928446_n.jpg

2013/7/24 Carolina Rossini <carolina.rossini at gmail.com>

> From Paranagua, an important (and frustrating news) comes from Brazil.
>
> Sorry for cross-posting, but I never know who is in what list, in this is
> relevant to all of these lists. :-)
>
> In a executive Decree, the state of Rio de Janeiro, just published, as set
> as law the obligation of telecom and ISP companies respond to personal data
> and communications request in 24 hours, without court order.
>
> The governor of Rio was the target of the protests, and the decree comes
> under the justification of preventing vandalism...
>
> This issue was not in the first draft of the decree presented to the
> population earlier this month. Really sad news.
>
> Carol
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Pedro Paranaguá <pedro.paranagua at gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:45 PM
> Subject: [sociedade-civil] Vigilantismo: Gov. do Rio emite Decreto p/
> solicitação de registros telefônicos e de Internet
> To: Lista da sociedade civil para discutir a reforma da lei de direitos
> autorais <sociedade-civil at lists.gpopai.org>
>
>
>
>
> Decreto de Cabral é ilegal, dizem juristas Solicitação de registros
> telefônicos em investigações de protestos é criticada
> 23 de julho de 2013 | 21h 11
>
>
> Felipe Werneck e Heloisa Aruth Sturm / RIO
>
> Atualizado às 21h56
>
> Juristas questionam a legalidade do decreto do governador Sérgio Cabral
> (PMDB) publicado no Diário Oficial do Estado do Rio de anteontem que cria a
> Comissão Especial de Investigação de Atos de Vandalismo em Manifestações
> Públicas (CEIV). De acordo com o parágrafo único do artigo 3.º, as
> operadoras de telefonia e provedores de internet “terão prazo máximo de 24
> horas para atendimento dos pedidos de informações” do órgão.
>
> A norma, cuja legalidade é questionada, não existia na versão do decreto
> apresentada à imprensa pelo governador no dia 19. Cabral é o principal alvo
> dos protestos. O grupo de investigação é formado pelo Ministério Público
> Estadual (MPE), Secretaria de Segurança e Polícias Civil e Militar.
>
> O advogado Técio Lins e Silva comparou o decreto n.º 44.302 a comissões de
> inquérito criadas na ditadura militar e afirmou que “está entre o delírio e
> o abuso de poder”. “É caso de impeachment, há uma violação clara de
> direitos constitucionais.”
>
> Mestre em direito constitucional, Paulo Rená também questionou a
> legalidade do texto e afirmou que, na prática, ele “instaura um estado de
> exceção no Rio e configura uso abusivo do poder estatal”. Segundo o
> jurista, a previsão de obrigação sobre as empresas de telefonia e internet
> extrapola a competência do governador. “É uma norma que só serve para
> ameaçar os intermediários.”
>
> O advogado Sérgio Bermudes disse que o parágrafo que exige das empresas de
> telefonia e internet que entreguem informações de usuários é questionável,
> mas não vê inconstitucionalidade. Para Bermudes, trata-se de “um expediente
> canhestro inventado pelo governador para retirá-lo do foco, porque as
> manifestações são contra ele.”
>
> Ex-presidente do Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) e professor de direito
> constitucional, Carlos Velloso disse não ver inconstitucionalidade, mas faz
> uma ponderação: “Seria questionável, sim, se poderia o decreto estabelecer
> prazo de 24 horas para atendimento”.
>
> O professor de direito constitucional da Universidade Federal Fluminense
> (UFF) Cláudio Souza Neto criticou a composição da comissão porque ela
> “acaba militarizando a investigação criminal”.
> *
> Prioridade.* O artigo 3.º estabelece que solicitações e determinações da
> comissão encaminhadas a todos os órgãos públicos e privados do Rio “terão
> prioridade absoluta em relação a quaisquer outras atividades da sua
> competência ou atribuição”. Segundo o artigo 2.º, a comissão poderá
> “requisitar informações, realizar diligências e praticar quaisquer atos
> necessários à instrução de procedimentos”.
>
> A assessoria do procurador-geral de Justiça, Marfan Martins Vieira,
> afirmou que “não haverá quebra de sigilo sem decisão judicial”. Em nota, o
> MPE alegou que “o decreto limita-se a fixar prazo para resposta dos pedidos
> de informação da comissão, sejam eles formulados diretamente ou por meio de
> decisão judicial”.
>
> Na segunda-feira, 22, o procurador que preside a comissão, Eduardo Lima
> Neto, encerrou uma entrevista coletiva após dois minutos. “Estamos
> construindo a forma de atuar e não posso revelar detalhes”, disse ele,
> afirmando que “direitos serão respeitados” e que “policiais serão
> investigados”. Neto não quis comentar a prisão na segunda-feira de dois
> repórteres do grupo Mídia Ninja, acusados de incitar a violência.
>
> *Acusação.* Na segunda-feira, 22, o MPE formalizou denúncia contra dois
> homens acusados de vandalismo em manifestações realizadas nos dias 17 e 20
> de junho. Eles são acusados por uso de explosivos, formação de quadrilha e
> incitação ao crime, além de dano ao patrimônio. Foi requerida à Justiça a
> prisão preventiva dos dois.
>
> As polícias Civil e Militar foram procuradas para informar se estão
> investigando a eventual participação de policiais na incitação à violência
> durante a manifestação na rua do Palácio Guanabara na segunda-feira, 22. A
> Polícia Civil afirmou que a comissão “vai analisar o vídeo”.
>
> Em nota, a PM informou que mantém agentes do setor de Inteligência
> acompanhando manifestações, “com o objetivo de obter informações e prever
> movimentos, (...) importantes para as decisões de comando”. Mas que “esses
> agentes trabalham apenas com a observação” e “imaginar que um policial vá
> atirar um coquetel molotov em colegas de profissão, colocando suas vidas em
> risco, é algo que ultrapassa os limites do bom senso e revela uma trama
> sórdida para justificar a violência criminosa desses vândalos”.
>
> *Nota. *O governo do Estado do Rio de Janeiro emitiu uma nota de
> esclarecimento à imprensa:
>
> "O decreto do Governo do Estado do Rio de Janeiro que cria a Comissão
> Especial de Investigação de Atos de Vandalismo em Manifestações Públicas
> (CEIV) sempre esteve em absoluta sintonia com o Ministério Público RJ e, em
> momento algum, estabeleceu que a CEIV quebrasse sigilos. Somente à Justiça
> caberá a quebra de sigilos solicitados pela Comissão Especial que é
> presidida pelo MP-RJ".
>
> http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/cidades,decreto-de-cabral-e-ilegal-dizem-juristas,1056604,0.htm
>
> _______________________________________________
> Essa é uma lista fechada. Por favor seja prudente ao redirecionar
> mensagens para listas abertas
> _______________________________________________
> sociedade-civil mailing list
> sociedade-civil at lists.gpopai.org
> http://lists.gpopai.org/listinfo.cgi/sociedade-civil-gpopai.org
>
>
>
>
> --
> *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
>
>


-- 
*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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130724/40f2fb16/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed Jul 24 21:50:44 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 07:20:44 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: Call for comment: civil society letter to PCLOB
 re: human rights impacts of NSA surveillance of 'non-US persons'
In-Reply-To: <51F00B97.20509@itforchange.net>
References: <51EF2902.1080702@cdt.org> <51EF316B.4030306@itforchange.net> <94BC60FF-AF14-46B8-B16D-6B6D01C40522@gmail.com> <51EF81D5.9090802@itforchange.net> <51EFB97F.9090702@apc.org> <51EFE4EF.40403@eff.org> <CAJqNAHCj0EnRFyPBpmdO7MDA-fSZMPDzeO-wSOj+68njYG=sDA@mail.gmail.com> <51F00B97.20509@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <001501ce88d9$68801bb0$39805310$@gmail.com>

I agree with Parminder that the letter lacks a forward looking element which
would deal with the most fundamental issue--the development of an integrated
(if to a very limited degree multi-polar) ubiquitous
multi-stakeholder--States+private sector+technical community(?))
surveillance State. This is  global in nature and will require some sort of
global response and working through this in anticipation of the IGF should
be I think, our major current task.

 

However, I think the letter goes a very considerable degree beyond earlier
such position statements from major (particularly US) CS actors in
recognizing the legitimate concerns/significance of "foreigners" in the
current US discussion and on that basis I think it should be supported as
amended.

 

M

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 10:45 PM
Cc: &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: Call for comment: civil society letter to PCLOB
re: human rights impacts of NSA surveillance of 'non-US persons'

 

 

On Wednesday 24 July 2013 08:23 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:

I also liked Anriette's language on the "development of a global framework
for protection", though I would suggest we slightly edit it to read "the
development of a global framework for the implementation of protections" or
something along those lines. The reason is that we already have a framework
for protections, ie the human rights framework, but that governments seem to
be happy to disregard this when it comes to surveillance.  


But so does the US have in place all kinds of higher level principles that
do cover such issues; then why does the letter ask for new legal frameworks
from the US government? As the current frameworks in the US have been found
inadequate, so could it be held true for the global human rights regime
(arguably truer for the latter) - because it is an undeniable fact -
although often selectively denied - that the digital space produces entirely
new realities, which are also unprecedentedly global in nature.... More on
US versus UN frameworks below...



 

Until governments worldwide give considerably greater evidence of their
willingness to make the protection of human rights an integral component of
their surveillance plans, I do not think that it is appropriate for civil
society to push for a more comprehensive global framework on security issues
in general. 


'Global framework on security? Whoever asked for one..... Are we asking the
US government for new a framework on security, I thought we were asking for
a new framework on privacy protection.... so also for the UN. Global
framework for privacy protection, not for security. 

So, pardon my use of ironic language to make my point, apparently we can ask
the US to develop new legal frameworks, and trust that they would not come
up with something worse then they have at present. However, we cannot at all
trust the UN to not come up with legal frameworks worse than what we have at
present, and therefore we should not ever even ask them for the same thing
that we are ready to ask of the US. 

To me, it boils down to trusting the US government to run the world more
than we can trust the UN... This is something I am unwilling to do. If even
Snowden did not teach us the right lesson, perhaps nothing ever would. I am
afraid that all this is of a piece with a widespread tendency to trust US
more than the UN with the trusteeship of the global Internet. I obviously
cannot accept that. As I said in my first posting, it is a well written and
argued letter, but the problem with it is not what it says, but with what it
does not. 

I am not against focussing a letter on a particular opportunity and end.
However,  (1) PCLOB is not the wrong agency to advice the US government to
consider global legal frameworks on privacy protection, especially now when
Snowden disclosures tell us what other countries could also be doing,
including to the US citizens, (2) I did want to have a discussion here on
whether the group considers global frameworks as also a needed remedy for
the problem in focus. I am unable to see how adding a line or two on global
frameworks would throw the letter out of focus.....

parminder 




 

On the issue of what constitutes a "Best Bits statement", the points made
here are important and we do indeed need greater clarity on this. At the
same time, it's also important to keep in mind that once statements are
shared with the wider world, maintaining a distinction between a statement
supported by all (though even on the Baku one I think we had one abstention
by the way, and in any case the Baku group was fairly small) and a statement
shared and promoted through the Best Bits platform might be difficult - even
if we are careful to make these distinctions, the wider world might not. 

Perhaps we should therefore simply go for a model in which ALL statements
are considered to be in the latter category, and focus our attention on
coming up with criteria for which type of statements are appropriate (or
not) for Best Bits instead? I am worried that sending out mixed messages
will only undermine the effectiveness of the advocacy efforts that go
through Best Bits, though I'd of course be very happy to hear other possible
solutions to that conundrum as well.

Thanks and best,
Anja

 

On 24 July 2013 20:00, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> wrote:

Dear all,

It would be good to answer the consultation without voicing support for
a PCLOB investigation. In EFF, we are of the opinion that the PCLOB
isn't the right place for an investigation.

PCLOB is weak institution, so EFF concern is that its weaknesses foster
low, expectation politics/rhetoric.  EFF want a Church Committee,
investigation or at least an existing committee with congress or at
least an existing committee with congressional subpoena power to
investigate.

We have three or four blog posts with arguments about why we need
a special investigatory committee, and at the very least extant
committees, instead of the PCLOB to investigate.

For more information on our asks please check out:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/why-special-congressional-committee-mu
st-be-created-investigate-nsas

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/response-nsa-we-need-new-church-commis
sion-and-we-need-it-now



On 7/24/13 7:24 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> Dear all
>
> My view on the letter is to keep it focused on the Call for Comment by
> the US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board regarding the US
> government's surveillance programs under the PATRIOT Act and FISA.  I
> think the letter is already too long.
>
> The more focused and to the point (and brief) our comments are, the more
> likely they will be discussed, forwarded, understood, etc. etc..
> However, I do have a proposal for how to include a reference global
> legal frameworks that does not change the basic character and purpose of
> the letter as one that addresses an official US body.
>
> This letter makes three key points:
>
> * Government surveillance must be subject to a strong legal framework
> that is transparent, necessary to achieve a legitimate goal and
> proportionate to that goal, authorized by a competent judicial
> authority, and subject to public oversight.
>
>
> *Surveillance of communications conducted under Section 702 must meets
> international human rights standards for surveillance.
>
>
> * In the context of online communications, the privacy and liberty

> rights of non-U.S. persons outside the U.S. should bewithin the PCLOB's

> statutory mandate.
>
> We could add something along the following lines:
>
> We believe findings and recommendations developed by the PCLOB that
> ensure that protection of rights of US and non US persons in the context
> of government surveillance would not only be consistent with the US
> government's frequently stated commitment to 'freedom online'; it would
> also constitute a valuable contribution to the eventual development of a
> global framework for such protections.
>
> Btw, this last sentence (quoted below) still uses the term 'Americans'.
> Please change. I also think that it is best to say 'findings and
> recommendations' rather than 'recommendations and findings' as the
> former is likely to flow from the latter.
>
> "We urge you to make recommendations and findings designed to protect
> the human rights not only of Americans, but also of non-U.S. persons who
> live outside the United States."
>
> Ciao
>
> Anriette
>
> On 24/07/2013 09:27, parminder wrote:
>>
>> Thanks to Gene and Jeremy for their responses..
>>
>> However, I see no argument here why the letter cannot ask US to also
>> engage in developing global norms and agreements with regard to
>> safeguards against invasion of privacy in name of security, and then
>> adhering to these norms/ agreements. After all, US is a prime party to
>> be appealed to if we are to move towards such global norms/
>> agreements, and it remains my firm belief that this thing can really
>> be addressed only through global arrangements,
>>
>> (Also, shouldnt US groups and US citizens also be concerned about
>> invasion of their privacy by non US government agents.:
>>
>> About Jeremy's arugment against seeking 'global legal frameworks'
>> being that we ourselves are yet to propose anything concrete, does the
>> proposed letter not ask the US government to develop new 'strong legal
>> frameworks' without actually suggesting their precise forms.. Why cant
>> we do the same for the global level even when we yet dont have our
>> concrete institutional proposals ready (would we ever be :) )... At
>> the domestic level of US gov, the letter simply asserts the need, at
>> the principles level, of privacy protection through 'strong legal
>> framework'. We can ask the same for the global system, at the level of
>> principles.... Unless of course there is a difference of opinion here
>> about the principle of a global framework itself, in which case it is
>> precisely my point to discus it openly...
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 07:34 AM, Gene Kimmelman wrote:
>>> I think Parminder raises some very important points.  I'd like to
>>> offer a quick observation and await other input:
>>>
>>> 1.  The question about how to refer to previous statements generated
>>> through some subgroup of BestBits is very legitimate; we may need a
>>> more precise description of the letter referred to and who the
>>> signatories were.  We still need to discuss at the next BestBits
>>> gathering what our rules of engagement and governance should be.
>>>
>>> 2.  I fully support the idea of initiating a discussion of what type
>>> of global legal framework (or maybe normative framework) we should be
>>> galvanizing around.  Maybe even a simple call for the UN to engage a
>>>  discussion with all stakeholders fully represented, to consider how
>>> best to enforce human rights charters and principles, would be a path
>>> forward?  Maybe others have a better suggestion, but I wouldn't want
>>> the "perfect" to stand in the way of the "good enough" for the
>>> purpose of registering broad CSO interest in a global discussion and
>>> global policy engagement.
>>>
>>> 3.  Whether or not we can all agree on something related to the
>>> global legal framework, I also urge everyone to be pragmatic about
>>> the opportunity to register your views with the US-base PCLOB.  This
>>> is of course only one small piece of the legal struggle, but it is
>>> very important from a US NGO standpoint to expand the US debate
>>> beyond US citizens or residents.  The US needs global input to wake
>>> it up to its broader obligations.  This may  not be enough to change
>>> policy, but it is a critical enhancement to the US-based NGO advocacy
>>> that could have some impact on the US government.  So even if this is
>>> a flawed, partial solution, and should be connected to something
>>> related to broader global solution, I believe it could influence US
>>> policymakers.
>>> On Jul 23, 2013, at 9:44 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Generally a well written statement. However, it must be judged not
>>>> only for what it says but also what it does not... The statement
>>>> appeals to a US government agency to protect human rights of all
>>>> citizens of the world, especially non US citizens, which is very
>>>> well. It call for all security measures that the US  " must be
>>>> subject to a strong legal framework" meaning here just a US legal
>>>> framework.... I am not convinced that this constitutes an adequate
>>>> remedy. All security measures should be subject to a strong global
>>>> or international treaty/ legal framework as well.. That alone will
>>>> work in an environment where we are all continually immersed in a
>>>> (somewhat) globally seamless, or at least hyper-connected, digital
>>>> space.
>>>>
>>>> So, my specific question is, what stops us, as a global civil
>>>> society group, from calling for a global/international legal
>>>> framework to ensuring that all security related (and other) actions,
>>>> of all states, including the US, are subject to a clear
>>>> international regime based on human rights, and any such regime
>>>> should have adequate enforcement capabilities.
>>>>
>>>> Can we discuss this here...
>>>>
>>>> While once in a while we as a global civil society group can make
>>>> specific appeals to one government or the other, but I am unwilling
>>>> to convert US government to be 'the' key duty bearer and appellate
>>>> body for global justice. In doing this is a deeper politics, and
>>>> that is my principal objection to this statement - not to what the
>>>> statmement says, but what it does not. However, this problem can
>>>> easily be addressed if the statement includes an appeal for global
>>>> legal frameworks for the same purpose..... Are the framers of the
>>>> statement willing to consider this?
>>>>
>>>> Another unconnected point, I often see statements that are signed by
>>>> various actors using the BestBits as a facilitating platform,
>>>> without them being developed and signed on the behalf of the
>>>> BestBits group/ coalition, then after being signed  propositioned as
>>>> BestBits statements. Recently I saw such a reference in the press,
>>>> about a statement that was never signed by the group as a whole
>>>> being called as a BestBits statement. This proposed letter also
>>>> refers to an earlier statement being of BestBits coalition whereas
>>>> it was never signed by the group as a whole...
>>>>
>>>> parminder
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 06:38 AM, Emma Llanso wrote:
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>
>>>>> As you may be aware, the US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight
>>>>> Board is accepting comments commentary regarding the US
>>>>> government's surveillance programs under the PATRIOT Act and FISA.
>>>>> (I've included some information about PCLOB below in case you're
>>>>> not familiar with this entity.)  I'd like to share with you a draft
>>>>> was put together by CDT, with feedback from a number of folks on
>>>>> this list, that focuses on the impact these programs have on the
>>>>> human rights of individuals outside the US:
>>>>>
https://docs.google.com/document/d/17BWIev_DybbML3ObDCORkW83THrNGuJrHlV5sQLd
YA0/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We feel that the draft text is at a point where it's ready to be
>>>>> shared with the broader Best Bits community for comment.  Please
>>>>> share any comments you have on the letter text with the whole list.
>>>>> (I will be traveling on Wednesday and so slow to respond to
>>>>> email.)  Ideally, we'd like to have a final draft of the letter
>>>>> text available to circulate during the day on Thursday, giving us
>>>>> about a week to solicit sign-on from as broad an array of groups as
>>>>> possible.  This is a very compressed timeframe, unfortunately, but
>>>>> the deadline for submitting comments is August 1st, so there is not
>>>>> much flexibility in the schedule.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Best Bits interim steering committee has agreed to host the
>>>>> final letter text on the Best Bits website to facilitate sign-on
>>>>> once we've reached that point.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's worth noting here that while a joint letter with broad
>>>>> international sign in is one way of getting the US government to
>>>>> consider the rights of non-US persons, so is flooding PCLOB with
>>>>> individual letters from international groups, so please feel free
>>>>> to adapt or build on to this letter and submit it separately. We
>>>>> intentionally did not make recommendations to PCLOB so as to garner
>>>>> broad sign on (more on that below), but individual letters are a
>>>>> good opportunity to make specific recommendations.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Background on the letter:*
>>>>> PCLOB will be preparing a report and is accepting comments
>>>>> <http://www.regulations.gov/#%21documentDetail;D=PCLOB-2013-0005-0001>
>>>>> (with no limitations on who can submit comments) until August 1st.
>>>>> As many of you know, it's been an uphill battle to get any
>>>>> attention on this critical issue of extraterritorial impacts of the
>>>>> US surveillance programs. PCLOB hosted an open hearing on the NSA
>>>>> program earlier in July, and there was unfortunately only a single
>>>>> reference to the human rights of people other than US citizens
>>>>> during the entire hearing.  We think this comment process is one of
>>>>> the better opportunities that groups from outside the US will have
>>>>> in making their opinions about the US surveillance activities
>>>>> heard.  I'd highly encourage organizations and individuals to make
>>>>> their own comments into this process, in addition to considering
>>>>> signing this letter.
>>>>>
>>>>> As a final note, the letter intentionally does not lay out
>>>>> recommendations more specific than "take into consideration the
>>>>> human rights of individuals outside the US", for several reasons.
>>>>> First, it will likely be more difficult for a broad range of groups
>>>>> to sign onto something urging very specific legal or policy
>>>>> remedies.  Further, I wouldn't want to see a short, easily agreed
>>>>> set of recommendations (e.g. focusing on transparency) get
>>>>> interpreted to mean that those fixes are the only thing the US
>>>>> government needs to do to remedy the situation.  Transparency is an
>>>>> important initial step, but it's far from the only action needed
>>>>> here (a point CDT will be emphasizing in our individual comments to
>>>>> PCLOB).  Again, I'd strongly recommend groups file individual
>>>>> comments as well, particularly if you have specific recommendations
>>>>> and actions for the Board.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Looking forward to your comments,
>>>>> Emma
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *PCLOB - WHAT IS IT?* -
>>>>>
https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/privacy-and-civil-liberties-oversig
ht-board
>>>>>
>>>>> The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is an advisory body
>>>>> to assist the President and other senior Executive branch officials
>>>>> in ensuring that concerns with respect to privacy and civil
>>>>> liberties are appropriately considered in the implementation of all
>>>>> laws, regulations, and executive branch policies related to war
>>>>> against terrorism.
>>>>>
>>>>> Recommended by the July 22, 2004, report of the National Commission
>>>>> on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, the Privacy and Civil
>>>>> Liberties Oversight Board was established by the Intelligence
>>>>> Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. It consists of five
>>>>> members appointed by and serving at the pleasure of the President.
>>>>> The Board is part of the White House Office within the Executive
>>>>> Office of the President and supported by an Executive Director and
>>>>> staff.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Board advises the President and other senior executive branch
>>>>> officials to ensure that concerns with respect to privacy and civil
>>>>> liberties are appropriately considered in the implementation of all
>>>>> laws, regulations, and executive branch policies related to efforts
>>>>> to protect the Nation against terrorism. This includes advising on
>>>>> whether adequate guidelines, supervision, and oversight exist to
>>>>> protect these important legal rights of all Americans. In addition,
>>>>> the Board is specifically charged with responsibility for reviewing
>>>>> the terrorism information sharing practices of executive branch
>>>>> departments and agencies to determine whether guidelines designed
>>>>> to appropriately protect privacy and civil liberties are being
>>>>> followed, including those issued by the President on December 16,
>>>>> 2005. In the course of performing these functions within the
>>>>> executive branch, the Board seeks the views of private sector,
>>>>> non-profit and academic institutions, Members of Congress, and all
>>>>> other interested parties and individuals on these issues.
>>>>>
>>>>> This agency has published 13 articles
>>>>>
<https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/search?conditions%5Bagency_ids%5D%
5B%5D=438
<https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/search?conditions%5Bagency_ids%5D%
5B%5D=438&skip_results=1#advanced> &skip_results=1#advanced>
>>>>> since 1994.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Emma J. Llansó
>>>>> Policy Counsel
>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology
>>>>> 1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100
>>>>> Washington, DC 20006
>>>>> 202-407-8818 | @cendemtech <https://twitter.com/#%21/CenDemTech> |
>>>>> @ellanso <https://twitter.com/#%21/ellanso>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>


--

Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom
of speech since 1990




-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/> 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130725/d00bc929/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Jul 25 01:50:39 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 11:20:39 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fwd=3A_Re=3A_=5BIRPCoalition=5D_Domino_?=
 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?effect_starts=3A_Vigilantismo=3A_Gov=2E_do_Rio_emite_Decre?=
 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?to_p/_solicita=E7=E3o_de_registros_telef=F4nicos_e_de_Inte?=
 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?rnet?=
In-Reply-To: <51F0BA4B.7090201@itforchange.net>
References: <51F0BA4B.7090201@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <51F0BCAF.6000503@itforchange.net>


On Thursday 25 July 2013 12:30 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote:
> >From Paranagua, an important (and frustrating news) comes from Brazil.
>
> Sorry for cross-posting, but I never know who is in what list, in this 
> is relevant to all of these lists. :-)
>
> In a executive Decree, the state of Rio de Janeiro, just published, as 
> set as law the obligation of telecom and ISP companies respond to 
> personal data and communications request in 24 hours, without court 
> order.


This is a disturbing news.... but also, quite the trend worldwide... 
doing Internet governance by crisis response method. And one can be sure 
that such a method provides the worst possible results . Alternatively, 
internet governance can be done by creating (anticipative) spaces and 
means or normative debates, followed by development of principles (that 
the Marco Civil process did so well in Brazil)....

Till now, civil society (with perhaps the honourable exception of the 
Marco Civil process) - especially global civil society - has taken the 
back-foot defensive stance, and we have good proof all around us that 
this has not worked. BTW, see the latest news about the US gov (and 
presumably others) seeking encryption keys from Internet companies 
<http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57595202-38/feds-put-heat-on-web-firms-for-master-encryption-keys/>. 


What happens when we create and support legitimate IG governance venues, 
and now I am mostly speaking of the global stage, it forces a large 
scale normative debate around key issues... Negotiations based on 
competing values, and often interests, mostly brings up stuff that is 
higher and lager than the sum total of the part --- that is the beauty 
of democratic political processes. But, unfortunately, we seem to have 
lost faith in democratic political processes - which no doubt, as 
everything else in the world, are less than perfect.

I think much can come out of a focussed and sustained normative 
discussion - that can really only takes place when some kind of real 
policy making is possible, even imminent - on the new issues that face 
us today. (First we need to acknowledge that there are a lot of new 
issues here, which need new responses.) We wont get a perfect 
solution.... Any new normative/ principles/ legal framework would not 
fully be smelling of roses, but overall, we, and the global public 
interest, will gain through such open, democratic political processes. 
That is my belief.

Civil society is missing the opportunity of leading the way in these 
formative times, through anticipative norms, principles and law building 
exercises, which are shaped by it, at least initially because it (the 
civil society) is ready to see in the future, and is basically long term 
public interest driven. (Such reluctance to take up this role is 
because, excuse my idealogical leap, there seems to be a deep 
anti-political streak built in the dominant civil society which seems to 
arise from the neo-lib persuasions of the multistakeholder company that 
it keeps.)

In default, we will only have Internet governance being formed as crisis 
response, and the architecture that is getting built in this manner 
would take us towards the the worst of all the possible  worlds... But 
that is where we are headed, unless civil society, for a start, changes 
tack.

parminder



>
> The governor of Rio was the target of the protests, and the decree 
> comes under the justification of preventing vandalism...
>
> This issue was not in the first draft of the decree presented to the 
> population earlier this month. Really sad news.
>
> Carol
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Pedro Paranaguá* <pedro.paranagua at gmail.com 
> <mailto:pedro.paranagua at gmail.com>>
> Date: Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:45 PM
> Subject: [sociedade-civil] Vigilantismo: Gov. do Rio emite Decreto p/ 
> solicitação de registros telefônicos e de Internet
> To: Lista da sociedade civil para discutir a reforma da lei de 
> direitos autorais <sociedade-civil at lists.gpopai.org 
> <mailto:sociedade-civil at lists.gpopai.org>>
>
>
>
>
>   Decreto de Cabral é ilegal, dizem juristas
>
>
>       Solicitação de registros telefônicos em investigações de
>       protestos é criticada
>
> 23 de julho de 2013 | 21h 11
>
>
> Felipe Werneck e Heloisa Aruth Sturm / RIO
>
> Atualizado às 21h56
>
> Juristas questionam a legalidade do decreto do governador Sérgio 
> Cabral (PMDB) publicado no Diário Oficial do Estado do Rio de 
> anteontem que cria a Comissão Especial de Investigação de Atos de 
> Vandalismo em Manifestações Públicas (CEIV). De acordo com o parágrafo 
> único do artigo 3.º, as operadoras de telefonia e provedores de 
> internet "terão prazo máximo de 24 horas para atendimento dos pedidos 
> de informações" do órgão.
>
> A norma, cuja legalidade é questionada, não existia na versão do 
> decreto apresentada à imprensa pelo governador no dia 19. Cabral é o 
> principal alvo dos protestos. O grupo de investigação é formado pelo 
> Ministério Público Estadual (MPE), Secretaria de Segurança e Polícias 
> Civil e Militar.
>
> O advogado Técio Lins e Silva comparou o decreto n.º 44.302 a 
> comissões de inquérito criadas na ditadura militar e afirmou que "está 
> entre o delírio e o abuso de poder". "É caso de impeachment, há uma 
> violação clara de direitos constitucionais."
>
> Mestre em direito constitucional, Paulo Rená também questionou a 
> legalidade do texto e afirmou que, na prática, ele "instaura um estado 
> de exceção no Rio e configura uso abusivo do poder estatal". Segundo o 
> jurista, a previsão de obrigação sobre as empresas de telefonia e 
> internet extrapola a competência do governador. "É uma norma que só 
> serve para ameaçar os intermediários."
>
> O advogado Sérgio Bermudes disse que o parágrafo que exige das 
> empresas de telefonia e internet que entreguem informações de usuários 
> é questionável, mas não vê inconstitucionalidade. Para Bermudes, 
> trata-se de "um expediente canhestro inventado pelo governador para 
> retirá-lo do foco, porque as manifestações são contra ele."
>
> Ex-presidente do Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) e professor de direito 
> constitucional, Carlos Velloso disse não ver inconstitucionalidade, 
> mas faz uma ponderação: "Seria questionável, sim, se poderia o decreto 
> estabelecer prazo de 24 horas para atendimento".
>
> O professor de direito constitucional da Universidade Federal 
> Fluminense (UFF) Cláudio Souza Neto criticou a composição da comissão 
> porque ela "acaba militarizando a investigação criminal".
> *
> Prioridade.* O artigo 3.º estabelece que solicitações e determinações 
> da comissão encaminhadas a todos os órgãos públicos e privados do Rio 
> "terão prioridade absoluta em relação a quaisquer outras atividades da 
> sua competência ou atribuição". Segundo o artigo 2.º, a comissão 
> poderá "requisitar informações, realizar diligências e praticar 
> quaisquer atos necessários à instrução de procedimentos".
>
> A assessoria do procurador-geral de Justiça, Marfan Martins Vieira, 
> afirmou que "não haverá quebra de sigilo sem decisão judicial". Em 
> nota, o MPE alegou que "o decreto limita-se a fixar prazo para 
> resposta dos pedidos de informação da comissão, sejam eles formulados 
> diretamente ou por meio de decisão judicial".
>
> Na segunda-feira, 22, o procurador que preside a comissão, Eduardo 
> Lima Neto, encerrou uma entrevista coletiva após dois minutos. 
> "Estamos construindo a forma de atuar e não posso revelar detalhes", 
> disse ele, afirmando que "direitos serão respeitados" e que "policiais 
> serão investigados". Neto não quis comentar a prisão na 
> segunda-feira de dois repórteres do grupo Mídia Ninja, acusados de 
> incitar a violência.
>
> *Acusação.* Na segunda-feira, 22, o MPE formalizou denúncia contra 
> dois homens acusados de vandalismo em manifestações realizadas nos 
> dias 17 e 20 de junho. Eles são acusados por uso de explosivos, 
> formação de quadrilha e incitação ao crime, além de dano ao 
> patrimônio. Foi requerida à Justiça a prisão preventiva dos dois.
>
> As polícias Civil e Militar foram procuradas para informar se estão 
> investigando a eventual participação de policiais na incitação à 
> violência durante a manifestação na rua do Palácio Guanabara na 
> segunda-feira, 22. A Polícia Civil afirmou que a comissão "vai 
> analisar o vídeo".
>
> Em nota, a PM informou que mantém agentes do setor de Inteligência 
> acompanhando manifestações, "com o objetivo de obter informações e 
> prever movimentos, (...) importantes para as decisões de comando". Mas 
> que "esses agentes trabalham apenas com a observação" e "imaginar que 
> um policial vá atirar um coquetel molotov em colegas de profissão, 
> colocando suas vidas em risco, é algo que ultrapassa os limites do bom 
> senso e revela uma trama sórdida para justificar a violência criminosa 
> desses vândalos".
>
> *Nota. *O governo do Estado do Rio de Janeiro emitiu uma nota de 
> esclarecimento à imprensa:
>
> "O decreto do Governo do Estado do Rio de Janeiro que cria a Comissão 
> Especial de Investigação de Atos de Vandalismo em Manifestações 
> Públicas (CEIV) sempre esteve em absoluta sintonia com o Ministério 
> Público RJ e, em momento algum, estabeleceu que a CEIV quebrasse 
> sigilos. Somente à Justiça caberá a quebra de sigilos solicitados pela 
> Comissão Especial que é presidida pelo MP-RJ".
>
> http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/cidades,decreto-de-cabral-e-ilegal-dizem-juristas,1056604,0.htm
>
> _______________________________________________
> Essa é uma lista fechada. Por favor seja prudente ao redirecionar 
> mensagens para listas abertas
> _______________________________________________
> sociedade-civil mailing list
> sociedade-civil at lists.gpopai.org <mailto:sociedade-civil at lists.gpopai.org>
> http://lists.gpopai.org/listinfo.cgi/sociedade-civil-gpopai.org
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> *Carolina Rossini*
> /Project Director, Latin America Resource Center/
> Open Technology Institute
> *New America Foundation*
> //
> http://carolinarossini.net/
> + 1 6176979389
> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com <mailto:carolina.rossini at gmail.com>*
> skype: carolrossini
> @carolinarossini
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130725/606e5b2f/attachment.htm>

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Thu Jul 25 07:29:00 2013
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 16:59:00 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: Call for comment: civil society letter to PCLOB
 re: human rights impacts of NSA surveillance of 'non-US persons'
In-Reply-To: <001501ce88d9$68801bb0$39805310$@gmail.com>
References: <51EF2902.1080702@cdt.org>
	<51EF316B.4030306@itforchange.net>
	<94BC60FF-AF14-46B8-B16D-6B6D01C40522@gmail.com>
	<51EF81D5.9090802@itforchange.net>
	<51EFB97F.9090702@apc.org>
	<51EFE4EF.40403@eff.org>
	<CAJqNAHCj0EnRFyPBpmdO7MDA-fSZMPDzeO-wSOj+68njYG=sDA@mail.gmail.com>
	<51F00B97.20509@itforchange.net>
	<001501ce88d9$68801bb0$39805310$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHBcr=S-bPYGCbiaKbmfmK7MOspmeeBwaVOEn2SiSMCHtQ@mail.gmail.com>

Just to clarify my position vis-a-vis Parminder's comments:

In theory I do think that a strong global framework on privacy protections
could contribute to resolving these issues in a significant manner.
Unfortunately, in practice I am not sure how feasible this is at present.
As they are necessarily based on compromise, global agreements tend to
congeal around the lowest common denominators. At the moment, I am afraid
these will set the bar too low, not in the least because many of the
democracies that one would hope would push for higher standards at the
moment seem to be setting the bar too low domestically, including where
privacy is concerned. This is true not only of the US but also of, for
example, India. In these circumstances, I am worried that a global
agreement will be used first and foremost to cement sovereignty over the
Internet, rather than to defend the rights of Internet users around the
world, something I would not consider a gain. My reformulation of
Anriette's formulation was simply meant to foreground that what we are
asking for is the implementation of existing human rights, not to stop us
from creating a debate on this issue. I continue to think, however, that
the best way countries can flag that the time is genuinely ripe for a
global framework is by demonstrating a clear commitment to human rights in
these areas domestically. It is countries that would like to see global
coordination on a wide range of issues beyond privacy that might in fact
have the greatest stake in doing so.

My 2 cents.

Best,
Anja


On 25 July 2013 07:20, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree with Parminder that the letter lacks a forward looking element
> which would deal with the most fundamental issue--the development of an
> integrated (if to a very limited degree multi-polar) ubiquitous
> multi-stakeholder--States+private sector+technical community(?))
> surveillance State. This is  global in nature and will require some sort of
> global response and working through this in anticipation of the IGF should
> be I think, our major current task.****
>
> ** **
>
> However, I think the letter goes a very considerable degree beyond earlier
> such position statements from major (particularly US) CS actors in
> recognizing the legitimate concerns/significance of "foreigners" in the
> current US discussion and on that basis I think it should be supported as
> amended.****
>
> ** **
>
> M****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:
> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *parminder
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 24, 2013 10:45 PM
> *Cc:* &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
>
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Re: Call for comment: civil society letter to
> PCLOB re: human rights impacts of NSA surveillance of 'non-US persons'****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 08:23 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:****
>
> I also liked Anriette's language on the "development of a global framework
> for protection", though I would suggest we slightly edit it to read "the
> development of a global framework for the implementation of protections" or
> something along those lines. The reason is that we already have a framework
> for protections, ie the human rights framework, but that governments seem
> to be happy to disregard this when it comes to surveillance.  ****
>
>
> But so does the US have in place all kinds of higher level principles that
> do cover such issues; then why does the letter ask for new legal frameworks
> from the US government? As the current frameworks in the US have been found
> inadequate, so could it be held true for the global human rights regime
> (arguably truer for the latter) - because it is an undeniable fact -
> although often selectively denied - that the digital space produces
> entirely new realities, which are also unprecedentedly global in nature....
> More on US versus UN frameworks below...
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Until governments worldwide give considerably greater evidence of their
> willingness to make the protection of human rights an integral component of
> their surveillance plans, I do not think that it is appropriate for civil
> society to push for a more comprehensive global framework on security
> issues in general. ****
>
>
> 'Global framework on security? Whoever asked for one..... Are we asking
> the US government for new a framework on security, I thought we were asking
> for a new framework on privacy protection.... so also for the UN. Global
> framework for privacy protection, not for security.
>
> So, pardon my use of ironic language to make my point, apparently we can
> ask the US to develop new legal frameworks, and trust that they would not
> come up with something worse then they have at present. However, we cannot
> at all trust the UN to not come up with legal frameworks worse than what we
> have at present, and therefore we should not ever even ask them for the
> same thing that we are ready to ask of the US.
>
> To me, it boils down to trusting the US government to run the world more
> than we can trust the UN... This is something I am unwilling to do. If even
> Snowden did not teach us the right lesson, perhaps nothing ever would. I am
> afraid that all this is of a piece with a widespread tendency to trust US
> more than the UN with the trusteeship of the global Internet. I obviously
> cannot accept that. As I said in my first posting, it is a well written and
> argued letter, but the problem with it is not what it says, but with what
> it does not.
>
> I am not against focussing a letter on a particular opportunity and end.
> However,  (1) PCLOB is not the wrong agency to advice the US government to
> consider global legal frameworks on privacy protection, especially now when
> Snowden disclosures tell us what other countries could also be doing,
> including to the US citizens, (2) I did want to have a discussion here on
> whether the group considers global frameworks as also a needed remedy for
> the problem in focus. I am unable to see how adding a line or two on global
> frameworks would throw the letter out of focus.....
>
> parminder
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> On the issue of what constitutes a "Best Bits statement", the points made
> here are important and we do indeed need greater clarity on this. At the
> same time, it's also important to keep in mind that once statements are
> shared with the wider world, maintaining a distinction between a statement
> supported by all (though even on the Baku one I think we had one abstention
> by the way, and in any case the Baku group was fairly small) and a
> statement shared and promoted through the Best Bits platform might be
> difficult - even if we are careful to make these distinctions, the wider
> world might not.
>
> Perhaps we should therefore simply go for a model in which ALL statements
> are considered to be in the latter category, and focus our attention on
> coming up with criteria for which type of statements are appropriate (or
> not) for Best Bits instead? I am worried that sending out mixed messages
> will only undermine the effectiveness of the advocacy efforts that go
> through Best Bits, though I'd of course be very happy to hear other
> possible solutions to that conundrum as well.****
>
> Thanks and best,
> Anja****
>
> ** **
>
> On 24 July 2013 20:00, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> wrote:****
>
> Dear all,
>
> It would be good to answer the consultation without voicing support for
> a PCLOB investigation. In EFF, we are of the opinion that the PCLOB
> isn't the right place for an investigation.
>
> PCLOB is weak institution, so EFF concern is that its weaknesses foster
> low, expectation politics/rhetoric.  EFF want a Church Committee,
> investigation or at least an existing committee with congress or at
> least an existing committee with congressional subpoena power to
> investigate.
>
> We have three or four blog posts with arguments about why we need
> a special investigatory committee, and at the very least extant
> committees, instead of the PCLOB to investigate.
>
> For more information on our asks please check out:
>
>
> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/why-special-congressional-committee-must-be-created-investigate-nsas
>
>
> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/response-nsa-we-need-new-church-commission-and-we-need-it-now
> ****
>
>
>
> On 7/24/13 7:24 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> > Dear all
> >
> > My view on the letter is to keep it focused on the Call for Comment by
> > the US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board regarding the US
> > government's surveillance programs under the PATRIOT Act and FISA.  I
> > think the letter is already too long.
> >
> > The more focused and to the point (and brief) our comments are, the more
> > likely they will be discussed, forwarded, understood, etc. etc..
> > However, I do have a proposal for how to include a reference global
> > legal frameworks that does not change the basic character and purpose of
> > the letter as one that addresses an official US body.
> >
> > This letter makes three key points:
> >
> > * Government surveillance must be subject to a strong legal framework
> > that is transparent, necessary to achieve a legitimate goal and
> > proportionate to that goal, authorized by a competent judicial
> > authority, and subject to public oversight.
> >
> >
> > *Surveillance of communications conducted under Section 702 must meets
> > international human rights standards for surveillance.
> >
> >
> > * In the context of online communications, the privacy and liberty****
>
> > rights of non-U.S. persons outside the U.S. should bewithin the PCLOB's*
> ***
>
> > statutory mandate.
> >
> > We could add something along the following lines:
> >
> > We believe findings and recommendations developed by the PCLOB that
> > ensure that protection of rights of US and non US persons in the context
> > of government surveillance would not only be consistent with the US
> > government's frequently stated commitment to 'freedom online'; it would
> > also constitute a valuable contribution to the eventual development of a
> > global framework for such protections.
> >
> > Btw, this last sentence (quoted below) still uses the term 'Americans'.
> > Please change. I also think that it is best to say 'findings and
> > recommendations' rather than 'recommendations and findings' as the
> > former is likely to flow from the latter.
> >
> > "We urge you to make recommendations and findings designed to protect
> > the human rights not only of Americans, but also of non-U.S. persons who
> > live outside the United States."
> >
> > Ciao
> >
> > Anriette
> >
> > On 24/07/2013 09:27, parminder wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks to Gene and Jeremy for their responses..
> >>
> >> However, I see no argument here why the letter cannot ask US to also
> >> engage in developing global norms and agreements with regard to
> >> safeguards against invasion of privacy in name of security, and then
> >> adhering to these norms/ agreements. After all, US is a prime party to
> >> be appealed to if we are to move towards such global norms/
> >> agreements, and it remains my firm belief that this thing can really
> >> be addressed only through global arrangements,
> >>
> >> (Also, shouldnt US groups and US citizens also be concerned about
> >> invasion of their privacy by non US government agents.:
> >>
> >> About Jeremy's arugment against seeking 'global legal frameworks'
> >> being that we ourselves are yet to propose anything concrete, does the
> >> proposed letter not ask the US government to develop new 'strong legal
> >> frameworks' without actually suggesting their precise forms.. Why cant
> >> we do the same for the global level even when we yet dont have our
> >> concrete institutional proposals ready (would we ever be :) )... At
> >> the domestic level of US gov, the letter simply asserts the need, at
> >> the principles level, of privacy protection through 'strong legal
> >> framework'. We can ask the same for the global system, at the level of
> >> principles.... Unless of course there is a difference of opinion here
> >> about the principle of a global framework itself, in which case it is
> >> precisely my point to discus it openly...
> >>
> >> parminder
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 07:34 AM, Gene Kimmelman wrote:
> >>> I think Parminder raises some very important points.  I'd like to
> >>> offer a quick observation and await other input:
> >>>
> >>> 1.  The question about how to refer to previous statements generated
> >>> through some subgroup of BestBits is very legitimate; we may need a
> >>> more precise description of the letter referred to and who the
> >>> signatories were.  We still need to discuss at the next BestBits
> >>> gathering what our rules of engagement and governance should be.
> >>>
> >>> 2.  I fully support the idea of initiating a discussion of what type
> >>> of global legal framework (or maybe normative framework) we should be
> >>> galvanizing around.  Maybe even a simple call for the UN to engage a
> >>>  discussion with all stakeholders fully represented, to consider how
> >>> best to enforce human rights charters and principles, would be a path
> >>> forward?  Maybe others have a better suggestion, but I wouldn't want
> >>> the "perfect" to stand in the way of the "good enough" for the
> >>> purpose of registering broad CSO interest in a global discussion and
> >>> global policy engagement.
> >>>
> >>> 3.  Whether or not we can all agree on something related to the
> >>> global legal framework, I also urge everyone to be pragmatic about
> >>> the opportunity to register your views with the US-base PCLOB.  This
> >>> is of course only one small piece of the legal struggle, but it is
> >>> very important from a US NGO standpoint to expand the US debate
> >>> beyond US citizens or residents.  The US needs global input to wake
> >>> it up to its broader obligations.  This may  not be enough to change
> >>> policy, but it is a critical enhancement to the US-based NGO advocacy
> >>> that could have some impact on the US government.  So even if this is
> >>> a flawed, partial solution, and should be connected to something
> >>> related to broader global solution, I believe it could influence US
> >>> policymakers.
> >>> On Jul 23, 2013, at 9:44 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> >>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Generally a well written statement. However, it must be judged not
> >>>> only for what it says but also what it does not... The statement
> >>>> appeals to a US government agency to protect human rights of all
> >>>> citizens of the world, especially non US citizens, which is very
> >>>> well. It call for all security measures that the US  " must be
> >>>> subject to a strong legal framework" meaning here just a US legal
> >>>> framework.... I am not convinced that this constitutes an adequate
> >>>> remedy. All security measures should be subject to a strong global
> >>>> or international treaty/ legal framework as well.. That alone will
> >>>> work in an environment where we are all continually immersed in a
> >>>> (somewhat) globally seamless, or at least hyper-connected, digital
> >>>> space.
> >>>>
> >>>> So, my specific question is, what stops us, as a global civil
> >>>> society group, from calling for a global/international legal
> >>>> framework to ensuring that all security related (and other) actions,
> >>>> of all states, including the US, are subject to a clear
> >>>> international regime based on human rights, and any such regime
> >>>> should have adequate enforcement capabilities.
> >>>>
> >>>> Can we discuss this here...
> >>>>
> >>>> While once in a while we as a global civil society group can make
> >>>> specific appeals to one government or the other, but I am unwilling
> >>>> to convert US government to be 'the' key duty bearer and appellate
> >>>> body for global justice. In doing this is a deeper politics, and
> >>>> that is my principal objection to this statement - not to what the
> >>>> statmement says, but what it does not. However, this problem can
> >>>> easily be addressed if the statement includes an appeal for global
> >>>> legal frameworks for the same purpose..... Are the framers of the
> >>>> statement willing to consider this?
> >>>>
> >>>> Another unconnected point, I often see statements that are signed by
> >>>> various actors using the BestBits as a facilitating platform,
> >>>> without them being developed and signed on the behalf of the
> >>>> BestBits group/ coalition, then after being signed  propositioned as
> >>>> BestBits statements. Recently I saw such a reference in the press,
> >>>> about a statement that was never signed by the group as a whole
> >>>> being called as a BestBits statement. This proposed letter also
> >>>> refers to an earlier statement being of BestBits coalition whereas
> >>>> it was never signed by the group as a whole...
> >>>>
> >>>> parminder
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 06:38 AM, Emma Llanso wrote:
> >>>>> Dear all,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As you may be aware, the US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight
> >>>>> Board is accepting comments commentary regarding the US
> >>>>> government's surveillance programs under the PATRIOT Act and FISA.
> >>>>> (I've included some information about PCLOB below in case you're
> >>>>> not familiar with this entity.)  I'd like to share with you a draft
> >>>>> was put together by CDT, with feedback from a number of folks on
> >>>>> this list, that focuses on the impact these programs have on the
> >>>>> human rights of individuals outside the US:
> >>>>>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/17BWIev_DybbML3ObDCORkW83THrNGuJrHlV5sQLdYA0/edit?usp=sharing
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We feel that the draft text is at a point where it's ready to be
> >>>>> shared with the broader Best Bits community for comment.  Please
> >>>>> share any comments you have on the letter text with the whole list.
> >>>>> (I will be traveling on Wednesday and so slow to respond to
> >>>>> email.)  Ideally, we'd like to have a final draft of the letter
> >>>>> text available to circulate during the day on Thursday, giving us
> >>>>> about a week to solicit sign-on from as broad an array of groups as
> >>>>> possible.  This is a very compressed timeframe, unfortunately, but
> >>>>> the deadline for submitting comments is August 1st, so there is not
> >>>>> much flexibility in the schedule.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The Best Bits interim steering committee has agreed to host the
> >>>>> final letter text on the Best Bits website to facilitate sign-on
> >>>>> once we've reached that point.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's worth noting here that while a joint letter with broad
> >>>>> international sign in is one way of getting the US government to
> >>>>> consider the rights of non-US persons, so is flooding PCLOB with
> >>>>> individual letters from international groups, so please feel free
> >>>>> to adapt or build on to this letter and submit it separately. We
> >>>>> intentionally did not make recommendations to PCLOB so as to garner
> >>>>> broad sign on (more on that below), but individual letters are a
> >>>>> good opportunity to make specific recommendations.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *Background on the letter:*
> >>>>> PCLOB will be preparing a report and is accepting comments
> >>>>> <
> http://www.regulations.gov/#%21documentDetail;D=PCLOB-2013-0005-0001>
> >>>>> (with no limitations on who can submit comments) until August 1st.
> >>>>> As many of you know, it's been an uphill battle to get any
> >>>>> attention on this critical issue of extraterritorial impacts of the
> >>>>> US surveillance programs. PCLOB hosted an open hearing on the NSA
> >>>>> program earlier in July, and there was unfortunately only a single
> >>>>> reference to the human rights of people other than US citizens
> >>>>> during the entire hearing.  We think this comment process is one of
> >>>>> the better opportunities that groups from outside the US will have
> >>>>> in making their opinions about the US surveillance activities
> >>>>> heard.  I'd highly encourage organizations and individuals to make
> >>>>> their own comments into this process, in addition to considering
> >>>>> signing this letter.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As a final note, the letter intentionally does not lay out
> >>>>> recommendations more specific than "take into consideration the
> >>>>> human rights of individuals outside the US", for several reasons.
> >>>>> First, it will likely be more difficult for a broad range of groups
> >>>>> to sign onto something urging very specific legal or policy
> >>>>> remedies.  Further, I wouldn't want to see a short, easily agreed
> >>>>> set of recommendations (e.g. focusing on transparency) get
> >>>>> interpreted to mean that those fixes are the only thing the US
> >>>>> government needs to do to remedy the situation.  Transparency is an
> >>>>> important initial step, but it's far from the only action needed
> >>>>> here (a point CDT will be emphasizing in our individual comments to
> >>>>> PCLOB).  Again, I'd strongly recommend groups file individual
> >>>>> comments as well, particularly if you have specific recommendations
> >>>>> and actions for the Board.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Looking forward to your comments,
> >>>>> Emma
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *PCLOB - WHAT IS IT?* -
> >>>>>
> https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/privacy-and-civil-liberties-oversight-board
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is an advisory body
> >>>>> to assist the President and other senior Executive branch officials
> >>>>> in ensuring that concerns with respect to privacy and civil
> >>>>> liberties are appropriately considered in the implementation of all
> >>>>> laws, regulations, and executive branch policies related to war
> >>>>> against terrorism.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Recommended by the July 22, 2004, report of the National Commission
> >>>>> on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, the Privacy and Civil
> >>>>> Liberties Oversight Board was established by the Intelligence
> >>>>> Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. It consists of five
> >>>>> members appointed by and serving at the pleasure of the President.
> >>>>> The Board is part of the White House Office within the Executive
> >>>>> Office of the President and supported by an Executive Director and
> >>>>> staff.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The Board advises the President and other senior executive branch
> >>>>> officials to ensure that concerns with respect to privacy and civil
> >>>>> liberties are appropriately considered in the implementation of all
> >>>>> laws, regulations, and executive branch policies related to efforts
> >>>>> to protect the Nation against terrorism. This includes advising on
> >>>>> whether adequate guidelines, supervision, and oversight exist to
> >>>>> protect these important legal rights of all Americans. In addition,
> >>>>> the Board is specifically charged with responsibility for reviewing
> >>>>> the terrorism information sharing practices of executive branch
> >>>>> departments and agencies to determine whether guidelines designed
> >>>>> to appropriately protect privacy and civil liberties are being
> >>>>> followed, including those issued by the President on December 16,
> >>>>> 2005. In the course of performing these functions within the
> >>>>> executive branch, the Board seeks the views of private sector,
> >>>>> non-profit and academic institutions, Members of Congress, and all
> >>>>> other interested parties and individuals on these issues.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This agency has published 13 articles
> >>>>> <
> https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/search?conditions%5Bagency_ids%5D%5B%5D=438&skip_results=1#advanced
> >
> >>>>> since 1994.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Emma J. Llansó
> >>>>> Policy Counsel
> >>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology
> >>>>> 1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100
> >>>>> Washington, DC 20006
> >>>>> 202-407-8818 | @cendemtech <https://twitter.com/#%21/CenDemTech> |
> >>>>> @ellanso <https://twitter.com/#%21/ellanso>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
> --****
>
> Katitza Rodriguez
> International Rights Director
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> katitza at eff.org
> katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)
>
> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom
> of speech since 1990****
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130725/f808692c/attachment.htm>

From anriette at apc.org  Thu Jul 25 07:42:56 2013
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 13:42:56 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Re: Call for comment: civil society letter to PCLOB
 re: human rights impacts of NSA surveillance of 'non-US persons'
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHBcr=S-bPYGCbiaKbmfmK7MOspmeeBwaVOEn2SiSMCHtQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <51EF2902.1080702@cdt.org> <51EF316B.4030306@itforchange.net> <94BC60FF-AF14-46B8-B16D-6B6D01C40522@gmail.com> <51EF81D5.9090802@itforchange.net> <51EFB97F.9090702@apc.org> <51EFE4EF.40403@eff.org> <CAJqNAHCj0EnRFyPBpmdO7MDA-fSZMPDzeO-wSOj+68njYG=sDA@mail.gmail.com> <51F00B97.20509@itforchange.net> <001501ce88d9$68801bb0$39805310$@gmail.com> <CAJqNAHBcr=S-bPYGCbiaKbmfmK7MOspmeeBwaVOEn2SiSMCHtQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <51F10F40.1010800@apc.org>

Hi all

I was happy with Anja's reformulation and I share her concerns about the
risks attached to a global agreement. And great work to the main
drafters.. I should have said this before. Just one other thought.

We could, theoretically, keep the letter short and concise, and add as
an addendum a document that raises broader concerns. But hopefully this
will not be necessary.

We should try to remember that we are acting on multiple fronts and
therefore we don't have to fit all our concerns and demands into every
single intervention.

I would like to hear from Katitza whether, in the light of EFF's
position on the PCLOB, whether she thinks this letter is a bad idea? Not
that I think we should not send it, I would just like to have a better
understanding of EFF's position on the Best Bits letter.

And then another thought. Should Best Bits not also draft letters to
other governments on our concerns. Anja mentions India. South Africa
also has VERY problematic legislation around monitoring and interception.

The list goes on.

Anriette




On 25/07/2013 13:29, Anja Kovacs wrote:
> Just to clarify my position vis-a-vis Parminder's comments:
>
> In theory I do think that a strong global framework on privacy protections
> could contribute to resolving these issues in a significant manner.
> Unfortunately, in practice I am not sure how feasible this is at present.
> As they are necessarily based on compromise, global agreements tend to
> congeal around the lowest common denominators. At the moment, I am afraid
> these will set the bar too low, not in the least because many of the
> democracies that one would hope would push for higher standards at the
> moment seem to be setting the bar too low domestically, including where
> privacy is concerned. This is true not only of the US but also of, for
> example, India. In these circumstances, I am worried that a global
> agreement will be used first and foremost to cement sovereignty over the
> Internet, rather than to defend the rights of Internet users around the
> world, something I would not consider a gain. My reformulation of
> Anriette's formulation was simply meant to foreground that what we are
> asking for is the implementation of existing human rights, not to stop us
> from creating a debate on this issue. I continue to think, however, that
> the best way countries can flag that the time is genuinely ripe for a
> global framework is by demonstrating a clear commitment to human rights in
> these areas domestically. It is countries that would like to see global
> coordination on a wide range of issues beyond privacy that might in fact
> have the greatest stake in doing so.
>
> My 2 cents.
>
> Best,
> Anja
>
>
> On 25 July 2013 07:20, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I agree with Parminder that the letter lacks a forward looking element
>> which would deal with the most fundamental issue--the development of an
>> integrated (if to a very limited degree multi-polar) ubiquitous
>> multi-stakeholder--States+private sector+technical community(?))
>> surveillance State. This is  global in nature and will require some sort of
>> global response and working through this in anticipation of the IGF should
>> be I think, our major current task.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> However, I think the letter goes a very considerable degree beyond earlier
>> such position statements from major (particularly US) CS actors in
>> recognizing the legitimate concerns/significance of "foreigners" in the
>> current US discussion and on that basis I think it should be supported as
>> amended.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> M****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:
>> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *parminder
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 24, 2013 10:45 PM
>> *Cc:* &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Re: Call for comment: civil society letter to
>> PCLOB re: human rights impacts of NSA surveillance of 'non-US persons'****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 08:23 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:****
>>
>> I also liked Anriette's language on the "development of a global framework
>> for protection", though I would suggest we slightly edit it to read "the
>> development of a global framework for the implementation of protections" or
>> something along those lines. The reason is that we already have a framework
>> for protections, ie the human rights framework, but that governments seem
>> to be happy to disregard this when it comes to surveillance.  ****
>>
>>
>> But so does the US have in place all kinds of higher level principles that
>> do cover such issues; then why does the letter ask for new legal frameworks
>> from the US government? As the current frameworks in the US have been found
>> inadequate, so could it be held true for the global human rights regime
>> (arguably truer for the latter) - because it is an undeniable fact -
>> although often selectively denied - that the digital space produces
>> entirely new realities, which are also unprecedentedly global in nature....
>> More on US versus UN frameworks below...
>>
>> ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Until governments worldwide give considerably greater evidence of their
>> willingness to make the protection of human rights an integral component of
>> their surveillance plans, I do not think that it is appropriate for civil
>> society to push for a more comprehensive global framework on security
>> issues in general. ****
>>
>>
>> 'Global framework on security? Whoever asked for one..... Are we asking
>> the US government for new a framework on security, I thought we were asking
>> for a new framework on privacy protection.... so also for the UN. Global
>> framework for privacy protection, not for security.
>>
>> So, pardon my use of ironic language to make my point, apparently we can
>> ask the US to develop new legal frameworks, and trust that they would not
>> come up with something worse then they have at present. However, we cannot
>> at all trust the UN to not come up with legal frameworks worse than what we
>> have at present, and therefore we should not ever even ask them for the
>> same thing that we are ready to ask of the US.
>>
>> To me, it boils down to trusting the US government to run the world more
>> than we can trust the UN... This is something I am unwilling to do. If even
>> Snowden did not teach us the right lesson, perhaps nothing ever would. I am
>> afraid that all this is of a piece with a widespread tendency to trust US
>> more than the UN with the trusteeship of the global Internet. I obviously
>> cannot accept that. As I said in my first posting, it is a well written and
>> argued letter, but the problem with it is not what it says, but with what
>> it does not.
>>
>> I am not against focussing a letter on a particular opportunity and end.
>> However,  (1) PCLOB is not the wrong agency to advice the US government to
>> consider global legal frameworks on privacy protection, especially now when
>> Snowden disclosures tell us what other countries could also be doing,
>> including to the US citizens, (2) I did want to have a discussion here on
>> whether the group considers global frameworks as also a needed remedy for
>> the problem in focus. I am unable to see how adding a line or two on global
>> frameworks would throw the letter out of focus.....
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>> ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> On the issue of what constitutes a "Best Bits statement", the points made
>> here are important and we do indeed need greater clarity on this. At the
>> same time, it's also important to keep in mind that once statements are
>> shared with the wider world, maintaining a distinction between a statement
>> supported by all (though even on the Baku one I think we had one abstention
>> by the way, and in any case the Baku group was fairly small) and a
>> statement shared and promoted through the Best Bits platform might be
>> difficult - even if we are careful to make these distinctions, the wider
>> world might not.
>>
>> Perhaps we should therefore simply go for a model in which ALL statements
>> are considered to be in the latter category, and focus our attention on
>> coming up with criteria for which type of statements are appropriate (or
>> not) for Best Bits instead? I am worried that sending out mixed messages
>> will only undermine the effectiveness of the advocacy efforts that go
>> through Best Bits, though I'd of course be very happy to hear other
>> possible solutions to that conundrum as well.****
>>
>> Thanks and best,
>> Anja****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> On 24 July 2013 20:00, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> wrote:****
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> It would be good to answer the consultation without voicing support for
>> a PCLOB investigation. In EFF, we are of the opinion that the PCLOB
>> isn't the right place for an investigation.
>>
>> PCLOB is weak institution, so EFF concern is that its weaknesses foster
>> low, expectation politics/rhetoric.  EFF want a Church Committee,
>> investigation or at least an existing committee with congress or at
>> least an existing committee with congressional subpoena power to
>> investigate.
>>
>> We have three or four blog posts with arguments about why we need
>> a special investigatory committee, and at the very least extant
>> committees, instead of the PCLOB to investigate.
>>
>> For more information on our asks please check out:
>>
>>
>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/why-special-congressional-committee-must-be-created-investigate-nsas
>>
>>
>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/response-nsa-we-need-new-church-commission-and-we-need-it-now
>> ****
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/24/13 7:24 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>> Dear all
>>>
>>> My view on the letter is to keep it focused on the Call for Comment by
>>> the US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board regarding the US
>>> government's surveillance programs under the PATRIOT Act and FISA.  I
>>> think the letter is already too long.
>>>
>>> The more focused and to the point (and brief) our comments are, the more
>>> likely they will be discussed, forwarded, understood, etc. etc..
>>> However, I do have a proposal for how to include a reference global
>>> legal frameworks that does not change the basic character and purpose of
>>> the letter as one that addresses an official US body.
>>>
>>> This letter makes three key points:
>>>
>>> * Government surveillance must be subject to a strong legal framework
>>> that is transparent, necessary to achieve a legitimate goal and
>>> proportionate to that goal, authorized by a competent judicial
>>> authority, and subject to public oversight.
>>>
>>>
>>> *Surveillance of communications conducted under Section 702 must meets
>>> international human rights standards for surveillance.
>>>
>>>
>>> * In the context of online communications, the privacy and liberty****
>>> rights of non-U.S. persons outside the U.S. should bewithin the PCLOB's*
>> ***
>>
>>> statutory mandate.
>>>
>>> We could add something along the following lines:
>>>
>>> We believe findings and recommendations developed by the PCLOB that
>>> ensure that protection of rights of US and non US persons in the context
>>> of government surveillance would not only be consistent with the US
>>> government's frequently stated commitment to 'freedom online'; it would
>>> also constitute a valuable contribution to the eventual development of a
>>> global framework for such protections.
>>>
>>> Btw, this last sentence (quoted below) still uses the term 'Americans'.
>>> Please change. I also think that it is best to say 'findings and
>>> recommendations' rather than 'recommendations and findings' as the
>>> former is likely to flow from the latter.
>>>
>>> "We urge you to make recommendations and findings designed to protect
>>> the human rights not only of Americans, but also of non-U.S. persons who
>>> live outside the United States."
>>>
>>> Ciao
>>>
>>> Anriette
>>>
>>> On 24/07/2013 09:27, parminder wrote:
>>>> Thanks to Gene and Jeremy for their responses..
>>>>
>>>> However, I see no argument here why the letter cannot ask US to also
>>>> engage in developing global norms and agreements with regard to
>>>> safeguards against invasion of privacy in name of security, and then
>>>> adhering to these norms/ agreements. After all, US is a prime party to
>>>> be appealed to if we are to move towards such global norms/
>>>> agreements, and it remains my firm belief that this thing can really
>>>> be addressed only through global arrangements,
>>>>
>>>> (Also, shouldnt US groups and US citizens also be concerned about
>>>> invasion of their privacy by non US government agents.:
>>>>
>>>> About Jeremy's arugment against seeking 'global legal frameworks'
>>>> being that we ourselves are yet to propose anything concrete, does the
>>>> proposed letter not ask the US government to develop new 'strong legal
>>>> frameworks' without actually suggesting their precise forms.. Why cant
>>>> we do the same for the global level even when we yet dont have our
>>>> concrete institutional proposals ready (would we ever be :) )... At
>>>> the domestic level of US gov, the letter simply asserts the need, at
>>>> the principles level, of privacy protection through 'strong legal
>>>> framework'. We can ask the same for the global system, at the level of
>>>> principles.... Unless of course there is a difference of opinion here
>>>> about the principle of a global framework itself, in which case it is
>>>> precisely my point to discus it openly...
>>>>
>>>> parminder
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 07:34 AM, Gene Kimmelman wrote:
>>>>> I think Parminder raises some very important points.  I'd like to
>>>>> offer a quick observation and await other input:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1.  The question about how to refer to previous statements generated
>>>>> through some subgroup of BestBits is very legitimate; we may need a
>>>>> more precise description of the letter referred to and who the
>>>>> signatories were.  We still need to discuss at the next BestBits
>>>>> gathering what our rules of engagement and governance should be.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.  I fully support the idea of initiating a discussion of what type
>>>>> of global legal framework (or maybe normative framework) we should be
>>>>> galvanizing around.  Maybe even a simple call for the UN to engage a
>>>>>  discussion with all stakeholders fully represented, to consider how
>>>>> best to enforce human rights charters and principles, would be a path
>>>>> forward?  Maybe others have a better suggestion, but I wouldn't want
>>>>> the "perfect" to stand in the way of the "good enough" for the
>>>>> purpose of registering broad CSO interest in a global discussion and
>>>>> global policy engagement.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3.  Whether or not we can all agree on something related to the
>>>>> global legal framework, I also urge everyone to be pragmatic about
>>>>> the opportunity to register your views with the US-base PCLOB.  This
>>>>> is of course only one small piece of the legal struggle, but it is
>>>>> very important from a US NGO standpoint to expand the US debate
>>>>> beyond US citizens or residents.  The US needs global input to wake
>>>>> it up to its broader obligations.  This may  not be enough to change
>>>>> policy, but it is a critical enhancement to the US-based NGO advocacy
>>>>> that could have some impact on the US government.  So even if this is
>>>>> a flawed, partial solution, and should be connected to something
>>>>> related to broader global solution, I believe it could influence US
>>>>> policymakers.
>>>>> On Jul 23, 2013, at 9:44 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>>>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Generally a well written statement. However, it must be judged not
>>>>>> only for what it says but also what it does not... The statement
>>>>>> appeals to a US government agency to protect human rights of all
>>>>>> citizens of the world, especially non US citizens, which is very
>>>>>> well. It call for all security measures that the US  " must be
>>>>>> subject to a strong legal framework" meaning here just a US legal
>>>>>> framework.... I am not convinced that this constitutes an adequate
>>>>>> remedy. All security measures should be subject to a strong global
>>>>>> or international treaty/ legal framework as well.. That alone will
>>>>>> work in an environment where we are all continually immersed in a
>>>>>> (somewhat) globally seamless, or at least hyper-connected, digital
>>>>>> space.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, my specific question is, what stops us, as a global civil
>>>>>> society group, from calling for a global/international legal
>>>>>> framework to ensuring that all security related (and other) actions,
>>>>>> of all states, including the US, are subject to a clear
>>>>>> international regime based on human rights, and any such regime
>>>>>> should have adequate enforcement capabilities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can we discuss this here...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While once in a while we as a global civil society group can make
>>>>>> specific appeals to one government or the other, but I am unwilling
>>>>>> to convert US government to be 'the' key duty bearer and appellate
>>>>>> body for global justice. In doing this is a deeper politics, and
>>>>>> that is my principal objection to this statement - not to what the
>>>>>> statmement says, but what it does not. However, this problem can
>>>>>> easily be addressed if the statement includes an appeal for global
>>>>>> legal frameworks for the same purpose..... Are the framers of the
>>>>>> statement willing to consider this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another unconnected point, I often see statements that are signed by
>>>>>> various actors using the BestBits as a facilitating platform,
>>>>>> without them being developed and signed on the behalf of the
>>>>>> BestBits group/ coalition, then after being signed  propositioned as
>>>>>> BestBits statements. Recently I saw such a reference in the press,
>>>>>> about a statement that was never signed by the group as a whole
>>>>>> being called as a BestBits statement. This proposed letter also
>>>>>> refers to an earlier statement being of BestBits coalition whereas
>>>>>> it was never signed by the group as a whole...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 06:38 AM, Emma Llanso wrote:
>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As you may be aware, the US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight
>>>>>>> Board is accepting comments commentary regarding the US
>>>>>>> government's surveillance programs under the PATRIOT Act and FISA.
>>>>>>> (I've included some information about PCLOB below in case you're
>>>>>>> not familiar with this entity.)  I'd like to share with you a draft
>>>>>>> was put together by CDT, with feedback from a number of folks on
>>>>>>> this list, that focuses on the impact these programs have on the
>>>>>>> human rights of individuals outside the US:
>>>>>>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/17BWIev_DybbML3ObDCORkW83THrNGuJrHlV5sQLdYA0/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We feel that the draft text is at a point where it's ready to be
>>>>>>> shared with the broader Best Bits community for comment.  Please
>>>>>>> share any comments you have on the letter text with the whole list.
>>>>>>> (I will be traveling on Wednesday and so slow to respond to
>>>>>>> email.)  Ideally, we'd like to have a final draft of the letter
>>>>>>> text available to circulate during the day on Thursday, giving us
>>>>>>> about a week to solicit sign-on from as broad an array of groups as
>>>>>>> possible.  This is a very compressed timeframe, unfortunately, but
>>>>>>> the deadline for submitting comments is August 1st, so there is not
>>>>>>> much flexibility in the schedule.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Best Bits interim steering committee has agreed to host the
>>>>>>> final letter text on the Best Bits website to facilitate sign-on
>>>>>>> once we've reached that point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's worth noting here that while a joint letter with broad
>>>>>>> international sign in is one way of getting the US government to
>>>>>>> consider the rights of non-US persons, so is flooding PCLOB with
>>>>>>> individual letters from international groups, so please feel free
>>>>>>> to adapt or build on to this letter and submit it separately. We
>>>>>>> intentionally did not make recommendations to PCLOB so as to garner
>>>>>>> broad sign on (more on that below), but individual letters are a
>>>>>>> good opportunity to make specific recommendations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Background on the letter:*
>>>>>>> PCLOB will be preparing a report and is accepting comments
>>>>>>> <
>> http://www.regulations.gov/#%21documentDetail;D=PCLOB-2013-0005-0001>
>>>>>>> (with no limitations on who can submit comments) until August 1st.
>>>>>>> As many of you know, it's been an uphill battle to get any
>>>>>>> attention on this critical issue of extraterritorial impacts of the
>>>>>>> US surveillance programs. PCLOB hosted an open hearing on the NSA
>>>>>>> program earlier in July, and there was unfortunately only a single
>>>>>>> reference to the human rights of people other than US citizens
>>>>>>> during the entire hearing.  We think this comment process is one of
>>>>>>> the better opportunities that groups from outside the US will have
>>>>>>> in making their opinions about the US surveillance activities
>>>>>>> heard.  I'd highly encourage organizations and individuals to make
>>>>>>> their own comments into this process, in addition to considering
>>>>>>> signing this letter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As a final note, the letter intentionally does not lay out
>>>>>>> recommendations more specific than "take into consideration the
>>>>>>> human rights of individuals outside the US", for several reasons.
>>>>>>> First, it will likely be more difficult for a broad range of groups
>>>>>>> to sign onto something urging very specific legal or policy
>>>>>>> remedies.  Further, I wouldn't want to see a short, easily agreed
>>>>>>> set of recommendations (e.g. focusing on transparency) get
>>>>>>> interpreted to mean that those fixes are the only thing the US
>>>>>>> government needs to do to remedy the situation.  Transparency is an
>>>>>>> important initial step, but it's far from the only action needed
>>>>>>> here (a point CDT will be emphasizing in our individual comments to
>>>>>>> PCLOB).  Again, I'd strongly recommend groups file individual
>>>>>>> comments as well, particularly if you have specific recommendations
>>>>>>> and actions for the Board.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Looking forward to your comments,
>>>>>>> Emma
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *PCLOB - WHAT IS IT?* -
>>>>>>>
>> https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/privacy-and-civil-liberties-oversight-board
>>>>>>> The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is an advisory body
>>>>>>> to assist the President and other senior Executive branch officials
>>>>>>> in ensuring that concerns with respect to privacy and civil
>>>>>>> liberties are appropriately considered in the implementation of all
>>>>>>> laws, regulations, and executive branch policies related to war
>>>>>>> against terrorism.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Recommended by the July 22, 2004, report of the National Commission
>>>>>>> on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, the Privacy and Civil
>>>>>>> Liberties Oversight Board was established by the Intelligence
>>>>>>> Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. It consists of five
>>>>>>> members appointed by and serving at the pleasure of the President.
>>>>>>> The Board is part of the White House Office within the Executive
>>>>>>> Office of the President and supported by an Executive Director and
>>>>>>> staff.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Board advises the President and other senior executive branch
>>>>>>> officials to ensure that concerns with respect to privacy and civil
>>>>>>> liberties are appropriately considered in the implementation of all
>>>>>>> laws, regulations, and executive branch policies related to efforts
>>>>>>> to protect the Nation against terrorism. This includes advising on
>>>>>>> whether adequate guidelines, supervision, and oversight exist to
>>>>>>> protect these important legal rights of all Americans. In addition,
>>>>>>> the Board is specifically charged with responsibility for reviewing
>>>>>>> the terrorism information sharing practices of executive branch
>>>>>>> departments and agencies to determine whether guidelines designed
>>>>>>> to appropriately protect privacy and civil liberties are being
>>>>>>> followed, including those issued by the President on December 16,
>>>>>>> 2005. In the course of performing these functions within the
>>>>>>> executive branch, the Board seeks the views of private sector,
>>>>>>> non-profit and academic institutions, Members of Congress, and all
>>>>>>> other interested parties and individuals on these issues.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This agency has published 13 articles
>>>>>>> <
>> https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/search?conditions%5Bagency_ids%5D%5B%5D=438&skip_results=1#advanced
>>>>>>> since 1994.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Emma J. Llansó
>>>>>>> Policy Counsel
>>>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology
>>>>>>> 1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100
>>>>>>> Washington, DC 20006
>>>>>>> 202-407-8818 | @cendemtech <https://twitter.com/#%21/CenDemTech> |
>>>>>>> @ellanso <https://twitter.com/#%21/ellanso>
>>>>
>>
>> --****
>>
>> Katitza Rodriguez
>> International Rights Director
>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>> katitza at eff.org
>> katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)
>>
>> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom
>> of speech since 1990****
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Anja Kovacs
>> The Internet Democracy Project
>>
>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>> www.internetdemocracy.in****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
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  Thu Jul 25 07:52:03 2013
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina)
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 07:52:03 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Re: Call for comment: civil society letter to PCLOB
 re: human rights impacts of NSA surveillance of 'non-US persons'
In-Reply-To: <51F10F40.1010800@apc.org>
References: <51EF2902.1080702@cdt.org> <51EF316B.4030306@itforchange.net> <94BC60FF-AF14-46B8-B16D-6B6D01C40522@gmail.com> <51EF81D5.9090802@itforchange.net> <51EFB97F.9090702@apc.org> <51EFE4EF.40403@eff.org> <CAJqNAHCj0EnRFyPBpmdO7MDA-fSZMPDzeO-wSOj+68njYG=sDA@mail.gmail.com> <51F00B97.20509@itforchange.net> <001501ce88d9$68801bb0$39805310$@gmail.com> <CAJqNAHBcr=S-bPYGCbiaKbmfmK7MOspmeeBwaVOEn2SiSMCHtQ@mail.gmail.com> <51F10F40.1010800@apc.org>
Message-ID: <5B5B5E78-C8C0-4AE6-B769-8B06C678F1EE@gmail.com>

And countries is Latin America. Brazil and Peru to start. As you may have seen, as circulated yesterday, Rio just have a decree authorizing data collection and obligation for companies to comply with requests in 24 hours. But it is important to discuss it in some of the regional lists, such as RedLatam where some of from this list are.


Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 25, 2013, at 7:42 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:

> Hi all
> 
> I was happy with Anja's reformulation and I share her concerns about the
> risks attached to a global agreement. And great work to the main
> drafters.. I should have said this before. Just one other thought.
> 
> We could, theoretically, keep the letter short and concise, and add as
> an addendum a document that raises broader concerns. But hopefully this
> will not be necessary.
> 
> We should try to remember that we are acting on multiple fronts and
> therefore we don't have to fit all our concerns and demands into every
> single intervention.
> 
> I would like to hear from Katitza whether, in the light of EFF's
> position on the PCLOB, whether she thinks this letter is a bad idea? Not
> that I think we should not send it, I would just like to have a better
> understanding of EFF's position on the Best Bits letter.
> 
> And then another thought. Should Best Bits not also draft letters to
> other governments on our concerns. Anja mentions India. South Africa
> also has VERY problematic legislation around monitoring and interception.
> 
> The list goes on.
> 
> Anriette
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 25/07/2013 13:29, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>> Just to clarify my position vis-a-vis Parminder's comments:
>> 
>> In theory I do think that a strong global framework on privacy protections
>> could contribute to resolving these issues in a significant manner.
>> Unfortunately, in practice I am not sure how feasible this is at present.
>> As they are necessarily based on compromise, global agreements tend to
>> congeal around the lowest common denominators. At the moment, I am afraid
>> these will set the bar too low, not in the least because many of the
>> democracies that one would hope would push for higher standards at the
>> moment seem to be setting the bar too low domestically, including where
>> privacy is concerned. This is true not only of the US but also of, for
>> example, India. In these circumstances, I am worried that a global
>> agreement will be used first and foremost to cement sovereignty over the
>> Internet, rather than to defend the rights of Internet users around the
>> world, something I would not consider a gain. My reformulation of
>> Anriette's formulation was simply meant to foreground that what we are
>> asking for is the implementation of existing human rights, not to stop us
>> from creating a debate on this issue. I continue to think, however, that
>> the best way countries can flag that the time is genuinely ripe for a
>> global framework is by demonstrating a clear commitment to human rights in
>> these areas domestically. It is countries that would like to see global
>> coordination on a wide range of issues beyond privacy that might in fact
>> have the greatest stake in doing so.
>> 
>> My 2 cents.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Anja
>> 
>> 
>> On 25 July 2013 07:20, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> I agree with Parminder that the letter lacks a forward looking element
>>> which would deal with the most fundamental issue--the development of an
>>> integrated (if to a very limited degree multi-polar) ubiquitous
>>> multi-stakeholder--States+private sector+technical community(?))
>>> surveillance State. This is  global in nature and will require some sort of
>>> global response and working through this in anticipation of the IGF should
>>> be I think, our major current task.****
>>> 
>>> ** **
>>> 
>>> However, I think the letter goes a very considerable degree beyond earlier
>>> such position statements from major (particularly US) CS actors in
>>> recognizing the legitimate concerns/significance of "foreigners" in the
>>> current US discussion and on that basis I think it should be supported as
>>> amended.****
>>> 
>>> ** **
>>> 
>>> M****
>>> 
>>> ** **
>>> 
>>> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:
>>> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *parminder
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 24, 2013 10:45 PM
>>> *Cc:* &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
>>> 
>>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Re: Call for comment: civil society letter to
>>> PCLOB re: human rights impacts of NSA surveillance of 'non-US persons'****
>>> 
>>> ** **
>>> 
>>> ** **
>>> 
>>> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 08:23 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:****
>>> 
>>> I also liked Anriette's language on the "development of a global framework
>>> for protection", though I would suggest we slightly edit it to read "the
>>> development of a global framework for the implementation of protections" or
>>> something along those lines. The reason is that we already have a framework
>>> for protections, ie the human rights framework, but that governments seem
>>> to be happy to disregard this when it comes to surveillance.  ****
>>> 
>>> 
>>> But so does the US have in place all kinds of higher level principles that
>>> do cover such issues; then why does the letter ask for new legal frameworks
>>> from the US government? As the current frameworks in the US have been found
>>> inadequate, so could it be held true for the global human rights regime
>>> (arguably truer for the latter) - because it is an undeniable fact -
>>> although often selectively denied - that the digital space produces
>>> entirely new realities, which are also unprecedentedly global in nature....
>>> More on US versus UN frameworks below...
>>> 
>>> ****
>>> 
>>> ** **
>>> 
>>> Until governments worldwide give considerably greater evidence of their
>>> willingness to make the protection of human rights an integral component of
>>> their surveillance plans, I do not think that it is appropriate for civil
>>> society to push for a more comprehensive global framework on security
>>> issues in general. ****
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 'Global framework on security? Whoever asked for one..... Are we asking
>>> the US government for new a framework on security, I thought we were asking
>>> for a new framework on privacy protection.... so also for the UN. Global
>>> framework for privacy protection, not for security.
>>> 
>>> So, pardon my use of ironic language to make my point, apparently we can
>>> ask the US to develop new legal frameworks, and trust that they would not
>>> come up with something worse then they have at present. However, we cannot
>>> at all trust the UN to not come up with legal frameworks worse than what we
>>> have at present, and therefore we should not ever even ask them for the
>>> same thing that we are ready to ask of the US.
>>> 
>>> To me, it boils down to trusting the US government to run the world more
>>> than we can trust the UN... This is something I am unwilling to do. If even
>>> Snowden did not teach us the right lesson, perhaps nothing ever would. I am
>>> afraid that all this is of a piece with a widespread tendency to trust US
>>> more than the UN with the trusteeship of the global Internet. I obviously
>>> cannot accept that. As I said in my first posting, it is a well written and
>>> argued letter, but the problem with it is not what it says, but with what
>>> it does not.
>>> 
>>> I am not against focussing a letter on a particular opportunity and end.
>>> However,  (1) PCLOB is not the wrong agency to advice the US government to
>>> consider global legal frameworks on privacy protection, especially now when
>>> Snowden disclosures tell us what other countries could also be doing,
>>> including to the US citizens, (2) I did want to have a discussion here on
>>> whether the group considers global frameworks as also a needed remedy for
>>> the problem in focus. I am unable to see how adding a line or two on global
>>> frameworks would throw the letter out of focus.....
>>> 
>>> parminder
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ****
>>> 
>>> ** **
>>> 
>>> On the issue of what constitutes a "Best Bits statement", the points made
>>> here are important and we do indeed need greater clarity on this. At the
>>> same time, it's also important to keep in mind that once statements are
>>> shared with the wider world, maintaining a distinction between a statement
>>> supported by all (though even on the Baku one I think we had one abstention
>>> by the way, and in any case the Baku group was fairly small) and a
>>> statement shared and promoted through the Best Bits platform might be
>>> difficult - even if we are careful to make these distinctions, the wider
>>> world might not.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps we should therefore simply go for a model in which ALL statements
>>> are considered to be in the latter category, and focus our attention on
>>> coming up with criteria for which type of statements are appropriate (or
>>> not) for Best Bits instead? I am worried that sending out mixed messages
>>> will only undermine the effectiveness of the advocacy efforts that go
>>> through Best Bits, though I'd of course be very happy to hear other
>>> possible solutions to that conundrum as well.****
>>> 
>>> Thanks and best,
>>> Anja****
>>> 
>>> ** **
>>> 
>>> On 24 July 2013 20:00, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> wrote:****
>>> 
>>> Dear all,
>>> 
>>> It would be good to answer the consultation without voicing support for
>>> a PCLOB investigation. In EFF, we are of the opinion that the PCLOB
>>> isn't the right place for an investigation.
>>> 
>>> PCLOB is weak institution, so EFF concern is that its weaknesses foster
>>> low, expectation politics/rhetoric.  EFF want a Church Committee,
>>> investigation or at least an existing committee with congress or at
>>> least an existing committee with congressional subpoena power to
>>> investigate.
>>> 
>>> We have three or four blog posts with arguments about why we need
>>> a special investigatory committee, and at the very least extant
>>> committees, instead of the PCLOB to investigate.
>>> 
>>> For more information on our asks please check out:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/why-special-congressional-committee-must-be-created-investigate-nsas
>>> 
>>> 
>>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/response-nsa-we-need-new-church-commission-and-we-need-it-now
>>> ****
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 7/24/13 7:24 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>>> Dear all
>>>> 
>>>> My view on the letter is to keep it focused on the Call for Comment by
>>>> the US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board regarding the US
>>>> government's surveillance programs under the PATRIOT Act and FISA.  I
>>>> think the letter is already too long.
>>>> 
>>>> The more focused and to the point (and brief) our comments are, the more
>>>> likely they will be discussed, forwarded, understood, etc. etc..
>>>> However, I do have a proposal for how to include a reference global
>>>> legal frameworks that does not change the basic character and purpose of
>>>> the letter as one that addresses an official US body.
>>>> 
>>>> This letter makes three key points:
>>>> 
>>>> * Government surveillance must be subject to a strong legal framework
>>>> that is transparent, necessary to achieve a legitimate goal and
>>>> proportionate to that goal, authorized by a competent judicial
>>>> authority, and subject to public oversight.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> *Surveillance of communications conducted under Section 702 must meets
>>>> international human rights standards for surveillance.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> * In the context of online communications, the privacy and liberty****
>>>> rights of non-U.S. persons outside the U.S. should bewithin the PCLOB's*
>>> ***
>>> 
>>>> statutory mandate.
>>>> 
>>>> We could add something along the following lines:
>>>> 
>>>> We believe findings and recommendations developed by the PCLOB that
>>>> ensure that protection of rights of US and non US persons in the context
>>>> of government surveillance would not only be consistent with the US
>>>> government's frequently stated commitment to 'freedom online'; it would
>>>> also constitute a valuable contribution to the eventual development of a
>>>> global framework for such protections.
>>>> 
>>>> Btw, this last sentence (quoted below) still uses the term 'Americans'.
>>>> Please change. I also think that it is best to say 'findings and
>>>> recommendations' rather than 'recommendations and findings' as the
>>>> former is likely to flow from the latter.
>>>> 
>>>> "We urge you to make recommendations and findings designed to protect
>>>> the human rights not only of Americans, but also of non-U.S. persons who
>>>> live outside the United States."
>>>> 
>>>> Ciao
>>>> 
>>>> Anriette
>>>> 
>>>> On 24/07/2013 09:27, parminder wrote:
>>>>> Thanks to Gene and Jeremy for their responses..
>>>>> 
>>>>> However, I see no argument here why the letter cannot ask US to also
>>>>> engage in developing global norms and agreements with regard to
>>>>> safeguards against invasion of privacy in name of security, and then
>>>>> adhering to these norms/ agreements. After all, US is a prime party to
>>>>> be appealed to if we are to move towards such global norms/
>>>>> agreements, and it remains my firm belief that this thing can really
>>>>> be addressed only through global arrangements,
>>>>> 
>>>>> (Also, shouldnt US groups and US citizens also be concerned about
>>>>> invasion of their privacy by non US government agents.:
>>>>> 
>>>>> About Jeremy's arugment against seeking 'global legal frameworks'
>>>>> being that we ourselves are yet to propose anything concrete, does the
>>>>> proposed letter not ask the US government to develop new 'strong legal
>>>>> frameworks' without actually suggesting their precise forms.. Why cant
>>>>> we do the same for the global level even when we yet dont have our
>>>>> concrete institutional proposals ready (would we ever be :) )... At
>>>>> the domestic level of US gov, the letter simply asserts the need, at
>>>>> the principles level, of privacy protection through 'strong legal
>>>>> framework'. We can ask the same for the global system, at the level of
>>>>> principles.... Unless of course there is a difference of opinion here
>>>>> about the principle of a global framework itself, in which case it is
>>>>> precisely my point to discus it openly...
>>>>> 
>>>>> parminder
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 07:34 AM, Gene Kimmelman wrote:
>>>>>> I think Parminder raises some very important points.  I'd like to
>>>>>> offer a quick observation and await other input:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 1.  The question about how to refer to previous statements generated
>>>>>> through some subgroup of BestBits is very legitimate; we may need a
>>>>>> more precise description of the letter referred to and who the
>>>>>> signatories were.  We still need to discuss at the next BestBits
>>>>>> gathering what our rules of engagement and governance should be.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 2.  I fully support the idea of initiating a discussion of what type
>>>>>> of global legal framework (or maybe normative framework) we should be
>>>>>> galvanizing around.  Maybe even a simple call for the UN to engage a
>>>>>> discussion with all stakeholders fully represented, to consider how
>>>>>> best to enforce human rights charters and principles, would be a path
>>>>>> forward?  Maybe others have a better suggestion, but I wouldn't want
>>>>>> the "perfect" to stand in the way of the "good enough" for the
>>>>>> purpose of registering broad CSO interest in a global discussion and
>>>>>> global policy engagement.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 3.  Whether or not we can all agree on something related to the
>>>>>> global legal framework, I also urge everyone to be pragmatic about
>>>>>> the opportunity to register your views with the US-base PCLOB.  This
>>>>>> is of course only one small piece of the legal struggle, but it is
>>>>>> very important from a US NGO standpoint to expand the US debate
>>>>>> beyond US citizens or residents.  The US needs global input to wake
>>>>>> it up to its broader obligations.  This may  not be enough to change
>>>>>> policy, but it is a critical enhancement to the US-based NGO advocacy
>>>>>> that could have some impact on the US government.  So even if this is
>>>>>> a flawed, partial solution, and should be connected to something
>>>>>> related to broader global solution, I believe it could influence US
>>>>>> policymakers.
>>>>>> On Jul 23, 2013, at 9:44 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>>>>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Generally a well written statement. However, it must be judged not
>>>>>>> only for what it says but also what it does not... The statement
>>>>>>> appeals to a US government agency to protect human rights of all
>>>>>>> citizens of the world, especially non US citizens, which is very

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Mon Jul  8 03:16:28 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 15:16:28 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits steering group
Message-ID: <51DA674C.5060305@ciroap.org>

Best Bits came into being as a very loose, grassroots coalition, and
this has worked very well.  At the same time, it has now reached a point
of maturity (and influence) where the benefits of institutionalising it
a bit more strongly would probably outweigh the risks of doing so.

To this end, a few volunteers have come (or been prodded!) forward to
serve as an initial steering group.  Since we don't already have a
democratic procedure for selecting such a steering group, we haven't
tried to invent one.  Rather, it will be the steering group itself that
is responsible for recommending such a procedure for the rest of us to
adopt.

So, inevitably arbitrarily, the initial group will include myself and
Andrew Puddephatt (for continuity, since we have been loosely
coordinating to date), and to fill out the geographical balance Anja
Kovacs, Deborah Brown, Joana Varon and Nnenna Nwakanma.

The initial steering group will be responsible for recommending a
process for making future such appointments, will distribute the few
organisational tasks between themselves, may come up with some ideas on
strategy and fundraising for the rest of us to consider, and can help
mediate disputes if there are any.

So please let's thank them for coming forward and volunteering their
time.  Equally, thanks to everyone else who has contributed, and who
continues to do so - your help is also greatly valued.

-- 

*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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130708/ed3ffcfa/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 261 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130708/ed3ffcfa/attachment.sig>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Thu Jul 25 07:55:11 2013
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina)
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 07:55:11 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Re: Call for comment: civil society letter to PCLOB
 re: human rights impacts of NSA surveillance of 'non-US persons'
In-Reply-To: <5B5B5E78-C8C0-4AE6-B769-8B06C678F1EE@gmail.com>
References: <51EF2902.1080702@cdt.org> <51EF316B.4030306@itforchange.net> <94BC60FF-AF14-46B8-B16D-6B6D01C40522@gmail.com> <51EF81D5.9090802@itforchange.net> <51EFB97F.9090702@apc.org> <51EFE4EF.40403@eff.org> <CAJqNAHCj0EnRFyPBpmdO7MDA-fSZMPDzeO-wSOj+68njYG=sDA@mail.gmail.com> <51F00B97.20509@itforchange.net> <001501ce88d9$68801bb0$39805310$@gmail.com> <CAJqNAHBcr=S-bPYGCbiaKbmfmK7MOspmeeBwaVOEn2SiSMCHtQ@mail.gmail.com> <51F10F40.1010800@apc.org> <5B5B5E78-C8C0-4AE6-B769-8B06C678F1EE@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8125BF25-E507-41DE-B62E-83EE18075AB9@gmail.com>

Oh, btw, we - from LATAM - did send a letter to the Mercosul members (Cone south + Venezuela) due to their summit a couple of week ago. Maybe we should upload the letter at BestBits at least for historic documentation.
Joana? Alberto? Renata? Que les parece?

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 25, 2013, at 7:52 AM, Carolina <carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:

> And countries is Latin America. Brazil and Peru to start. As you may have seen, as circulated yesterday, Rio just have a decree authorizing data collection and obligation for companies to comply with requests in 24 hours. But it is important to discuss it in some of the regional lists, such as RedLatam where some of from this list are.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Jul 25, 2013, at 7:42 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:
> 
>> Hi all
>> 
>> I was happy with Anja's reformulation and I share her concerns about the
>> risks attached to a global agreement. And great work to the main
>> drafters.. I should have said this before. Just one other thought.
>> 
>> We could, theoretically, keep the letter short and concise, and add as
>> an addendum a document that raises broader concerns. But hopefully this
>> will not be necessary.
>> 
>> We should try to remember that we are acting on multiple fronts and
>> therefore we don't have to fit all our concerns and demands into every
>> single intervention.
>> 
>> I would like to hear from Katitza whether, in the light of EFF's
>> position on the PCLOB, whether she thinks this letter is a bad idea? Not
>> that I think we should not send it, I would just like to have a better
>> understanding of EFF's position on the Best Bits letter.
>> 
>> And then another thought. Should Best Bits not also draft letters to
>> other governments on our concerns. Anja mentions India. South Africa
>> also has VERY problematic legislation around monitoring and interception.
>> 
>> The list goes on.
>> 
>> Anriette
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 25/07/2013 13:29, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>>> Just to clarify my position vis-a-vis Parminder's comments:
>>> 
>>> In theory I do think that a strong global framework on privacy protections
>>> could contribute to resolving these issues in a significant manner.
>>> Unfortunately, in practice I am not sure how feasible this is at present.
>>> As they are necessarily based on compromise, global agreements tend to
>>> congeal around the lowest common denominators. At the moment, I am afraid
>>> these will set the bar too low, not in the least because many of the
>>> democracies that one would hope would push for higher standards at the
>>> moment seem to be setting the bar too low domestically, including where
>>> privacy is concerned. This is true not only of the US but also of, for
>>> example, India. In these circumstances, I am worried that a global
>>> agreement will be used first and foremost to cement sovereignty over the
>>> Internet, rather than to defend the rights of Internet users around the
>>> world, something I would not consider a gain. My reformulation of
>>> Anriette's formulation was simply meant to foreground that what we are
>>> asking for is the implementation of existing human rights, not to stop us
>>> from creating a debate on this issue. I continue to think, however, that
>>> the best way countries can flag that the time is genuinely ripe for a
>>> global framework is by demonstrating a clear commitment to human rights in
>>> these areas domestically. It is countries that would like to see global
>>> coordination on a wide range of issues beyond privacy that might in fact
>>> have the greatest stake in doing so.
>>> 
>>> My 2 cents.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Anja
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 25 July 2013 07:20, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I agree with Parminder that the letter lacks a forward looking element
>>>> which would deal with the most fundamental issue--the development of an
>>>> integrated (if to a very limited degree multi-polar) ubiquitous
>>>> multi-stakeholder--States+private sector+technical community(?))
>>>> surveillance State. This is  global in nature and will require some sort of
>>>> global response and working through this in anticipation of the IGF should
>>>> be I think, our major current task.****
>>>> 
>>>> ** **
>>>> 
>>>> However, I think the letter goes a very considerable degree beyond earlier
>>>> such position statements from major (particularly US) CS actors in
>>>> recognizing the legitimate concerns/significance of "foreigners" in the
>>>> current US discussion and on that basis I think it should be supported as
>>>> amended.****
>>>> 
>>>> ** **
>>>> 
>>>> M****
>>>> 
>>>> ** **
>>>> 
>>>> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:
>>>> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *parminder
>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 24, 2013 10:45 PM
>>>> *Cc:* &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
>>>> 
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Re: Call for comment: civil society letter to
>>>> PCLOB re: human rights impacts of NSA surveillance of 'non-US persons'****
>>>> 
>>>> ** **
>>>> 
>>>> ** **
>>>> 
>>>> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 08:23 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:****
>>>> 
>>>> I also liked Anriette's language on the "development of a global framework
>>>> for protection", though I would suggest we slightly edit it to read "the
>>>> development of a global framework for the implementation of protections" or
>>>> something along those lines. The reason is that we already have a framework
>>>> for protections, ie the human rights framework, but that governments seem
>>>> to be happy to disregard this when it comes to surveillance.  ****
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> But so does the US have in place all kinds of higher level principles that
>>>> do cover such issues; then why does the letter ask for new legal frameworks
>>>> from the US government? As the current frameworks in the US have been found
>>>> inadequate, so could it be held true for the global human rights regime
>>>> (arguably truer for the latter) - because it is an undeniable fact -
>>>> although often selectively denied - that the digital space produces
>>>> entirely new realities, which are also unprecedentedly global in nature....
>>>> More on US versus UN frameworks below...
>>>> 
>>>> ****
>>>> 
>>>> ** **
>>>> 
>>>> Until governments worldwide give considerably greater evidence of their
>>>> willingness to make the protection of human rights an integral component of
>>>> their surveillance plans, I do not think that it is appropriate for civil
>>>> society to push for a more comprehensive global framework on security
>>>> issues in general. ****
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 'Global framework on security? Whoever asked for one..... Are we asking
>>>> the US government for new a framework on security, I thought we were asking
>>>> for a new framework on privacy protection.... so also for the UN. Global
>>>> framework for privacy protection, not for security.
>>>> 
>>>> So, pardon my use of ironic language to make my point, apparently we can
>>>> ask the US to develop new legal frameworks, and trust that they would not
>>>> come up with something worse then they have at present. However, we cannot
>>>> at all trust the UN to not come up with legal frameworks worse than what we
>>>> have at present, and therefore we should not ever even ask them for the
>>>> same thing that we are ready to ask of the US.
>>>> 
>>>> To me, it boils down to trusting the US government to run the world more
>>>> than we can trust the UN... This is something I am unwilling to do. If even
>>>> Snowden did not teach us the right lesson, perhaps nothing ever would. I am
>>>> afraid that all this is of a piece with a widespread tendency to trust US
>>>> more than the UN with the trusteeship of the global Internet. I obviously
>>>> cannot accept that. As I said in my first posting, it is a well written and
>>>> argued letter, but the problem with it is not what it says, but with what
>>>> it does not.
>>>> 
>>>> I am not against focussing a letter on a particular opportunity and end.
>>>> However,  (1) PCLOB is not the wrong agency to advice the US government to
>>>> consider global legal frameworks on privacy protection, especially now when
>>>> Snowden disclosures tell us what other countries could also be doing,
>>>> including to the US citizens, (2) I did want to have a discussion here on
>>>> whether the group considers global frameworks as also a needed remedy for
>>>> the problem in focus. I am unable to see how adding a line or two on global
>>>> frameworks would throw the letter out of focus.....
>>>> 
>>>> parminder
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ****
>>>> 
>>>> ** **
>>>> 
>>>> On the issue of what constitutes a "Best Bits statement", the points made
>>>> here are important and we do indeed need greater clarity on this. At the
>>>> same time, it's also important to keep in mind that once statements are
>>>> shared with the wider world, maintaining a distinction between a statement
>>>> supported by all (though even on the Baku one I think we had one abstention
>>>> by the way, and in any case the Baku group was fairly small) and a
>>>> statement shared and promoted through the Best Bits platform might be
>>>> difficult - even if we are careful to make these distinctions, the wider
>>>> world might not.
>>>> 
>>>> Perhaps we should therefore simply go for a model in which ALL statements
>>>> are considered to be in the latter category, and focus our attention on
>>>> coming up with criteria for which type of statements are appropriate (or
>>>> not) for Best Bits instead? I am worried that sending out mixed messages
>>>> will only undermine the effectiveness of the advocacy efforts that go
>>>> through Best Bits, though I'd of course be very happy to hear other
>>>> possible solutions to that conundrum as well.****
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks and best,
>>>> Anja****
>>>> 
>>>> ** **
>>>> 
>>>> On 24 July 2013 20:00, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> wrote:****
>>>> 
>>>> Dear all,
>>>> 
>>>> It would be good to answer the consultation without voicing support for
>>>> a PCLOB investigation. In EFF, we are of the opinion that the PCLOB
>>>> isn't the right place for an investigation.
>>>> 
>>>> PCLOB is weak institution, so EFF concern is that its weaknesses foster
>>>> low, expectation politics/rhetoric.  EFF want a Church Committee,
>>>> investigation or at least an existing committee with congress or at
>>>> least an existing committee with congressional subpoena power to
>>>> investigate.
>>>> 
>>>> We have three or four blog posts with arguments about why we need
>>>> a special investigatory committee, and at the very least extant
>>>> committees, instead of the PCLOB to investigate.
>>>> 
>>>> For more information on our asks please check out:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/why-special-congressional-committee-must-be-created-investigate-nsas
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/response-nsa-we-need-new-church-commission-and-we-need-it-now
>>>> ****
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 7/24/13 7:24 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>>>> Dear all
>>>>> 
>>>>> My view on the letter is to keep it focused on the Call for Comment by
>>>>> the US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board regarding the US
>>>>> government's surveillance programs under the PATRIOT Act and FISA.  I
>>>>> think the letter is already too long.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The more focused and to the point (and brief) our comments are, the more
>>>>> likely they will be discussed, forwarded, understood, etc. etc..
>>>>> However, I do have a proposal for how to include a reference global
>>>>> legal frameworks that does not change the basic character and purpose of
>>>>> the letter as one that addresses an official US body.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This letter makes three key points:
>>>>> 
>>>>> * Government surveillance must be subject to a strong legal framework
>>>>> that is transparent, necessary to achieve a legitimate goal and
>>>>> proportionate to that goal, authorized by a competent judicial
>>>>> authority, and subject to public oversight.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> *Surveillance of communications conducted under Section 702 must meets
>>>>> international human rights standards for surveillance.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> * In the context of online communications, the privacy and liberty****
>>>>> rights of non-U.S. persons outside the U.S. should bewithin the PCLOB's*
>>>> ***
>>>> 
>>>>> statutory mandate.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We could add something along the following lines:
>>>>> 
>>>>> We believe findings and recommendations developed by the PCLOB that
>>>>> ensure that protection of rights of US and non US persons in the context
>>>>> of government surveillance would not only be consistent with the US
>>>>> government's frequently stated commitment to 'freedom online'; it would
>>>>> also constitute a valuable contribution to the eventual development of a
>>>>> global framework for such protections.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Btw, this last sentence (quoted below) still uses the term 'Americans'.
>>>>> Please change. I also think that it is best to say 'findings and
>>>>> recommendations' rather than 'recommendations and findings' as the
>>>>> former is likely to flow from the latter.
>>>>> 
>>>>> "We urge you to make recommendations and findings designed to protect
>>>>> the human rights not only of Americans, but also of non-U.S. persons who
>>>>> live outside the United States."
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ciao
>>>>> 
>>>>> Anriette
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 24/07/2013 09:27, parminder wrote:
>>>>>> Thanks to Gene and Jeremy for their responses..
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> However, I see no argument here why the letter cannot ask US to also
>>>>>> engage in developing global norms and agreements with regard to
>>>>>> safeguards against invasion of privacy in name of security, and then
>>>>>> adhering to these norms/ agreements. After all, US is a prime party to
>>>>>> be appealed to if we are to move towards such global norms/
>>>>>> agreements, and it remains my firm belief that this thing can really
>>>>>> be addressed only through global arrangements,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> (Also, shouldnt US groups and US citizens also be concerned about
>>>>>> invasion of their privacy by non US government agents.:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> About Jeremy's arugment against seeking 'global legal frameworks'
>>>>>> being that we ourselves are yet to propose anything concrete, does the
>>>>>> proposed letter not ask the US government to develop new 'strong legal
>>>>>> frameworks' without actually suggesting their precise forms.. Why cant
>>>>>> we do the same for the global level even when we yet dont have our
>>>>>> concrete institutional proposals ready (would we ever be :) )... At
>>>>>> the domestic level of US gov, the letter simply asserts the need, at
>>>>>> the principles level, of privacy protection through 'strong legal
>>>>>> framework'. We can ask the same for the global system, at the level of
>>>>>> principles.... Unless of course there is a difference of opinion here
>>>>>> about the principle of a global framework itself, in which case it is
>>>>>> precisely my point to discus it openly...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 07:34 AM, Gene Kimmelman wrote:
>>>>>>> I think Parminder raises some very important points.  I'd like to
>>>>>>> offer a quick observation and await other input:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 1.  The question about how to refer to previous statements generated
>>>>>>> through some subgroup of BestBits is very legitimate; we may need a
>>>>>>> more precise description of the letter referred to and who the
>>>>>>> signatories were.  We still need to discuss at the next BestBits
>>>>>>> gathering what our rules of engagement and governance should be.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 2.  I fully support the idea of initiating a discussion of what type
>>>>>>> of global legal framework (or maybe normative framework) we should be
>>>>>>> galvanizing around.  Maybe even a simple call for the UN to engage a
>>>>>>> discussion with all stakeholders fully represented, to consider how
>>>>>>> best to enforce human rights charters and principles, would be a path
>>>>>>> forward?  Maybe others have a better suggestion, but I wouldn't want
>>>>>>> the "perfect" to stand in the way of the "good enough" for the
>>>>>>> purpose of registering broad CSO interest in a global discussion and
>>>>>>> global policy engagement.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 3.  Whether or not we can all agree on something related to the
>>>>>>> global legal framework, I also urge everyone to be pragmatic about
>>>>>>> the opportunity to register your views with the US-base PCLOB.  This
>>>>>>> is of course only one small piece of the legal struggle, but it is
>>>>>>> very important from a US NGO standpoint to expand the US debate
>>>>>>> beyond US citizens or residents.  The US needs global input to wake
>>>>>>> it up to its broader obligations.  This may  not be enough to change
>>>>>>> policy, but it is a critical enhancement to the US-based NGO advocacy
>>>>>>> that could have some impact on the US government.  So even if this is
>>>>>>> a flawed, partial solution, and should be connected to something
>>>>>>> related to broader global solution, I believe it could influence US
>>>>>>> policymakers.
>>>>>>> On Jul 23, 2013, at 9:44 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>>>>>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Generally a well written statement. However, it must be judged not
>>>>>>>> only for what it says but also what it does not... The statement
>>>>>>>> appeals to a US government agency to protect human rights of all
>>>>>>>> citizens of the world, especially non US citizens, which is very

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Jul 25 10:06:16 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 19:36:16 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: Call for comment: civil society letter to PCLOB
 re: human rights impacts of NSA surveillance of 'non-US persons'
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHBcr=S-bPYGCbiaKbmfmK7MOspmeeBwaVOEn2SiSMCHtQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <51EF2902.1080702@cdt.org> <51EF316B.4030306@itforchange.net> <94BC60FF-AF14-46B8-B16D-6B6D01C40522@gmail.com> <51EF81D5.9090802@itforchange.net> <51EFB97F.9090702@apc.org> <51EFE4EF.40403@eff.org> <CAJqNAHCj0EnRFyPBpmdO7MDA-fSZMPDzeO-wSOj+68njYG=sDA@mail.gmail.com> <51F00B97.20509@itforchange.net> <001501ce88d9$68801bb0$39805310$@gmail.com> <CAJqNAHBcr=S-bPYGCbiaKbmfmK7MOspmeeBwaVOEn2SiSMCHtQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <51F130D8.7080103@itforchange.net>


Anja/ All

On Thursday 25 July 2013 04:59 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
> Just to clarify my position vis-a-vis Parminder's comments:
>
> In theory I do think that a strong global framework on privacy 
> protections could contribute to resolving these issues in a 
> significant manner. Unfortunately, in practice I am not sure how 
> feasible this is at present. As they are necessarily based on 
> compromise, global agreements tend to congeal around the lowest common 
> denominators. At the moment, I am afraid these will set the bar too 
> low, not in the least because many of the democracies that one would 
> hope would push for higher standards at the moment seem to be setting 
> the bar too low domestically, including where privacy is concerned. 
> This is true not only of the US but also of, for example, India. In 
> these circumstances, I am worried that a global agreement will be used 
> first and foremost to cement sovereignty over the Internet, rather 
> than to defend the rights of Internet users around the world, 
> something I would not consider a gain. My reformulation of Anriette's 
> formulation was simply meant to foreground that what we are asking for 
> is the implementation of existing human rights, not to stop us from 
> creating a debate on this issue. I continue to think, however, that 
> the best way countries can flag that the time is genuinely ripe for a 
> global framework is by demonstrating a clear commitment to human 
> rights in these areas domestically. It is countries that would like to 
> see global coordination on a wide range of issues beyond privacy that 
> might in fact have the greatest stake in doing so.

It is not that just 'countries' (by which I understand you mean 
'governments') want 'global coordination of a wide range of issues' - I 
want it, people like me and groups like us want it - for very legitimate 
public interest purposes. So, it cannot be made conditional on 
governments first exhibiting a high standard of behaviour.

Also, based on what standard of behaviour of the US government are we 
petitioning it to review its legal framework, and not afraid that in the 
process it just may make it more water-tight for its statist objectives? 
Correspondingly, what different standards exist for UN members that they 
should not be similarly petitioned to bring in normative/legal framework 
that could have an influence on all countries.

We all know that there are a lot of crooks in the Indian parliament, so 
can we therefore proposition that politicians should have a particular 
demonstrated standard of behaviour before we will accept the legitimacy 
of our parliaments. This is simply to let the dominant powers rule the 
roost... We know a lot of forces/ people in India who use such arguments 
in terms of our domestic politics, which to me are simply anti-politics 
and anti-democratic.

The right to information legislation in India is a good example. It is 
so so very damaging to the politicians and the bureaucrats - but is it 
not the parliament that passed it... I just think we need to believe 
more in politics and democracy - not just in theory, but in practice...

Your blanket claim "As they are necessarily based on compromise, global 
agreements tend to congeal around the lowest common denominators" can be 
held against any representational democratic system.... I think you must 
see all the global agreements that are rather 'high' in terms to the 
values they uphold starting from the human rights documents, and if you 
are inclined towards more 'enforcing kind' of stuff, documents about the 
International Court of Justice....

This said, I do realise that in matters that are of special core 
interest to the state, like security and surveillance, one has to be 
extra cautious .... But, now getting to a practical level,  power has to 
be confronted with power..... US wont change its ways because of a civil 
society petition, we will need to assemble global pressure over it, and 
similarly over other countries regarding their respective wrong 
doings... For this we need legitimate global governance systems, and to 
the extent possible enforcement capabilities... I am not ready to 
support moves that, directly or indirectly, cement, US's 
extra-ordinarily pre-eminent role in the Internet space and the 
Internet-mediated social structures. To evidently show belief and trust 
in the US government system and not at all in the UN system to me does 
precisely that....

parminder

.
>
> My 2 cents.
>
> Best,
> Anja
>
>
> On 25 July 2013 07:20, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com 
> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     I agree with Parminder that the letter lacks a forward looking
>     element which would deal with the most fundamental issue--the
>     development of an integrated (if to a very limited degree
>     multi-polar) ubiquitous multi-stakeholder--States+private
>     sector+technical community(?)) surveillance State. This is  global
>     in nature and will require some sort of global response and
>     working through this in anticipation of the IGF should be I think,
>     our major current task.
>
>     However, I think the letter goes a very considerable degree beyond
>     earlier such position statements from major (particularly US) CS
>     actors in recognizing the legitimate concerns/significance of
>     "foreigners" in the current US discussion and on that basis I
>     think it should be supported as amended.
>
>     M
>
>     *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>     <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>
>     [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>     <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>] *On Behalf Of *parminder
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, July 24, 2013 10:45 PM
>     *Cc:* &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>&gt,
>
>
>     *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Re: Call for comment: civil society
>     letter to PCLOB re: human rights impacts of NSA surveillance of
>     'non-US persons'
>
>     On Wednesday 24 July 2013 08:23 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>
>         I also liked Anriette's language on the "development of a
>         global framework for protection", though I would suggest we
>         slightly edit it to read "the development of a global
>         framework for the implementation of protections" or something
>         along those lines. The reason is that we already have a
>         framework for protections, ie the human rights framework, but
>         that governments seem to be happy to disregard this when it
>         comes to surveillance.
>
>
>     But so does the US have in place all kinds of higher level
>     principles that do cover such issues; then why does the letter ask
>     for new legal frameworks from the US government? As the current
>     frameworks in the US have been found inadequate, so could it be
>     held true for the global human rights regime (arguably truer for
>     the latter) - because it is an undeniable fact - although often
>     selectively denied - that the digital space produces entirely new
>     realities, which are also unprecedentedly global in nature....
>     More on US versus UN frameworks below...
>
>     Until governments worldwide give considerably greater evidence of
>     their willingness to make the protection of human rights an
>     integral component of their surveillance plans, I do not think
>     that it is appropriate for civil society to push for a more
>     comprehensive global framework on security issues in general.
>
>
>     'Global framework on security? Whoever asked for one..... Are we
>     asking the US government for new a framework on security, I
>     thought we were asking for a new framework on privacy
>     protection.... so also for the UN. Global framework for privacy
>     protection, not for security.
>
>     So, pardon my use of ironic language to make my point, apparently
>     we can ask the US to develop new legal frameworks, and trust that
>     they would not come up with something worse then they have at
>     present. However, we cannot at all trust the UN to not come up
>     with legal frameworks worse than what we have at present, and
>     therefore we should not ever even ask them for the same thing that
>     we are ready to ask of the US.
>
>     To me, it boils down to trusting the US government to run the
>     world more than we can trust the UN... This is something I am
>     unwilling to do. If even Snowden did not teach us the right
>     lesson, perhaps nothing ever would. I am afraid that all this is
>     of a piece with a widespread tendency to trust US more than the UN
>     with the trusteeship of the global Internet. I obviously cannot
>     accept that. As I said in my first posting, it is a well written
>     and argued letter, but the problem with it is not what it says,
>     but with what it does not.
>
>     I am not against focussing a letter on a particular opportunity
>     and end. However,  (1) PCLOB is not the wrong agency to advice the
>     US government to consider global legal frameworks on privacy
>     protection, especially now when Snowden disclosures tell us what
>     other countries could also be doing, including to the US citizens,
>     (2) I did want to have a discussion here on whether the group
>     considers global frameworks as also a needed remedy for the
>     problem in focus. I am unable to see how adding a line or two on
>     global frameworks would throw the letter out of focus.....
>
>     parminder
>
>
>     On the issue of what constitutes a "Best Bits statement", the
>     points made here are important and we do indeed need greater
>     clarity on this. At the same time, it's also important to keep in
>     mind that once statements are shared with the wider world,
>     maintaining a distinction between a statement supported by all
>     (though even on the Baku one I think we had one abstention by the
>     way, and in any case the Baku group was fairly small) and a
>     statement shared and promoted through the Best Bits platform might
>     be difficult - even if we are careful to make these distinctions,
>     the wider world might not.
>
>     Perhaps we should therefore simply go for a model in which ALL
>     statements are considered to be in the latter category, and focus
>     our attention on coming up with criteria for which type of
>     statements are appropriate (or not) for Best Bits instead? I am
>     worried that sending out mixed messages will only undermine the
>     effectiveness of the advocacy efforts that go through Best Bits,
>     though I'd of course be very happy to hear other possible
>     solutions to that conundrum as well.
>
>     Thanks and best,
>     Anja
>
>     On 24 July 2013 20:00, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org
>     <mailto:katitza at eff.org>> wrote:
>
>     Dear all,
>
>     It would be good to answer the consultation without voicing
>     support for
>     a PCLOB investigation. In EFF, we are of the opinion that the PCLOB
>     isn't the right place for an investigation.
>
>     PCLOB is weak institution, so EFF concern is that its weaknesses
>     foster
>     low, expectation politics/rhetoric.  EFF want a Church Committee,
>     investigation or at least an existing committee with congress or at
>     least an existing committee with congressional subpoena power to
>     investigate.
>
>     We have three or four blog posts with arguments about why we need
>     a special investigatory committee, and at the very least extant
>     committees, instead of the PCLOB to investigate.
>
>     For more information on our asks please check out:
>
>     https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/why-special-congressional-committee-must-be-created-investigate-nsas
>
>     https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/response-nsa-we-need-new-church-commission-and-we-need-it-now
>
>
>
>     On 7/24/13 7:24 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>     > Dear all
>     >
>     > My view on the letter is to keep it focused on the Call for
>     Comment by
>     > the US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board regarding the US
>     > government's surveillance programs under the PATRIOT Act and
>     FISA.  I
>     > think the letter is already too long.
>     >
>     > The more focused and to the point (and brief) our comments are,
>     the more
>     > likely they will be discussed, forwarded, understood, etc. etc..
>     > However, I do have a proposal for how to include a reference global
>     > legal frameworks that does not change the basic character and
>     purpose of
>     > the letter as one that addresses an official US body.
>     >
>     > This letter makes three key points:
>     >
>     > * Government surveillance must be subject to a strong legal
>     framework
>     > that is transparent, necessary to achieve a legitimate goal and
>     > proportionate to that goal, authorized by a competent judicial
>     > authority, and subject to public oversight.
>     >
>     >
>     > *Surveillance of communications conducted under Section 702 must
>     meets
>     > international human rights standards for surveillance.
>     >
>     >
>     > * In the context of online communications, the privacy and liberty
>
>     > rights of non-U.S. persons outside the U.S. should bewithin the
>     PCLOB's
>
>     > statutory mandate.
>     >
>     > We could add something along the following lines:
>     >
>     > We believe findings and recommendations developed by the PCLOB that
>     > ensure that protection of rights of US and non US persons in the
>     context
>     > of government surveillance would not only be consistent with the US
>     > government's frequently stated commitment to 'freedom online';
>     it would
>     > also constitute a valuable contribution to the eventual
>     development of a
>     > global framework for such protections.
>     >
>     > Btw, this last sentence (quoted below) still uses the term
>     'Americans'.
>     > Please change. I also think that it is best to say 'findings and
>     > recommendations' rather than 'recommendations and findings' as the
>     > former is likely to flow from the latter.
>     >
>     > "We urge you to make recommendations and findings designed to
>     protect
>     > the human rights not only of Americans, but also of non-U.S.
>     persons who
>     > live outside the United States."
>     >
>     > Ciao
>     >
>     > Anriette
>     >
>     > On 24/07/2013 09:27, parminder wrote:
>     >>
>     >> Thanks to Gene and Jeremy for their responses..
>     >>
>     >> However, I see no argument here why the letter cannot ask US to
>     also
>     >> engage in developing global norms and agreements with regard to
>     >> safeguards against invasion of privacy in name of security, and
>     then
>     >> adhering to these norms/ agreements. After all, US is a prime
>     party to
>     >> be appealed to if we are to move towards such global norms/
>     >> agreements, and it remains my firm belief that this thing can
>     really
>     >> be addressed only through global arrangements,
>     >>
>     >> (Also, shouldnt US groups and US citizens also be concerned about
>     >> invasion of their privacy by non US government agents.:
>     >>
>     >> About Jeremy's arugment against seeking 'global legal frameworks'
>     >> being that we ourselves are yet to propose anything concrete,
>     does the
>     >> proposed letter not ask the US government to develop new
>     'strong legal
>     >> frameworks' without actually suggesting their precise forms..
>     Why cant
>     >> we do the same for the global level even when we yet dont have our
>     >> concrete institutional proposals ready (would we ever be :) )... At
>     >> the domestic level of US gov, the letter simply asserts the
>     need, at
>     >> the principles level, of privacy protection through 'strong legal
>     >> framework'. We can ask the same for the global system, at the
>     level of
>     >> principles.... Unless of course there is a difference of
>     opinion here
>     >> about the principle of a global framework itself, in which case
>     it is
>     >> precisely my point to discus it openly...
>     >>
>     >> parminder
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 07:34 AM, Gene Kimmelman wrote:
>     >>> I think Parminder raises some very important points.  I'd like to
>     >>> offer a quick observation and await other input:
>     >>>
>     >>> 1.  The question about how to refer to previous statements
>     generated
>     >>> through some subgroup of BestBits is very legitimate; we may
>     need a
>     >>> more precise description of the letter referred to and who the
>     >>> signatories were.  We still need to discuss at the next BestBits
>     >>> gathering what our rules of engagement and governance should be.
>     >>>
>     >>> 2.  I fully support the idea of initiating a discussion of
>     what type
>     >>> of global legal framework (or maybe normative framework) we
>     should be
>     >>> galvanizing around.  Maybe even a simple call for the UN to
>     engage a
>     >>>  discussion with all stakeholders fully represented, to
>     consider how
>     >>> best to enforce human rights charters and principles, would be
>     a path
>     >>> forward?  Maybe others have a better suggestion, but I
>     wouldn't want
>     >>> the "perfect" to stand in the way of the "good enough" for the
>     >>> purpose of registering broad CSO interest in a global
>     discussion and
>     >>> global policy engagement.
>     >>>
>     >>> 3.  Whether or not we can all agree on something related to the
>     >>> global legal framework, I also urge everyone to be pragmatic about
>     >>> the opportunity to register your views with the US-base PCLOB.
>      This
>     >>> is of course only one small piece of the legal struggle, but it is
>     >>> very important from a US NGO standpoint to expand the US debate
>     >>> beyond US citizens or residents.  The US needs global input to
>     wake
>     >>> it up to its broader obligations.  This may  not be enough to
>     change
>     >>> policy, but it is a critical enhancement to the US-based NGO
>     advocacy
>     >>> that could have some impact on the US government.  So even if
>     this is
>     >>> a flawed, partial solution, and should be connected to something
>     >>> related to broader global solution, I believe it could
>     influence US
>     >>> policymakers.
>     >>> On Jul 23, 2013, at 9:44 PM, parminder
>     <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>
>     >>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net
>     <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>> wrote:
>     >>>
>     >>>>
>     >>>> Generally a well written statement. However, it must be
>     judged not
>     >>>> only for what it says but also what it does not... The statement
>     >>>> appeals to a US government agency to protect human rights of all
>     >>>> citizens of the world, especially non US citizens, which is very
>     >>>> well. It call for all security measures that the US  " must be
>     >>>> subject to a strong legal framework" meaning here just a US legal
>     >>>> framework.... I am not convinced that this constitutes an
>     adequate
>     >>>> remedy. All security measures should be subject to a strong
>     global
>     >>>> or international treaty/ legal framework as well.. That alone
>     will
>     >>>> work in an environment where we are all continually immersed in a
>     >>>> (somewhat) globally seamless, or at least hyper-connected,
>     digital
>     >>>> space.
>     >>>>
>     >>>> So, my specific question is, what stops us, as a global civil
>     >>>> society group, from calling for a global/international legal
>     >>>> framework to ensuring that all security related (and other)
>     actions,
>     >>>> of all states, including the US, are subject to a clear
>     >>>> international regime based on human rights, and any such regime
>     >>>> should have adequate enforcement capabilities.
>     >>>>
>     >>>> Can we discuss this here...
>     >>>>
>     >>>> While once in a while we as a global civil society group can make
>     >>>> specific appeals to one government or the other, but I am
>     unwilling
>     >>>> to convert US government to be 'the' key duty bearer and
>     appellate
>     >>>> body for global justice. In doing this is a deeper politics, and
>     >>>> that is my principal objection to this statement - not to
>     what the
>     >>>> statmement says, but what it does not. However, this problem can
>     >>>> easily be addressed if the statement includes an appeal for
>     global
>     >>>> legal frameworks for the same purpose..... Are the framers of the
>     >>>> statement willing to consider this?
>     >>>>
>     >>>> Another unconnected point, I often see statements that are
>     signed by
>     >>>> various actors using the BestBits as a facilitating platform,
>     >>>> without them being developed and signed on the behalf of the
>     >>>> BestBits group/ coalition, then after being signed
>      propositioned as
>     >>>> BestBits statements. Recently I saw such a reference in the
>     press,
>     >>>> about a statement that was never signed by the group as a whole
>     >>>> being called as a BestBits statement. This proposed letter also
>     >>>> refers to an earlier statement being of BestBits coalition
>     whereas
>     >>>> it was never signed by the group as a whole...
>     >>>>
>     >>>> parminder
>     >>>>
>     >>>>
>     >>>>
>     >>>> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 06:38 AM, Emma Llanso wrote:
>     >>>>> Dear all,
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> As you may be aware, the US Privacy and Civil Liberties
>     Oversight
>     >>>>> Board is accepting comments commentary regarding the US
>     >>>>> government's surveillance programs under the PATRIOT Act and
>     FISA.
>     >>>>> (I've included some information about PCLOB below in case you're
>     >>>>> not familiar with this entity.)  I'd like to share with you
>     a draft
>     >>>>> was put together by CDT, with feedback from a number of folks on
>     >>>>> this list, that focuses on the impact these programs have on the
>     >>>>> human rights of individuals outside the US:
>     >>>>>
>     https://docs.google.com/document/d/17BWIev_DybbML3ObDCORkW83THrNGuJrHlV5sQLdYA0/edit?usp=sharing
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> We feel that the draft text is at a point where it's ready to be
>     >>>>> shared with the broader Best Bits community for comment.  Please
>     >>>>> share any comments you have on the letter text with the
>     whole list.
>     >>>>> (I will be traveling on Wednesday and so slow to respond to
>     >>>>> email.)  Ideally, we'd like to have a final draft of the letter
>     >>>>> text available to circulate during the day on Thursday,
>     giving us
>     >>>>> about a week to solicit sign-on from as broad an array of
>     groups as
>     >>>>> possible.  This is a very compressed timeframe,
>     unfortunately, but
>     >>>>> the deadline for submitting comments is August 1st, so there
>     is not
>     >>>>> much flexibility in the schedule.
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> The Best Bits interim steering committee has agreed to host the
>     >>>>> final letter text on the Best Bits website to facilitate sign-on
>     >>>>> once we've reached that point.
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> It's worth noting here that while a joint letter with broad
>     >>>>> international sign in is one way of getting the US government to
>     >>>>> consider the rights of non-US persons, so is flooding PCLOB with
>     >>>>> individual letters from international groups, so please feel
>     free
>     >>>>> to adapt or build on to this letter and submit it separately. We
>     >>>>> intentionally did not make recommendations to PCLOB so as to
>     garner
>     >>>>> broad sign on (more on that below), but individual letters are a
>     >>>>> good opportunity to make specific recommendations.
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> *Background on the letter:*
>     >>>>> PCLOB will be preparing a report and is accepting comments
>     >>>>>
>     <http://www.regulations.gov/#%21documentDetail;D=PCLOB-2013-0005-0001>
>     >>>>> (with no limitations on who can submit comments) until
>     August 1st.
>     >>>>> As many of you know, it's been an uphill battle to get any
>     >>>>> attention on this critical issue of extraterritorial impacts
>     of the
>     >>>>> US surveillance programs. PCLOB hosted an open hearing on
>     the NSA
>     >>>>> program earlier in July, and there was unfortunately only a
>     single
>     >>>>> reference to the human rights of people other than US citizens
>     >>>>> during the entire hearing.  We think this comment process is
>     one of
>     >>>>> the better opportunities that groups from outside the US
>     will have
>     >>>>> in making their opinions about the US surveillance activities
>     >>>>> heard.  I'd highly encourage organizations and individuals
>     to make
>     >>>>> their own comments into this process, in addition to considering
>     >>>>> signing this letter.
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> As a final note, the letter intentionally does not lay out
>     >>>>> recommendations more specific than "take into consideration the
>     >>>>> human rights of individuals outside the US", for several
>     reasons.
>     >>>>> First, it will likely be more difficult for a broad range of
>     groups
>     >>>>> to sign onto something urging very specific legal or policy
>     >>>>> remedies.  Further, I wouldn't want to see a short, easily
>     agreed
>     >>>>> set of recommendations (e.g. focusing on transparency) get
>     >>>>> interpreted to mean that those fixes are the only thing the US
>     >>>>> government needs to do to remedy the situation.
>      Transparency is an
>     >>>>> important initial step, but it's far from the only action needed
>     >>>>> here (a point CDT will be emphasizing in our individual
>     comments to
>     >>>>> PCLOB).  Again, I'd strongly recommend groups file individual
>     >>>>> comments as well, particularly if you have specific
>     recommendations
>     >>>>> and actions for the Board.
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> Looking forward to your comments,
>     >>>>> Emma
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> *PCLOB - WHAT IS IT?* -
>     >>>>>
>     https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/privacy-and-civil-liberties-oversight-board
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is an
>     advisory body
>     >>>>> to assist the President and other senior Executive branch
>     officials
>     >>>>> in ensuring that concerns with respect to privacy and civil
>     >>>>> liberties are appropriately considered in the implementation
>     of all
>     >>>>> laws, regulations, and executive branch policies related to war
>     >>>>> against terrorism.
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> Recommended by the July 22, 2004, report of the National
>     Commission
>     >>>>> on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, the Privacy and
>     Civil
>     >>>>> Liberties Oversight Board was established by the Intelligence
>     >>>>> Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. It consists of five
>     >>>>> members appointed by and serving at the pleasure of the
>     President.
>     >>>>> The Board is part of the White House Office within the Executive
>     >>>>> Office of the President and supported by an Executive
>     Director and
>     >>>>> staff.
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> The Board advises the President and other senior executive
>     branch
>     >>>>> officials to ensure that concerns with respect to privacy
>     and civil
>     >>>>> liberties are appropriately considered in the implementation
>     of all
>     >>>>> laws, regulations, and executive branch policies related to
>     efforts
>     >>>>> to protect the Nation against terrorism. This includes
>     advising on
>     >>>>> whether adequate guidelines, supervision, and oversight exist to
>     >>>>> protect these important legal rights of all Americans. In
>     addition,
>     >>>>> the Board is specifically charged with responsibility for
>     reviewing
>     >>>>> the terrorism information sharing practices of executive branch
>     >>>>> departments and agencies to determine whether guidelines
>     designed
>     >>>>> to appropriately protect privacy and civil liberties are being
>     >>>>> followed, including those issued by the President on
>     December 16,
>     >>>>> 2005. In the course of performing these functions within the
>     >>>>> executive branch, the Board seeks the views of private sector,
>     >>>>> non-profit and academic institutions, Members of Congress,
>     and all
>     >>>>> other interested parties and individuals on these issues.
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> This agency has published 13 articles
>     >>>>>
>     <https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/search?conditions%5Bagency_ids%5D%5B%5D=438&skip_results=1#advanced>
>     >>>>> since 1994.
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> --
>     >>>>> Emma J. Llansó
>     >>>>> Policy Counsel
>     >>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology
>     >>>>> 1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100
>     >>>>> Washington, DC 20006
>     >>>>> 202-407-8818 | @cendemtech
>     <https://twitter.com/#%21/CenDemTech> |
>     >>>>> @ellanso <https://twitter.com/#%21/ellanso>
>     >>>>
>     >>>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >
>
>
>     --
>
>     Katitza Rodriguez
>     International Rights Director
>     Electronic Frontier Foundation
>     katitza at eff.org <mailto:katitza at eff.org>
>     katitza at datos-personales.org <mailto:katitza at datos-personales.org>
>     (personal email)
>
>     Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and
>     freedom
>     of speech since 1990
>
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     Dr. Anja Kovacs
>     The Internet Democracy Project
>
>     +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>     www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130725/6180c39a/attachment.htm>

From ca at cafonso.ca  Thu Jul 25 10:44:57 2013
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 11:44:57 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fwd=3A_Re=3A_=5BIRPCoalition=5D_Dom?=
 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ino_effect_starts=3A_Vigilantismo=3A_Gov=2E_do_Rio_emite_D?=
 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ecreto_p/_solicita=E7=E3o_de_registros_telef=F4nicos_e_de_?=
 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Internet?=
In-Reply-To: <51F0BCAF.6000503@itforchange.net>
References: <51F0BA4B.7090201@itforchange.net> <51F0BCAF.6000503@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <51F139E9.5020801@cafonso.ca>

Dear people, the Rio governor's decree of July 19 (officially enforced
since July 22 with its publication in Rio's Official Daily) has been
edited in response to protests, and now any move to obtain personal data
from telcos and providers is subject to due legal process.

In my view, it might not be difficult for the governor to easily seek
and get this authorization from a friendly judge to carry out the
information request, but in any case it is an improvement...

[]s fraternos

--c.a.

On 07/25/2013 02:50 AM, parminder wrote:
> 
> On Thursday 25 July 2013 12:30 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote:
>> >From Paranagua, an important (and frustrating news) comes from Brazil.
>>
>> Sorry for cross-posting, but I never know who is in what list, in this
>> is relevant to all of these lists. :-)
>>
>> In a executive Decree, the state of Rio de Janeiro, just published, as
>> set as law the obligation of telecom and ISP companies respond to
>> personal data and communications request in 24 hours, without court
>> order.
> 
> 
> This is a disturbing news.... but also, quite the trend worldwide...
> doing Internet governance by crisis response method. And one can be sure
> that such a method provides the worst possible results . Alternatively,
> internet governance can be done by creating (anticipative) spaces and
> means or normative debates, followed by development of principles (that
> the Marco Civil process did so well in Brazil)....
> 
> Till now, civil society (with perhaps the honourable exception of the
> Marco Civil process) - especially global civil society - has taken the
> back-foot defensive stance, and we have good proof all around us that
> this has not worked. BTW, see the latest news about the US gov (and
> presumably others) seeking encryption keys from Internet companies
> <http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57595202-38/feds-put-heat-on-web-firms-for-master-encryption-keys/>.
> 
> 
> What happens when we create and support legitimate IG governance venues,
> and now I am mostly speaking of the global stage, it forces a large
> scale normative debate around key issues... Negotiations based on
> competing values, and often interests, mostly brings up stuff that is
> higher and lager than the sum total of the part --- that is the beauty
> of democratic political processes. But, unfortunately, we seem to have
> lost faith in democratic political processes - which no doubt, as
> everything else in the world, are less than perfect.
> 
> I think much can come out of a focussed and sustained normative
> discussion - that can really only takes place when some kind of real
> policy making is possible, even imminent - on the new issues that face
> us today. (First we need to acknowledge that there are a lot of new
> issues here, which need new responses.) We wont get a perfect
> solution.... Any new normative/ principles/ legal framework would not
> fully be smelling of roses, but overall, we, and the global public
> interest, will gain through such open, democratic political processes.
> That is my belief.
> 
> Civil society is missing the opportunity of leading the way in these
> formative times, through anticipative norms, principles and law building
> exercises, which are shaped by it, at least initially because it (the
> civil society) is ready to see in the future, and is basically long term
> public interest driven. (Such reluctance to take up this role is
> because, excuse my idealogical leap, there seems to be a deep
> anti-political streak built in the dominant civil society which seems to
> arise from the neo-lib persuasions of the multistakeholder company that
> it keeps.)
> 
> In default, we will only have Internet governance being formed as crisis
> response, and the architecture that is getting built in this manner
> would take us towards the the worst of all the possible  worlds... But
> that is where we are headed, unless civil society, for a start, changes
> tack.
> 
> parminder
> 
> 
> 
>>
>> The governor of Rio was the target of the protests, and the decree
>> comes under the justification of preventing vandalism...
>>
>> This issue was not in the first draft of the decree presented to the
>> population earlier this month. Really sad news.
>>
>> Carol
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: *Pedro Paranaguá* <pedro.paranagua at gmail.com
>> <mailto:pedro.paranagua at gmail.com>>
>> Date: Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:45 PM
>> Subject: [sociedade-civil] Vigilantismo: Gov. do Rio emite Decreto p/
>> solicitação de registros telefônicos e de Internet
>> To: Lista da sociedade civil para discutir a reforma da lei de
>> direitos autorais <sociedade-civil at lists.gpopai.org
>> <mailto:sociedade-civil at lists.gpopai.org>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>   Decreto de Cabral é ilegal, dizem juristas
>>
>>
>>       Solicitação de registros telefônicos em investigações de
>>       protestos é criticada
>>
>> 23 de julho de 2013 | 21h 11
>>
>>
>> Felipe Werneck e Heloisa Aruth Sturm / RIO
>>
>> Atualizado às 21h56
>>
>> Juristas questionam a legalidade do decreto do governador Sérgio
>> Cabral (PMDB) publicado no Diário Oficial do Estado do Rio de
>> anteontem que cria a Comissão Especial de Investigação de Atos de
>> Vandalismo em Manifestações Públicas (CEIV). De acordo com o parágrafo
>> único do artigo 3.º, as operadoras de telefonia e provedores de
>> internet "terão prazo máximo de 24 horas para atendimento dos pedidos
>> de informações" do órgão.
>>
>> A norma, cuja legalidade é questionada, não existia na versão do
>> decreto apresentada à imprensa pelo governador no dia 19. Cabral é o
>> principal alvo dos protestos. O grupo de investigação é formado pelo
>> Ministério Público Estadual (MPE), Secretaria de Segurança e Polícias
>> Civil e Militar.
>>
>> O advogado Técio Lins e Silva comparou o decreto n.º 44.302 a
>> comissões de inquérito criadas na ditadura militar e afirmou que "está
>> entre o delírio e o abuso de poder". "É caso de impeachment, há uma
>> violação clara de direitos constitucionais."
>>
>> Mestre em direito constitucional, Paulo Rená também questionou a
>> legalidade do texto e afirmou que, na prática, ele "instaura um estado
>> de exceção no Rio e configura uso abusivo do poder estatal". Segundo o
>> jurista, a previsão de obrigação sobre as empresas de telefonia e
>> internet extrapola a competência do governador. "É uma norma que só
>> serve para ameaçar os intermediários."
>>
>> O advogado Sérgio Bermudes disse que o parágrafo que exige das
>> empresas de telefonia e internet que entreguem informações de usuários
>> é questionável, mas não vê inconstitucionalidade. Para Bermudes,
>> trata-se de "um expediente canhestro inventado pelo governador para
>> retirá-lo do foco, porque as manifestações são contra ele."
>>
>> Ex-presidente do Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) e professor de direito
>> constitucional, Carlos Velloso disse não ver inconstitucionalidade,
>> mas faz uma ponderação: "Seria questionável, sim, se poderia o decreto
>> estabelecer prazo de 24 horas para atendimento".
>>
>> O professor de direito constitucional da Universidade Federal
>> Fluminense (UFF) Cláudio Souza Neto criticou a composição da comissão
>> porque ela "acaba militarizando a investigação criminal".
>> *
>> Prioridade.* O artigo 3.º estabelece que solicitações e determinações
>> da comissão encaminhadas a todos os órgãos públicos e privados do Rio
>> "terão prioridade absoluta em relação a quaisquer outras atividades da
>> sua competência ou atribuição". Segundo o artigo 2.º, a comissão
>> poderá "requisitar informações, realizar diligências e praticar
>> quaisquer atos necessários à instrução de procedimentos".
>>
>> A assessoria do procurador-geral de Justiça, Marfan Martins Vieira,
>> afirmou que "não haverá quebra de sigilo sem decisão judicial". Em
>> nota, o MPE alegou que "o decreto limita-se a fixar prazo para
>> resposta dos pedidos de informação da comissão, sejam eles formulados
>> diretamente ou por meio de decisão judicial".
>>
>> Na segunda-feira, 22, o procurador que preside a comissão, Eduardo
>> Lima Neto, encerrou uma entrevista coletiva após dois minutos.
>> "Estamos construindo a forma de atuar e não posso revelar detalhes",
>> disse ele, afirmando que "direitos serão respeitados" e que "policiais
>> serão investigados". Neto não quis comentar a prisão na segunda-feira
>> de dois repórteres do grupo Mídia Ninja, acusados de incitar a violência.
>>
>> *Acusação.* Na segunda-feira, 22, o MPE formalizou denúncia contra
>> dois homens acusados de vandalismo em manifestações realizadas nos
>> dias 17 e 20 de junho. Eles são acusados por uso de explosivos,
>> formação de quadrilha e incitação ao crime, além de dano ao
>> patrimônio. Foi requerida à Justiça a prisão preventiva dos dois.
>>
>> As polícias Civil e Militar foram procuradas para informar se estão
>> investigando a eventual participação de policiais na incitação à
>> violência durante a manifestação na rua do Palácio Guanabara na
>> segunda-feira, 22. A Polícia Civil afirmou que a comissão "vai
>> analisar o vídeo".
>>
>> Em nota, a PM informou que mantém agentes do setor de Inteligência
>> acompanhando manifestações, "com o objetivo de obter informações e
>> prever movimentos, (...) importantes para as decisões de comando". Mas
>> que "esses agentes trabalham apenas com a observação" e "imaginar que
>> um policial vá atirar um coquetel molotov em colegas de profissão,
>> colocando suas vidas em risco, é algo que ultrapassa os limites do bom
>> senso e revela uma trama sórdida para justificar a violência criminosa
>> desses vândalos".
>>
>> *Nota. *O governo do Estado do Rio de Janeiro emitiu uma nota de
>> esclarecimento à imprensa:
>>
>> "O decreto do Governo do Estado do Rio de Janeiro que cria a Comissão
>> Especial de Investigação de Atos de Vandalismo em Manifestações
>> Públicas (CEIV) sempre esteve em absoluta sintonia com o Ministério
>> Público RJ e, em momento algum, estabeleceu que a CEIV quebrasse
>> sigilos. Somente à Justiça caberá a quebra de sigilos solicitados pela
>> Comissão Especial que é presidida pelo MP-RJ".
>>
>> http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/cidades,decreto-de-cabral-e-ilegal-dizem-juristas,1056604,0.htm
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Essa é uma lista fechada. Por favor seja prudente ao redirecionar
>> mensagens para listas abertas
>> _______________________________________________
>> sociedade-civil mailing list
>> sociedade-civil at lists.gpopai.org
>> <mailto:sociedade-civil at lists.gpopai.org>
>> http://lists.gpopai.org/listinfo.cgi/sociedade-civil-gpopai.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> *Carolina Rossini*
>> /Project Director, Latin America Resource Center/
>> Open Technology Institute
>> *New America Foundation*
>> //
>> http://carolinarossini.net/
>> + 1 6176979389
>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com <mailto:carolina.rossini at gmail.com>*
>> skype: carolrossini
>> @carolinarossini
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IRP mailing list
>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp
> 
> 
> 
> 

From katitza at eff.org  Thu Jul 25 16:42:58 2013
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 16:42:58 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Re: Call for comment: civil society letter to PCLOB
 re: human rights impacts of NSA surveillance of 'non-US persons'
In-Reply-To: <51F10F40.1010800@apc.org>
References: <51EF2902.1080702@cdt.org> <51EF316B.4030306@itforchange.net> <94BC60FF-AF14-46B8-B16D-6B6D01C40522@gmail.com> <51EF81D5.9090802@itforchange.net> <51EFB97F.9090702@apc.org> <51EFE4EF.40403@eff.org> <CAJqNAHCj0EnRFyPBpmdO7MDA-fSZMPDzeO-wSOj+68njYG=sDA@mail.gmail.com> <51F00B97.20509@itforchange.net> <001501ce88d9$68801bb0$39805310$@gmail.com> <CAJqNAHBcr=S-bPYGCbiaKbmfmK7MOspmeeBwaVOEn2SiSMCHtQ@mail.gmail.com> <51F10F40.1010800@apc.org>
Message-ID: <51F18DD2.2090303@eff.org>

Hi Anriette,

I'm out of the office and I'm unware about alll the nuances of our
position for this submission to the PCLOB. My colleague, Danny O'brien,
EFF International Director, is the one who is writing the international
angle of this particular EFF submission to the PCLOB.  I'm cc-ing him to
the list. He is aware about the Best Bits coalition initiative.

Danny: The letter is here in case you have a little time to look at it.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/17BWIev_DybbML3ObDCORkW83THrNGuJrHlV5sQLdYA0/edit?usp=sharing

All the best,

Katitza

On 7/25/13 7:42 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> Hi all
> 
> I was happy with Anja's reformulation and I share her concerns about the
> risks attached to a global agreement. And great work to the main
> drafters.. I should have said this before. Just one other thought.
> 
> We could, theoretically, keep the letter short and concise, and add as
> an addendum a document that raises broader concerns. But hopefully this
> will not be necessary.
> 
> We should try to remember that we are acting on multiple fronts and
> therefore we don't have to fit all our concerns and demands into every
> single intervention.
> 
> I would like to hear from Katitza whether, in the light of EFF's
> position on the PCLOB, whether she thinks this letter is a bad idea? Not
> that I think we should not send it, I would just like to have a better
> understanding of EFF's position on the Best Bits letter.
> 
> And then another thought. Should Best Bits not also draft letters to
> other governments on our concerns. Anja mentions India. South Africa
> also has VERY problematic legislation around monitoring and interception.
> 
> The list goes on.
> 
> Anriette
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 25/07/2013 13:29, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>> Just to clarify my position vis-a-vis Parminder's comments:
>>
>> In theory I do think that a strong global framework on privacy protections
>> could contribute to resolving these issues in a significant manner.
>> Unfortunately, in practice I am not sure how feasible this is at present.
>> As they are necessarily based on compromise, global agreements tend to
>> congeal around the lowest common denominators. At the moment, I am afraid
>> these will set the bar too low, not in the least because many of the
>> democracies that one would hope would push for higher standards at the
>> moment seem to be setting the bar too low domestically, including where
>> privacy is concerned. This is true not only of the US but also of, for
>> example, India. In these circumstances, I am worried that a global
>> agreement will be used first and foremost to cement sovereignty over the
>> Internet, rather than to defend the rights of Internet users around the
>> world, something I would not consider a gain. My reformulation of
>> Anriette's formulation was simply meant to foreground that what we are
>> asking for is the implementation of existing human rights, not to stop us
>> from creating a debate on this issue. I continue to think, however, that
>> the best way countries can flag that the time is genuinely ripe for a
>> global framework is by demonstrating a clear commitment to human rights in
>> these areas domestically. It is countries that would like to see global
>> coordination on a wide range of issues beyond privacy that might in fact
>> have the greatest stake in doing so.
>>
>> My 2 cents.
>>
>> Best,
>> Anja
>>
>>
>> On 25 July 2013 07:20, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with Parminder that the letter lacks a forward looking element
>>> which would deal with the most fundamental issue--the development of an
>>> integrated (if to a very limited degree multi-polar) ubiquitous
>>> multi-stakeholder--States+private sector+technical community(?))
>>> surveillance State. This is  global in nature and will require some sort of
>>> global response and working through this in anticipation of the IGF should
>>> be I think, our major current task.****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> However, I think the letter goes a very considerable degree beyond earlier
>>> such position statements from major (particularly US) CS actors in
>>> recognizing the legitimate concerns/significance of "foreigners" in the
>>> current US discussion and on that basis I think it should be supported as
>>> amended.****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> M****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:
>>> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *parminder
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 24, 2013 10:45 PM
>>> *Cc:* &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
>>>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Re: Call for comment: civil society letter to
>>> PCLOB re: human rights impacts of NSA surveillance of 'non-US persons'****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 08:23 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:****
>>>
>>> I also liked Anriette's language on the "development of a global framework
>>> for protection", though I would suggest we slightly edit it to read "the
>>> development of a global framework for the implementation of protections" or
>>> something along those lines. The reason is that we already have a framework
>>> for protections, ie the human rights framework, but that governments seem
>>> to be happy to disregard this when it comes to surveillance.  ****
>>>
>>>
>>> But so does the US have in place all kinds of higher level principles that
>>> do cover such issues; then why does the letter ask for new legal frameworks
>>> from the US government? As the current frameworks in the US have been found
>>> inadequate, so could it be held true for the global human rights regime
>>> (arguably truer for the latter) - because it is an undeniable fact -
>>> although often selectively denied - that the digital space produces
>>> entirely new realities, which are also unprecedentedly global in nature....
>>> More on US versus UN frameworks below...
>>>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> Until governments worldwide give considerably greater evidence of their
>>> willingness to make the protection of human rights an integral component of
>>> their surveillance plans, I do not think that it is appropriate for civil
>>> society to push for a more comprehensive global framework on security
>>> issues in general. ****
>>>
>>>
>>> 'Global framework on security? Whoever asked for one..... Are we asking
>>> the US government for new a framework on security, I thought we were asking
>>> for a new framework on privacy protection.... so also for the UN. Global
>>> framework for privacy protection, not for security.
>>>
>>> So, pardon my use of ironic language to make my point, apparently we can
>>> ask the US to develop new legal frameworks, and trust that they would not
>>> come up with something worse then they have at present. However, we cannot
>>> at all trust the UN to not come up with legal frameworks worse than what we
>>> have at present, and therefore we should not ever even ask them for the
>>> same thing that we are ready to ask of the US.
>>>
>>> To me, it boils down to trusting the US government to run the world more
>>> than we can trust the UN... This is something I am unwilling to do. If even
>>> Snowden did not teach us the right lesson, perhaps nothing ever would. I am
>>> afraid that all this is of a piece with a widespread tendency to trust US
>>> more than the UN with the trusteeship of the global Internet. I obviously
>>> cannot accept that. As I said in my first posting, it is a well written and
>>> argued letter, but the problem with it is not what it says, but with what
>>> it does not.
>>>
>>> I am not against focussing a letter on a particular opportunity and end.
>>> However,  (1) PCLOB is not the wrong agency to advice the US government to
>>> consider global legal frameworks on privacy protection, especially now when
>>> Snowden disclosures tell us what other countries could also be doing,
>>> including to the US citizens, (2) I did want to have a discussion here on
>>> whether the group considers global frameworks as also a needed remedy for
>>> the problem in focus. I am unable to see how adding a line or two on global
>>> frameworks would throw the letter out of focus.....
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>>
>>> ****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> On the issue of what constitutes a "Best Bits statement", the points made
>>> here are important and we do indeed need greater clarity on this. At the
>>> same time, it's also important to keep in mind that once statements are
>>> shared with the wider world, maintaining a distinction between a statement
>>> supported by all (though even on the Baku one I think we had one abstention
>>> by the way, and in any case the Baku group was fairly small) and a
>>> statement shared and promoted through the Best Bits platform might be
>>> difficult - even if we are careful to make these distinctions, the wider
>>> world might not.
>>>
>>> Perhaps we should therefore simply go for a model in which ALL statements
>>> are considered to be in the latter category, and focus our attention on
>>> coming up with criteria for which type of statements are appropriate (or
>>> not) for Best Bits instead? I am worried that sending out mixed messages
>>> will only undermine the effectiveness of the advocacy efforts that go
>>> through Best Bits, though I'd of course be very happy to hear other
>>> possible solutions to that conundrum as well.****
>>>
>>> Thanks and best,
>>> Anja****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>> On 24 July 2013 20:00, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> wrote:****
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> It would be good to answer the consultation without voicing support for
>>> a PCLOB investigation. In EFF, we are of the opinion that the PCLOB
>>> isn't the right place for an investigation.
>>>
>>> PCLOB is weak institution, so EFF concern is that its weaknesses foster
>>> low, expectation politics/rhetoric.  EFF want a Church Committee,
>>> investigation or at least an existing committee with congress or at
>>> least an existing committee with congressional subpoena power to
>>> investigate.
>>>
>>> We have three or four blog posts with arguments about why we need
>>> a special investigatory committee, and at the very least extant
>>> committees, instead of the PCLOB to investigate.
>>>
>>> For more information on our asks please check out:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/why-special-congressional-committee-must-be-created-investigate-nsas
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/response-nsa-we-need-new-church-commission-and-we-need-it-now
>>> ****
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/24/13 7:24 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>>> Dear all
>>>>
>>>> My view on the letter is to keep it focused on the Call for Comment by
>>>> the US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board regarding the US
>>>> government's surveillance programs under the PATRIOT Act and FISA.  I
>>>> think the letter is already too long.
>>>>
>>>> The more focused and to the point (and brief) our comments are, the more
>>>> likely they will be discussed, forwarded, understood, etc. etc..
>>>> However, I do have a proposal for how to include a reference global
>>>> legal frameworks that does not change the basic character and purpose of
>>>> the letter as one that addresses an official US body.
>>>>
>>>> This letter makes three key points:
>>>>
>>>> * Government surveillance must be subject to a strong legal framework
>>>> that is transparent, necessary to achieve a legitimate goal and
>>>> proportionate to that goal, authorized by a competent judicial
>>>> authority, and subject to public oversight.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Surveillance of communications conducted under Section 702 must meets
>>>> international human rights standards for surveillance.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> * In the context of online communications, the privacy and liberty****
>>>> rights of non-U.S. persons outside the U.S. should bewithin the PCLOB's*
>>> ***
>>>
>>>> statutory mandate.
>>>>
>>>> We could add something along the following lines:
>>>>
>>>> We believe findings and recommendations developed by the PCLOB that
>>>> ensure that protection of rights of US and non US persons in the context
>>>> of government surveillance would not only be consistent with the US
>>>> government's frequently stated commitment to 'freedom online'; it would
>>>> also constitute a valuable contribution to the eventual development of a
>>>> global framework for such protections.
>>>>
>>>> Btw, this last sentence (quoted below) still uses the term 'Americans'.
>>>> Please change. I also think that it is best to say 'findings and
>>>> recommendations' rather than 'recommendations and findings' as the
>>>> former is likely to flow from the latter.
>>>>
>>>> "We urge you to make recommendations and findings designed to protect
>>>> the human rights not only of Americans, but also of non-U.S. persons who
>>>> live outside the United States."
>>>>
>>>> Ciao
>>>>
>>>> Anriette
>>>>
>>>> On 24/07/2013 09:27, parminder wrote:
>>>>> Thanks to Gene and Jeremy for their responses..
>>>>>
>>>>> However, I see no argument here why the letter cannot ask US to also
>>>>> engage in developing global norms and agreements with regard to
>>>>> safeguards against invasion of privacy in name of security, and then
>>>>> adhering to these norms/ agreements. After all, US is a prime party to
>>>>> be appealed to if we are to move towards such global norms/
>>>>> agreements, and it remains my firm belief that this thing can really
>>>>> be addressed only through global arrangements,
>>>>>
>>>>> (Also, shouldnt US groups and US citizens also be concerned about
>>>>> invasion of their privacy by non US government agents.:
>>>>>
>>>>> About Jeremy's arugment against seeking 'global legal frameworks'
>>>>> being that we ourselves are yet to propose anything concrete, does the
>>>>> proposed letter not ask the US government to develop new 'strong legal
>>>>> frameworks' without actually suggesting their precise forms.. Why cant
>>>>> we do the same for the global level even when we yet dont have our
>>>>> concrete institutional proposals ready (would we ever be :) )... At
>>>>> the domestic level of US gov, the letter simply asserts the need, at
>>>>> the principles level, of privacy protection through 'strong legal
>>>>> framework'. We can ask the same for the global system, at the level of
>>>>> principles.... Unless of course there is a difference of opinion here
>>>>> about the principle of a global framework itself, in which case it is
>>>>> precisely my point to discus it openly...
>>>>>
>>>>> parminder
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 07:34 AM, Gene Kimmelman wrote:
>>>>>> I think Parminder raises some very important points.  I'd like to
>>>>>> offer a quick observation and await other input:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1.  The question about how to refer to previous statements generated
>>>>>> through some subgroup of BestBits is very legitimate; we may need a
>>>>>> more precise description of the letter referred to and who the
>>>>>> signatories were.  We still need to discuss at the next BestBits
>>>>>> gathering what our rules of engagement and governance should be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2.  I fully support the idea of initiating a discussion of what type
>>>>>> of global legal framework (or maybe normative framework) we should be
>>>>>> galvanizing around.  Maybe even a simple call for the UN to engage a
>>>>>>  discussion with all stakeholders fully represented, to consider how
>>>>>> best to enforce human rights charters and principles, would be a path
>>>>>> forward?  Maybe others have a better suggestion, but I wouldn't want
>>>>>> the "perfect" to stand in the way of the "good enough" for the
>>>>>> purpose of registering broad CSO interest in a global discussion and
>>>>>> global policy engagement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3.  Whether or not we can all agree on something related to the
>>>>>> global legal framework, I also urge everyone to be pragmatic about
>>>>>> the opportunity to register your views with the US-base PCLOB.  This
>>>>>> is of course only one small piece of the legal struggle, but it is
>>>>>> very important from a US NGO standpoint to expand the US debate
>>>>>> beyond US citizens or residents.  The US needs global input to wake
>>>>>> it up to its broader obligations.  This may  not be enough to change
>>>>>> policy, but it is a critical enhancement to the US-based NGO advocacy
>>>>>> that could have some impact on the US government.  So even if this is
>>>>>> a flawed, partial solution, and should be connected to something
>>>>>> related to broader global solution, I believe it could influence US
>>>>>> policymakers.
>>>>>> On Jul 23, 2013, at 9:44 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>>>>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Generally a well written statement. However, it must be judged not
>>>>>>> only for what it says but also what it does not... The statement
>>>>>>> appeals to a US government agency to protect human rights of all
>>>>>>> citizens of the world, especially non US citizens, which is very
>>>>>>> well. It call for all security measures that the US  " must be
>>>>>>> subject to a strong legal framework" meaning here just a US legal
>>>>>>> framework.... I am not convinced that this constitutes an adequate
>>>>>>> remedy. All security measures should be subject to a strong global
>>>>>>> or international treaty/ legal framework as well.. That alone will
>>>>>>> work in an environment where we are all continually immersed in a
>>>>>>> (somewhat) globally seamless, or at least hyper-connected, digital
>>>>>>> space.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, my specific question is, what stops us, as a global civil
>>>>>>> society group, from calling for a global/international legal
>>>>>>> framework to ensuring that all security related (and other) actions,
>>>>>>> of all states, including the US, are subject to a clear
>>>>>>> international regime based on human rights, and any such regime
>>>>>>> should have adequate enforcement capabilities.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can we discuss this here...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While once in a while we as a global civil society group can make
>>>>>>> specific appeals to one government or the other, but I am unwilling
>>>>>>> to convert US government to be 'the' key duty bearer and appellate
>>>>>>> body for global justice. In doing this is a deeper politics, and
>>>>>>> that is my principal objection to this statement - not to what the
>>>>>>> statmement says, but what it does not. However, this problem can
>>>>>>> easily be addressed if the statement includes an appeal for global
>>>>>>> legal frameworks for the same purpose..... Are the framers of the
>>>>>>> statement willing to consider this?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Another unconnected point, I often see statements that are signed by
>>>>>>> various actors using the BestBits as a facilitating platform,
>>>>>>> without them being developed and signed on the behalf of the
>>>>>>> BestBits group/ coalition, then after being signed  propositioned as
>>>>>>> BestBits statements. Recently I saw such a reference in the press,
>>>>>>> about a statement that was never signed by the group as a whole
>>>>>>> being called as a BestBits statement. This proposed letter also
>>>>>>> refers to an earlier statement being of BestBits coalition whereas
>>>>>>> it was never signed by the group as a whole...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 06:38 AM, Emma Llanso wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As you may be aware, the US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight
>>>>>>>> Board is accepting comments commentary regarding the US
>>>>>>>> government's surveillance programs under the PATRIOT Act and FISA.
>>>>>>>> (I've included some information about PCLOB below in case you're
>>>>>>>> not familiar with this entity.)  I'd like to share with you a draft
>>>>>>>> was put together by CDT, with feedback from a number of folks on
>>>>>>>> this list, that focuses on the impact these programs have on the
>>>>>>>> human rights of individuals outside the US:
>>>>>>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/17BWIev_DybbML3ObDCORkW83THrNGuJrHlV5sQLdYA0/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We feel that the draft text is at a point where it's ready to be
>>>>>>>> shared with the broader Best Bits community for comment.  Please
>>>>>>>> share any comments you have on the letter text with the whole list.
>>>>>>>> (I will be traveling on Wednesday and so slow to respond to
>>>>>>>> email.)  Ideally, we'd like to have a final draft of the letter
>>>>>>>> text available to circulate during the day on Thursday, giving us
>>>>>>>> about a week to solicit sign-on from as broad an array of groups as
>>>>>>>> possible.  This is a very compressed timeframe, unfortunately, but
>>>>>>>> the deadline for submitting comments is August 1st, so there is not
>>>>>>>> much flexibility in the schedule.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Best Bits interim steering committee has agreed to host the
>>>>>>>> final letter text on the Best Bits website to facilitate sign-on
>>>>>>>> once we've reached that point.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's worth noting here that while a joint letter with broad
>>>>>>>> international sign in is one way of getting the US government to
>>>>>>>> consider the rights of non-US persons, so is flooding PCLOB with
>>>>>>>> individual letters from international groups, so please feel free
>>>>>>>> to adapt or build on to this letter and submit it separately. We
>>>>>>>> intentionally did not make recommendations to PCLOB so as to garner
>>>>>>>> broad sign on (more on that below), but individual letters are a
>>>>>>>> good opportunity to make specific recommendations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Background on the letter:*
>>>>>>>> PCLOB will be preparing a report and is accepting comments
>>>>>>>> <
>>> http://www.regulations.gov/#%21documentDetail;D=PCLOB-2013-0005-0001>
>>>>>>>> (with no limitations on who can submit comments) until August 1st.
>>>>>>>> As many of you know, it's been an uphill battle to get any
>>>>>>>> attention on this critical issue of extraterritorial impacts of the
>>>>>>>> US surveillance programs. PCLOB hosted an open hearing on the NSA
>>>>>>>> program earlier in July, and there was unfortunately only a single
>>>>>>>> reference to the human rights of people other than US citizens
>>>>>>>> during the entire hearing.  We think this comment process is one of
>>>>>>>> the better opportunities that groups from outside the US will have
>>>>>>>> in making their opinions about the US surveillance activities
>>>>>>>> heard.  I'd highly encourage organizations and individuals to make
>>>>>>>> their own comments into this process, in addition to considering
>>>>>>>> signing this letter.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As a final note, the letter intentionally does not lay out
>>>>>>>> recommendations more specific than "take into consideration the
>>>>>>>> human rights of individuals outside the US", for several reasons.
>>>>>>>> First, it will likely be more difficult for a broad range of groups
>>>>>>>> to sign onto something urging very specific legal or policy
>>>>>>>> remedies.  Further, I wouldn't want to see a short, easily agreed
>>>>>>>> set of recommendations (e.g. focusing on transparency) get
>>>>>>>> interpreted to mean that those fixes are the only thing the US
>>>>>>>> government needs to do to remedy the situation.  Transparency is an
>>>>>>>> important initial step, but it's far from the only action needed
>>>>>>>> here (a point CDT will be emphasizing in our individual comments to
>>>>>>>> PCLOB).  Again, I'd strongly recommend groups file individual
>>>>>>>> comments as well, particularly if you have specific recommendations
>>>>>>>> and actions for the Board.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Looking forward to your comments,
>>>>>>>> Emma
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *PCLOB - WHAT IS IT?* -
>>>>>>>>
>>> https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/privacy-and-civil-liberties-oversight-board
>>>>>>>> The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is an advisory body
>>>>>>>> to assist the President and other senior Executive branch officials
>>>>>>>> in ensuring that concerns with respect to privacy and civil
>>>>>>>> liberties are appropriately considered in the implementation of all
>>>>>>>> laws, regulations, and executive branch policies related to war
>>>>>>>> against terrorism.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Recommended by the July 22, 2004, report of the National Commission
>>>>>>>> on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, the Privacy and Civil
>>>>>>>> Liberties Oversight Board was established by the Intelligence
>>>>>>>> Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. It consists of five
>>>>>>>> members appointed by and serving at the pleasure of the President.
>>>>>>>> The Board is part of the White House Office within the Executive
>>>>>>>> Office of the President and supported by an Executive Director and
>>>>>>>> staff.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Board advises the President and other senior executive branch
>>>>>>>> officials to ensure that concerns with respect to privacy and civil
>>>>>>>> liberties are appropriately considered in the implementation of all
>>>>>>>> laws, regulations, and executive branch policies related to efforts
>>>>>>>> to protect the Nation against terrorism. This includes advising on
>>>>>>>> whether adequate guidelines, supervision, and oversight exist to
>>>>>>>> protect these important legal rights of all Americans. In addition,
>>>>>>>> the Board is specifically charged with responsibility for reviewing
>>>>>>>> the terrorism information sharing practices of executive branch
>>>>>>>> departments and agencies to determine whether guidelines designed
>>>>>>>> to appropriately protect privacy and civil liberties are being
>>>>>>>> followed, including those issued by the President on December 16,
>>>>>>>> 2005. In the course of performing these functions within the
>>>>>>>> executive branch, the Board seeks the views of private sector,
>>>>>>>> non-profit and academic institutions, Members of Congress, and all
>>>>>>>> other interested parties and individuals on these issues.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This agency has published 13 articles
>>>>>>>> <
>>> https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/search?conditions%5Bagency_ids%5D%5B%5D=438&skip_results=1#advanced
>>>>>>>> since 1994.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Emma J. Llansó
>>>>>>>> Policy Counsel
>>>>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology
>>>>>>>> 1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100
>>>>>>>> Washington, DC 20006
>>>>>>>> 202-407-8818 | @cendemtech <https://twitter.com/#%21/CenDemTech> |
>>>>>>>> @ellanso <https://twitter.com/#%21/ellanso>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> --****
>>>
>>> Katitza Rodriguez
>>> International Rights Director
>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>> katitza at eff.org
>>> katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)
>>>
>>> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom
>>> of speech since 1990****
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs
>>> The Internet Democracy Project
>>>
>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>>> www.internetdemocracy.in****
>>>
>>> ** **
>>>
>>
>>
> 


-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom
of speech since 1990
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0x9425A914.asc
Type: application/pgp-keys
Size: 2175 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130725/d2fcaa5a/attachment.key>

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Thu Jul 25 23:45:24 2013
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 09:15:24 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] IGF in Indonesia cancelled?
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHD4D6=a-5g8KHUyNa51FjM2HGDp+YSZC8UZzDHBBCU56g@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

After having heard rumours swirling for a while now, I was very sad to
receive the message below via an AP IGF email list. Looks like the
Indonesia IGF, at least for now, stands cancelled. Anyone here knows more?

Best,
Anja

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) <TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg>
Date: 26 July 2013 08:50
Subject: [Rigf_program] IGF in Indonesia cancelled
To: "program at aprigf.asia" <program at aprigf.asia>


   Folks,

 This is sad but official: the Indonesian organizers have cancelled the
IGF. The announcement was made by the chair of the organizing committee (a
businessman) after a meeting with the minister and the civil society group.

 There is a news report in Bahasa Indonesia at
http://inet.detik.com/read/2013/07/25/135130/2314218/328/kurang-dana-forum-internet-dunia-batal-digelar-di-bali.
 Use Google translate and you will be able to read.

 I had met the civil society organizers just this week. They were asking
for possible tips on fund raising. After exploring the options, we
concluded that they had approached most of the likely sponsors. Yes, there
were some possibilities they had overlooked but these were not many.

 According to the news report, out of the US$2.2M (Rp22 billion) budget,
they had raised US$900k. The Ministry had given US$250k. So they had a
shortfall of US$1.05M.

 Third party sources I checked (i.e. Not the Indonesians themselves) said
that one major cost was that the UN had asked for US$900k to fly personnel
and security apparatus to the meeting.

 Knowing a little of the inside story, I would say the situation is more
complex than one might have guessed. Next year is the election year for
Indonesia. So companies are asking: if I support you now but you do not
win, what happens? Then two weeks before the IGF, there is the APEC meeting
in the same venue. So the feeling that is Indonesia will be on the world's
stage at that time already. Meanwhile, the Minister of Communication, whose
ministry oversees the IGF, is under allegations of corruption. It's one of
those series of unfortunate events.

 Regards,
Peng Hwa

------------------------------
CONFIDENTIALITY:This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and
may be confidential and/or privileged.If you are not the intended
recipient,please delete it,notify us and do not copy,use,or disclose its
content.

Towards A Sustainable Earth:Print Only When Necessary.Thank you.

_______________________________________________
Rigf_program mailing list
Rigf_program at aprigf.asia
https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program




-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130726/0aaaee5f/attachment.htm>

From genekimmelman at gmail.com  Thu Jul 25 23:49:35 2013
From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com)
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 23:49:35 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] IGF in Indonesia cancelled?
Message-ID: <e2nns4vrpainjka75uesxob5.1374810575233@email.android.com>

A number of governments very much want the event to proceed so I believe ee haven't heard the end if this. ....

-------- Original message --------
From: Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in> 
Date:  
To: "&lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt," <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> 
Subject: [bestbits] IGF in Indonesia cancelled? 
 
Dear all,

After having heard rumours swirling for a while now, I was very sad to receive the message below via an AP IGF email list. Looks like the Indonesia IGF, at least for now, stands cancelled. Anyone here knows more? 

Best,
Anja

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) <TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg>
Date: 26 July 2013 08:50
Subject: [Rigf_program] IGF in Indonesia cancelled
To: "program at aprigf.asia" <program at aprigf.asia>


Folks,

This is sad but official: the Indonesian organizers have cancelled the IGF. The announcement was made by the chair of the organizing committee (a businessman) after a meeting with the minister and the civil society group.

There is a news report in Bahasa Indonesia at http://inet.detik.com/read/2013/07/25/135130/2314218/328/kurang-dana-forum-internet-dunia-batal-digelar-di-bali.  Use Google translate and you will be able to read.

I had met the civil society organizers just this week. They were asking for possible tips on fund raising. After exploring the options, we concluded that they had approached most of the likely sponsors. Yes, there were some possibilities they had overlooked but these were not many.

According to the news report, out of the US$2.2M (Rp22 billion) budget, they had raised US$900k. The Ministry had given US$250k. So they had a shortfall of US$1.05M.

Third party sources I checked (i.e. Not the Indonesians themselves) said that one major cost was that the UN had asked for US$900k to fly personnel and security apparatus to the meeting. 

Knowing a little of the inside story, I would say the situation is more complex than one might have guessed. Next year is the election year for Indonesia. So companies are asking: if I support you now but you do not win, what happens? Then two weeks before the IGF, there is the APEC meeting in the same venue. So the feeling that is Indonesia will be on the world's stage at that time already. Meanwhile, the Minister of Communication, whose ministry oversees the IGF, is under allegations of corruption. It's one of those series of unfortunate events.

Regards,
Peng Hwa

CONFIDENTIALITY:This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and may be confidential and/or privileged.If you are not the intended recipient,please delete it,notify us and do not copy,use,or disclose its content.

Towards A Sustainable Earth:Print Only When Necessary.Thank you.

_______________________________________________
Rigf_program mailing list
Rigf_program at aprigf.asia
https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program




-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130725/ef262c86/attachment.htm>

From dbu at donnybu.com  Thu Jul 25 23:55:05 2013
From: dbu at donnybu.com (Donny B.U.)
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 10:55:05 +0700
Subject: [bestbits] IGF in Indonesia cancelled?
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHD4D6=a-5g8KHUyNa51FjM2HGDp+YSZC8UZzDHBBCU56g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJqNAHD4D6=a-5g8KHUyNa51FjM2HGDp+YSZC8UZzDHBBCU56g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJOH5-wnNQk2J76GiK1NRikUW-nShm7tpnK2Oqp8SbkoCL58vg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi, I'm part of the preparation committee of IGF2013, from civil society
sector. Since the committee, called ID-IGF, is coming from
multi-stakeholders.

Actually, we haven't received copy of gov letter to UN regarding to this.
Meaning, no official cancelation-decision have been made, yet.

I will be happy to give any information needed.

Regards,

-dbu-

On Friday, July 26, 2013, Anja Kovacs wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> After having heard rumours swirling for a while now, I was very sad to
> receive the message below via an AP IGF email list. Looks like the
> Indonesia IGF, at least for now, stands cancelled. Anyone here knows more?
>
> Best,
> Anja
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) <TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg');>>
> Date: 26 July 2013 08:50
> Subject: [Rigf_program] IGF in Indonesia cancelled
> To: "program at aprigf.asia <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'program at aprigf.asia');>" <program at aprigf.asia <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'program at aprigf.asia');>>
>
>
>    Folks,
>
>  This is sad but official: the Indonesian organizers have cancelled the
> IGF. The announcement was made by the chair of the organizing committee (a
> businessman) after a meeting with the minister and the civil society group.
>
>  There is a news report in Bahasa Indonesia at
> http://inet.detik.com/read/2013/07/25/135130/2314218/328/kurang-dana-forum-internet-dunia-batal-digelar-di-bali.
>  Use Google translate and you will be able to read.
>
>  I had met the civil society organizers just this week. They were asking
> for possible tips on fund raising. After exploring the options, we
> concluded that they had approached most of the likely sponsors. Yes, there
> were some possibilities they had overlooked but these were not many.
>
>  According to the news report, out of the US$2.2M (Rp22 billion) budget,
> they had raised US$900k. The Ministry had given US$250k. So they had a
> shortfall of US$1.05M.
>
>  Third party sources I checked (i.e. Not the Indonesians themselves) said
> that one major cost was that the UN had asked for US$900k to fly personnel
> and security apparatus to the meeting.
>
>  Knowing a little of the inside story, I would say the situation is more
> complex than one might have guessed. Next year is the election year for
> Indonesia. So companies are asking: if I support you now but you do not
> win, what happens? Then two weeks before the IGF, there is the APEC meeting
> in the same venue. So the feeling that is Indonesia will be on the world's
> stage at that time already. Meanwhile, the Minister of Communication, whose
> ministry oversees the IGF, is under allegations of corruption. It's one of
> those series of unfortunate events.
>
>  Regards,
> Peng Hwa
>
> ------------------------------
> CONFIDENTIALITY:This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and
> may be confidential and/or privileged.If you are not the intended
> recipient,please delete it,notify us and do not copy,use,or disclose its
> content.
>
> Towards A Sustainable Earth:Print Only When Necessary.Thank you.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rigf_program mailing list
> Rigf_program at aprigf.asia <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'Rigf_program at aprigf.asia');>
> https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program
>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in
>


-- 
e: dbu at donnybu.com | t: @donnybu | f: donnybu | w: donnybu.com | p:
+62818930932
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130726/26030d70/attachment.htm>

From joana at varonferraz.com  Thu Jul 25 23:57:50 2013
From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varonferraz)
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 00:57:50 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] IGF in Indonesia cancelled?
In-Reply-To: <CAJOH5-wnNQk2J76GiK1NRikUW-nShm7tpnK2Oqp8SbkoCL58vg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJqNAHD4D6=a-5g8KHUyNa51FjM2HGDp+YSZC8UZzDHBBCU56g@mail.gmail.com> <CAJOH5-wnNQk2J76GiK1NRikUW-nShm7tpnK2Oqp8SbkoCL58vg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D3C02447-2912-4DBD-B977-C05323C89B24@varonferraz.com>

Thanks, Donny. Please, keep us updated.


--- ~ --- ~ --- ~ 
Joana Varon Ferraz
Researcher
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS/FGV)



On 26/07/2013, at 00:55, "Donny B.U." <dbu at donnybu.com> wrote:

> Hi, I'm part of the preparation committee of IGF2013, from civil society sector. Since the committee, called ID-IGF, is coming from multi-stakeholders.
> 
> Actually, we haven't received copy of gov letter to UN regarding to this. Meaning, no official cancelation-decision have been made, yet.
> 
> I will be happy to give any information needed.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -dbu-
> 
> On Friday, July 26, 2013, Anja Kovacs  wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> After having heard rumours swirling for a while now, I was very sad to receive the message below via an AP IGF email list. Looks like the Indonesia IGF, at least for now, stands cancelled. Anyone here knows more? 
>> 
>> Best,
>> Anja
>> 
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) <TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg>
>> Date: 26 July 2013 08:50
>> Subject: [Rigf_program] IGF in Indonesia cancelled
>> To: "program at aprigf.asia" <program at aprigf.asia>
>> 
>> 
>> Folks,
>> 
>> This is sad but official: the Indonesian organizers have cancelled the IGF. The announcement was made by the chair of the organizing committee (a businessman) after a meeting with the minister and the civil society group.
>> 
>> There is a news report in Bahasa Indonesia at http://inet.detik.com/read/2013/07/25/135130/2314218/328/kurang-dana-forum-internet-dunia-batal-digelar-di-bali.  Use Google translate and you will be able to read.
>> 
>> I had met the civil society organizers just this week. They were asking for possible tips on fund raising. After exploring the options, we concluded that they had approached most of the likely sponsors. Yes, there were some possibilities they had overlooked but these were not many.
>> 
>> According to the news report, out of the US$2.2M (Rp22 billion) budget, they had raised US$900k. The Ministry had given US$250k. So they had a shortfall of US$1.05M.
>> 
>> Third party sources I checked (i.e. Not the Indonesians themselves) said that one major cost was that the UN had asked for US$900k to fly personnel and security apparatus to the meeting. 
>> 
>> Knowing a little of the inside story, I would say the situation is more complex than one might have guessed. Next year is the election year for Indonesia. So companies are asking: if I support you now but you do not win, what happens? Then two weeks before the IGF, there is the APEC meeting in the same venue. So the feeling that is Indonesia will be on the world's stage at that time already. Meanwhile, the Minister of Communication, whose ministry oversees the IGF, is under allegations of corruption. It's one of those series of unfortunate events.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Peng Hwa
>> 
>> CONFIDENTIALITY:This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and may be confidential and/or privileged.If you are not the intended recipient,please delete it,notify us and do not copy,use,or disclose its content.
>> 
>> Towards A Sustainable Earth:Print Only When Necessary.Thank you.
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rigf_program mailing list
>> Rigf_program at aprigf.asia
>> https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Dr. Anja Kovacs
>> The Internet Democracy Project
>> 
>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>> www.internetdemocracy.in
> 
> 
> -- 
> e: dbu at donnybu.com | t: @donnybu | f: donnybu | w: donnybu.com | p: +62818930932
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130726/c1bb1df4/attachment.htm>

From joy at apc.org  Thu Jul 25 23:58:59 2013
From: joy at apc.org (joy)
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 15:58:59 +1200
Subject: [bestbits] IGF in Indonesia cancelled?
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHD4D6=a-5g8KHUyNa51FjM2HGDp+YSZC8UZzDHBBCU56g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJqNAHD4D6=a-5g8KHUyNa51FjM2HGDp+YSZC8UZzDHBBCU56g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <51F1F403.4080100@apc.org>


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
 
Hi Anja - likewise I have heard rumours but nothing confirmed until this.
I suggest we seek an official response from the Secretariat. It may yet
be that alternative sources of funding are found, but we should seek a
response and some kind of confirmation as soon as possible.
I'm happy to write to Chengatai - has anyone else already done so?
Joy

On 26/07/2013 3:45 p.m., Anja Kovacs wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> After having heard rumours swirling for a while now, I was very sad to
receive the message below via an AP IGF email list. Looks like the
Indonesia IGF, at least for now, stands cancelled. Anyone here knows more?
>
> Best,
> Anja
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)* <TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg <mailto:TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg>>
> Date: 26 July 2013 08:50
> Subject: [Rigf_program] IGF in Indonesia cancelled
> To: "program at aprigf.asia <mailto:program at aprigf.asia>"
<program at aprigf.asia <mailto:program at aprigf.asia>>
>
>
> Folks,
>
> This is sad but official: the Indonesian organizers have cancelled the
IGF. The announcement was made by the chair of the organizing committee
(a businessman) after a meeting with the minister and the civil society
group.
>
> There is a news report in Bahasa Indonesia at
http://inet.detik.com/read/2013/07/25/135130/2314218/328/kurang-dana-forum-internet-dunia-batal-digelar-di-bali. 
Use Google translate and you will be able to read.
>
> I had met the civil society organizers just this week. They were
asking for possible tips on fund raising. After exploring the options,
we concluded that they had approached most of the likely sponsors. Yes,
there were some possibilities they had overlooked but these were not many.
>
> According to the news report, out of the US$2.2M (Rp22 billion)
budget, they had raised US$900k. The Ministry had given US$250k. So they
had a shortfall of US$1.05M.
>
> Third party sources I checked (i.e. Not the Indonesians themselves)
said that one major cost was that the UN had asked for US$900k to fly
personnel and security apparatus to the meeting.
>
> Knowing a little of the inside story, I would say the situation is
more complex than one might have guessed. Next year is the election year
for Indonesia. So companies are asking: if I support you now but you do
not win, what happens? Then two weeks before the IGF, there is the APEC
meeting in the same venue. So the feeling that is Indonesia will be on
the world's stage at that time already. Meanwhile, the Minister of
Communication, whose ministry oversees the IGF, is under allegations of
corruption. It's one of those series of unfortunate events.
>
> Regards,
> Peng Hwa
>
> -------------------------
> CONFIDENTIALITY:This email is intended solely for the person(s) named
and may be confidential and/or privileged.If you are not the intended
recipient,please delete it,notify us and do not copy,use,or disclose its
content.
>
> Towards A Sustainable Earth:Print Only When Necessary.Thank you.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rigf_program mailing list
> Rigf_program at aprigf.asia <mailto:Rigf_program at aprigf.asia>
> https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program
>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
 
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJR8fQDAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqDvoH/jn0EXSLpFV8squ2YRdFEekE
FT2HfUBW+Hzxqdu0AGX9IESc6wMtIv+wGTP1z2idoUh/Iwi3eVHnTqepJdVriCTe
i1IYdzv7VdEzRNUO/3p28GO91W6ZFUZQaTszgieZbv8LRuKg5u74c8Oj9tHEMWuO
099u53rUHtNZJPmLPBpcT11gspjfEXtuY8Kt5vMY4Q7xAPnoPmF0nmVFVfy8SKo2
inKdshdIChMGxtoT6Dn/EQMVdem5pY9hWReRIVxJjjTLYGSl+0jvJbInOvVCs2Xl
STgxKss6CBGkqprqg4ljU498EG3rXcZUOmfPCEnj2RlPn3XwzA0KD5VtVeMxPW0=
=MJA5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130726/ce8f5ac7/attachment.htm>

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Fri Jul 26 00:02:33 2013
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 09:32:33 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] IGF in Indonesia cancelled?
In-Reply-To: <51F1F403.4080100@apc.org>
References: <CAJqNAHD4D6=a-5g8KHUyNa51FjM2HGDp+YSZC8UZzDHBBCU56g@mail.gmail.com>
	<51F1F403.4080100@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHAf-LN3E3Sj82gcWhQ+jQOBRsuZ-Vjz6oBaSue23iiZ5Q@mail.gmail.com>

That might be a good idea, Joy.

Donny, do you think people writing in could help in any way? Or are there
other things we could? Do you know of any options that are still being
pursued and that could perhaps be helped by a little public pressure?


On 26 July 2013 09:28, joy <joy at apc.org> wrote:

>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi Anja - likewise I have heard rumours but nothing confirmed until this.
> I suggest we seek an official response from the Secretariat. It may yet be
> that alternative sources of funding are found, but we should seek a
> response and some kind of confirmation as soon as possible.
> I'm happy to write to Chengatai - has anyone else already done so?
> Joy
>
>
> On 26/07/2013 3:45 p.m., Anja Kovacs wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > After having heard rumours swirling for a while now, I was very sad to
> receive the message below via an AP IGF email list. Looks like the
> Indonesia IGF, at least for now, stands cancelled. Anyone here knows more?
> >
> > Best,
> > Anja
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: *Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)* <TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg
> <mailto:TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg> <TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg>>
> > Date: 26 July 2013 08:50
> > Subject: [Rigf_program] IGF in Indonesia cancelled
> > To: "program at aprigf.asia <mailto:program at aprigf.asia><program at aprigf.asia>"
> <program at aprigf.asia <mailto:program at aprigf.asia> <program at aprigf.asia>>
> >
> >
> > Folks,
> >
> > This is sad but official: the Indonesian organizers have cancelled the
> IGF. The announcement was made by the chair of the organizing committee (a
> businessman) after a meeting with the minister and the civil society group.
> >
> > There is a news report in Bahasa Indonesia at
> http://inet.detik.com/read/2013/07/25/135130/2314218/328/kurang-dana-forum-internet-dunia-batal-digelar-di-bali.
> Use Google translate and you will be able to read.
> >
> > I had met the civil society organizers just this week. They were asking
> for possible tips on fund raising. After exploring the options, we
> concluded that they had approached most of the likely sponsors. Yes, there
> were some possibilities they had overlooked but these were not many.
> >
> > According to the news report, out of the US$2.2M (Rp22 billion) budget,
> they had raised US$900k. The Ministry had given US$250k. So they had a
> shortfall of US$1.05M.
> >
> > Third party sources I checked (i.e. Not the Indonesians themselves) said
> that one major cost was that the UN had asked for US$900k to fly personnel
> and security apparatus to the meeting.
> >
> > Knowing a little of the inside story, I would say the situation is more
> complex than one might have guessed. Next year is the election year for
> Indonesia. So companies are asking: if I support you now but you do not
> win, what happens? Then two weeks before the IGF, there is the APEC meeting
> in the same venue. So the feeling that is Indonesia will be on the world's
> stage at that time already. Meanwhile, the Minister of Communication, whose
> ministry oversees the IGF, is under allegations of corruption. It's one of
> those series of unfortunate events.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Peng Hwa
> >
> > -------------------------
>
> > CONFIDENTIALITY:This email is intended solely for the person(s) named
> and may be confidential and/or privileged.If you are not the intended
> recipient,please delete it,notify us and do not copy,use,or disclose its
> content.
> >
> > Towards A Sustainable Earth:Print Only When Necessary.Thank you.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rigf_program mailing list
> > Rigf_program at aprigf.asia <mailto:Rigf_program at aprigf.asia><Rigf_program at aprigf.asia>
>
> > https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Dr. Anja Kovacs
> > The Internet Democracy Project
> >
> > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> > www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/><http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJR8fQDAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqDvoH/jn0EXSLpFV8squ2YRdFEekE
> FT2HfUBW+Hzxqdu0AGX9IESc6wMtIv+wGTP1z2idoUh/Iwi3eVHnTqepJdVriCTe
> i1IYdzv7VdEzRNUO/3p28GO91W6ZFUZQaTszgieZbv8LRuKg5u74c8Oj9tHEMWuO
> 099u53rUHtNZJPmLPBpcT11gspjfEXtuY8Kt5vMY4Q7xAPnoPmF0nmVFVfy8SKo2
> inKdshdIChMGxtoT6Dn/EQMVdem5pY9hWReRIVxJjjTLYGSl+0jvJbInOvVCs2Xl
> STgxKss6CBGkqprqg4ljU498EG3rXcZUOmfPCEnj2RlPn3XwzA0KD5VtVeMxPW0=
> =MJA5
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>


-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130726/3fbac902/attachment.htm>

From jam at globalilluminators.org  Mon Jul  8 08:43:49 2013
From: jam at globalilluminators.org (jam at globalilluminators.org)
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 07:43:49 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits steering group
In-Reply-To: <51DA674C.5060305@ciroap.org>
References: <51DA674C.5060305@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <20130708074349.glgjfwhkw00kccw8@webmail.opentransfer.com>

Dear Jeremy and Steering group,

      I am glad to know this institutionalization and it shows that we  
are moving ahead with a good pace and only this way we can have a  
positive impact on society. I highly appreciate the willingness of  
group to accept this responsibility and I extend my positive support  
for the group. I hope this institutionalization will improve our  
effectiveness and efficiency.

Good Luck :-)

Regards
-- 
Farooq Ahmed Jam
Executive Director
Global Illuminators
Contact: +60102546571
E-mail:jam at globalilluminators.org
Weblink: www.globalilluminators.org


Quoting Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>:

> Best Bits came into being as a very loose, grassroots coalition, and
> this has worked very well.  At the same time, it has now reached a point
> of maturity (and influence) where the benefits of institutionalising it
> a bit more strongly would probably outweigh the risks of doing so.
>
> To this end, a few volunteers have come (or been prodded!) forward to
> serve as an initial steering group.  Since we don't already have a
> democratic procedure for selecting such a steering group, we haven't
> tried to invent one.  Rather, it will be the steering group itself that
> is responsible for recommending such a procedure for the rest of us to
> adopt.
>
> So, inevitably arbitrarily, the initial group will include myself and
> Andrew Puddephatt (for continuity, since we have been loosely
> coordinating to date), and to fill out the geographical balance Anja
> Kovacs, Deborah Brown, Joana Varon and Nnenna Nwakanma.
>
> The initial steering group will be responsible for recommending a
> process for making future such appointments, will distribute the few
> organisational tasks between themselves, may come up with some ideas on
> strategy and fundraising for the rest of us to consider, and can help
> mediate disputes if there are any.
>
> So please let's thank them for coming forward and volunteering their
> time.  Equally, thanks to everyone else who has contributed, and who
> continues to do so - your help is also greatly valued.
>
> --
>
> *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.
>
>



From dbu at donnybu.com  Fri Jul 26 00:08:38 2013
From: dbu at donnybu.com (Donny B.U.)
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 11:08:38 +0700
Subject: [bestbits] IGF in Indonesia cancelled?
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHAf-LN3E3Sj82gcWhQ+jQOBRsuZ-Vjz6oBaSue23iiZ5Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJqNAHD4D6=a-5g8KHUyNa51FjM2HGDp+YSZC8UZzDHBBCU56g@mail.gmail.com>
	<51F1F403.4080100@apc.org>
	<CAJqNAHAf-LN3E3Sj82gcWhQ+jQOBRsuZ-Vjz6oBaSue23iiZ5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJOH5-xvDBBiMdX=xsE30a6xfcjaZmP0jUMWVwzt7zixSbWO6w@mail.gmail.com>

we are now having very intensive coordination and communication with
chengetai.
we lack of funds, and now trying to get money from globally.

 actually there's a lot of story behind this preparation it self.
especially since the resource mobilization (fundraising) held by
multistakeholders, and very hard to get fully funded by the government


-dbu-

On Friday, July 26, 2013, Anja Kovacs wrote:

> That might be a good idea, Joy.
>
> Donny, do you think people writing in could help in any way? Or are there
> other things we could? Do you know of any options that are still being
> pursued and that could perhaps be helped by a little public pressure?
>
>
> On 26 July 2013 09:28, joy <joy at apc.org> wrote:
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi Anja - likewise I have heard rumours but nothing confirmed until this.
> I suggest we seek an official response from the Secretariat. It may yet be
> that alternative sources of funding are found, but we should seek a
> response and some kind of confirmation as soon as possible.
> I'm happy to write to Chengatai - has anyone else already done so?
> Joy
>
>
> On 26/07/2013 3:45 p.m., Anja Kovacs wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > After having heard rumours swirling for a while now, I was very sad to
> receive the message below via an AP IGF email list. Looks like the
> Indonesia IGF, at least for now, stands cancelled. Anyone here knows more?
> >
> > Best,
> > Anja
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: *Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)* <TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg
> <mailto:TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg>>
> > Date: 26 July 2013 08:50
> > Subject: [Rigf_program] IGF in Indonesia cancelled
> > To: "program at aprigf.asia <mailto:program at aprigf.asia>" <
> program at aprigf.asia <mailto:program at aprigf.asia>>
> >
> >
> > Folks,
> >
> > This is sad but official: the Indonesian organizers have cancelled the
> IGF. The announcement was made by the chair of the organizing committee (a
> businessman) after a meeting with the minister and the civil society group.
> >
> > There is a news report in Bahasa Indonesia at
> http://inet.detik.com/read/2013/07/25/135130/2314218/328/kurang-dana-forum-internet-dunia-batal-digelar-di-bali.
> Use Google translate and you will be able to read.
> >
> > I had met the civil society organizers just this week. They were asking
> for possible tips on fund raising. After exploring the options, we
> concluded that they had approached most of the likely sponsors. Yes, there
> were some possibilities they had overlooked but these were not many.
> >
> > According to the news report, out of the US$2.2M (Rp22 billion) budget,
> they had raised US$900k. The Ministry had given US$250k. So they had a
> shortfall of US$1.05M.
> >
> > Third party sources I checked (i.e. Not the Indonesians themselves) said
> that one major cost was that the UN had asked for US$900k to fly personnel
> and security apparatus to the meeting.
> >
> > Knowing a little of the inside story, I would say the situation is more
> complex than one might have guessed. Next year is the election year for
> Indonesia. So companies are asking: if I support you now but you do not
> win, what happens? Then two weeks before the IGF, there is the APEC meeting
> in the same venue. So the feeling that is Indonesia will be on the world's
> stage at that time already. Meanwhile, the Minister of Communication, whose
> ministry oversees the IGF, is under allegations of corruption. It's one of
> those series of unfortunate events.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Peng Hwa
> >
> > -------------------------
>
> > CONFIDENTIALITY:This email is intended solely for the person(s) named
> and may be confidential and/or privileged.If you are not the intended
> recipient,please delete it,notify us and do not copy,use,or disclose its
> content.
> >
> > Towards A Sustainable Earth:Print Only When Necessary.Thank you.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rigf_program mailing list
> >
>
>

-- 
e: dbu at donnybu.com | t: @donnybu | f: donnybu | w: donnybu.com | p:
+62818930932
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130726/de00d0c2/attachment.htm>

From dbudonnybu at gmail.com  Thu Jul 25 23:51:16 2013
From: dbudonnybu at gmail.com (donny b.u.)
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 03:51:16 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] IGF in Indonesia cancelled?
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHD4D6=a-5g8KHUyNa51FjM2HGDp+YSZC8UZzDHBBCU56g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJqNAHD4D6=a-5g8KHUyNa51FjM2HGDp+YSZC8UZzDHBBCU56g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <230595068-1374810678-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1718548216-@b12.c1.bise3.blackberry>

Hi, I'm part of the preparation committee of IGF2013, from civil society sector. Since the committee, called ID-IGF, is coming from multi-stakeholders.

Actually, we haven't received copy of gov letter to UN regarding to this. Meaning, no official cancelation-decision have been made, yet.

I will be happy to give any information needed.

Regards,

-dbu-

e: dbu at donnybu.com | t: @donnybu | f: donnybu | w: donnybu.com | p: +62818930932

-----Original Message-----
From: Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in>
Sender: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 09:15:24 
To: &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,<bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: [bestbits] IGF in Indonesia cancelled?

Dear all,

After having heard rumours swirling for a while now, I was very sad to
receive the message below via an AP IGF email list. Looks like the
Indonesia IGF, at least for now, stands cancelled. Anyone here knows more?

Best,
Anja

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) <TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg>
Date: 26 July 2013 08:50
Subject: [Rigf_program] IGF in Indonesia cancelled
To: "program at aprigf.asia" <program at aprigf.asia>


   Folks,

 This is sad but official: the Indonesian organizers have cancelled the
IGF. The announcement was made by the chair of the organizing committee (a
businessman) after a meeting with the minister and the civil society group.

 There is a news report in Bahasa Indonesia at
http://inet.detik.com/read/2013/07/25/135130/2314218/328/kurang-dana-forum-internet-dunia-batal-digelar-di-bali.
 Use Google translate and you will be able to read.

 I had met the civil society organizers just this week. They were asking
for possible tips on fund raising. After exploring the options, we
concluded that they had approached most of the likely sponsors. Yes, there
were some possibilities they had overlooked but these were not many.

 According to the news report, out of the US$2.2M (Rp22 billion) budget,
they had raised US$900k. The Ministry had given US$250k. So they had a
shortfall of US$1.05M.

 Third party sources I checked (i.e. Not the Indonesians themselves) said
that one major cost was that the UN had asked for US$900k to fly personnel
and security apparatus to the meeting.

 Knowing a little of the inside story, I would say the situation is more
complex than one might have guessed. Next year is the election year for
Indonesia. So companies are asking: if I support you now but you do not
win, what happens? Then two weeks before the IGF, there is the APEC meeting
in the same venue. So the feeling that is Indonesia will be on the world's
stage at that time already. Meanwhile, the Minister of Communication, whose
ministry oversees the IGF, is under allegations of corruption. It's one of
those series of unfortunate events.

 Regards,
Peng Hwa

------------------------------
CONFIDENTIALITY:This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and
may be confidential and/or privileged.If you are not the intended
recipient,please delete it,notify us and do not copy,use,or disclose its
content.

Towards A Sustainable Earth:Print Only When Necessary.Thank you.

_______________________________________________
Rigf_program mailing list
Rigf_program at aprigf.asia
https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program




-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130726/9fe84810/attachment.htm>

From bkmitra at gmail.com  Fri Jul 26 00:12:17 2013
From: bkmitra at gmail.com (Bijoy Mitra)
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 04:12:17 -0000
Subject: [bestbits] IGF in Indonesia cancelled?
In-Reply-To: 51F1F403.4080100@apc.org
References: <CAJqNAHD4D6=a-5g8KHUyNa51FjM2HGDp+YSZC8UZzDHBBCU56g@mail.gmail.com>
 <51F1F403.4080100@apc.org>
Message-ID: <6639186712682845269@unknownmsgid>

  Dear Colleague,
I agreeing, we should get clarifications from Secretiate. Regards _.
B.K.Mitra
------------------------------
*From:* "joy" <joy at apc.org>
*To:* "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
*Sent:* July 26, 2013 9:29 AM
*Subject:* Re: [bestbits] IGF in Indonesia cancelled?


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Anja - likewise I have heard rumours but nothing confirmed until this.
I suggest we seek an official response from the Secretariat. It may yet be
that alternative sources of funding are found, but we should seek a
response and some kind of confirmation as soon as possible.
I'm happy to write to Chengatai - has anyone else already done so?
Joy

On 26/07/2013 3:45 p.m., Anja Kovacs wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> After having heard rumours swirling for a while now, I was very sad to
receive the message below via an AP IGF email list. Looks like the
Indonesia IGF, at least for now, stands cancelled. Anyone here knows more?
>
> Best,
> Anja
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)* <TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg <mailto:TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg><TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg>
>
> Date: 26 July 2013 08:50
> Subject: [Rigf_program] IGF in Indonesia cancelled
> To: "program at aprigf.asia <mailto:program at aprigf.asia><program at aprigf.asia>"
<program at aprigf.asia <mailto:program at aprigf.asia> <program at aprigf.asia>>
>
>
> Folks,
>
> This is sad but official: the Indonesian organizers have cancelled the
IGF. The announcement was made by the chair of the organizing committee (a
businessman) after a meeting with the minister and the civil society group.
>
> There is a news report in Bahasa Indonesia at
http://inet.detik.com/read/2013/07/25/135130/2314218/328/kurang-dana-forum-internet-dunia-batal-digelar-di-bali.
Use Google translate and you will be able to read.
>
> I had met the civil society organizers just this week. They were asking
for possible tips on fund raising. After exploring the options, we
concluded that they had approached most of the likely sponsors. Yes, there
were some possibilities they had overlooked but these were not many.
>
> According to the news report, out of the US$2.2M (Rp22 billion) budget,
they had raised US$900k. The Ministry had given US$250k. So they had a
shortfall of US$1.05M.
>
> Third party sources I checked (i.e. Not the Indonesians themselves) said
that one major cost was that the UN had asked for US$900k to fly personnel
and security apparatus to the meeting.
>
> Knowing a little of the inside story, I would say the situation is more
complex than one might have guessed. Next year is the election year for
Indonesia. So companies are asking: if I support you now but you do not
win, what happens? Then two weeks before the IGF, there is the APEC meeting
in the same venue. So the feeling that is Indonesia will be on the world's
stage at that time already. Meanwhile, the Minister of Communication, whose
ministry oversees the IGF, is under allegations of corruption. It's one of
those series of unfortunate events.
>
> Regards,
> Peng Hwa
>
> -------------------------
> CONFIDENTIALITY:This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and
may be confidential and/or privileged.If you are not the intended
recipient,please delete it,notify us and do not copy,use,or disclose its
content.
>
> Towards A Sustainable Earth:Print Only When Necessary.Thank you.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rigf_program mailing list
> Rigf_program at aprigf.asia <mailto:Rigf_program at aprigf.asia><Rigf_program at aprigf.asia>
> https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program
>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/><http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJR8fQDAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqDvoH/jn0EXSLpFV8squ2YRdFEekE
FT2HfUBW+Hzxqdu0AGX9IESc6wMtIv+wGTP1z2idoUh/Iwi3eVHnTqepJdVriCTe
i1IYdzv7VdEzRNUO/3p28GO91W6ZFUZQaTszgieZbv8LRuKg5u74c8Oj9tHEMWuO
099u53rUHtNZJPmLPBpcT11gspjfEXtuY8Kt5vMY4Q7xAPnoPmF0nmVFVfy8SKo2
inKdshdIChMGxtoT6Dn/EQMVdem5pY9hWReRIVxJjjTLYGSl+0jvJbInOvVCs2Xl
STgxKss6CBGkqprqg4ljU498EG3rXcZUOmfPCEnj2RlPn3XwzA0KD5VtVeMxPW0=
=MJA5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130726/a7688572/attachment.htm>

From deborah at accessnow.org  Fri Jul 26 00:29:00 2013
From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown)
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 00:29:00 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Re: Call for comment: civil society letter to PCLOB
 re: human rights impacts of NSA surveillance of 'non-US persons'
In-Reply-To: <51F18DD2.2090303@eff.org>
References: <51EF2902.1080702@cdt.org>
	<51EF316B.4030306@itforchange.net>
	<94BC60FF-AF14-46B8-B16D-6B6D01C40522@gmail.com>
	<51EF81D5.9090802@itforchange.net>
	<51EFB97F.9090702@apc.org>
	<51EFE4EF.40403@eff.org>
	<CAJqNAHCj0EnRFyPBpmdO7MDA-fSZMPDzeO-wSOj+68njYG=sDA@mail.gmail.com>
	<51F00B97.20509@itforchange.net>
	<001501ce88d9$68801bb0$39805310$@gmail.com>
	<CAJqNAHBcr=S-bPYGCbiaKbmfmK7MOspmeeBwaVOEn2SiSMCHtQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<51F10F40.1010800@apc.org>
	<51F18DD2.2090303@eff.org>
Message-ID: <CALU7RQbkjGtX51gye1dHMy9Foa+GzrYX5LVXHYdpcUhEL36vNQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

Please find the edited PCLOB letter posted on the Best Bits website here:
http://bestbits.net/pclob/

As Emma noted in her initial email the goal was to have a final draft of
the letter text available to circulate during the day on Thursday, so we're
just a little behind schedule. Hopefully you will find that this letter
reflects the suggestions on this thread and addresses the task at hand.

*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.

The deadline for submission is 1 August, so I think the goal is to close
the letter for signatures by end of 31 July. Emma or Matthew, can you
please confirm? This leaves just under a week for sign on, which hopefully
is a realistic timeframe.

As was mentioned earlier, international groups are welcome to submit their
own letters as well, and Anriette made an excellent suggestion that Best
Bits may want to prepare for other governments. Is anyone interested in
taking the lead on this?

Finally, since we have a week lead up before submitting this comment to
PCLOB, should we be trying to get some international press coverage? It may
be ambitious, but it could be valuable for those who support the letter to
reach out to media in the countries where they are based with coordinated
messaging. What do others think?

Best regards,
Deborah


On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> wrote:

> Hi Anriette,
>
> I'm out of the office and I'm unware about alll the nuances of our
> position for this submission to the PCLOB. My colleague, Danny O'brien,
> EFF International Director, is the one who is writing the international
> angle of this particular EFF submission to the PCLOB.  I'm cc-ing him to
> the list. He is aware about the Best Bits coalition initiative.
>
> Danny: The letter is here in case you have a little time to look at it.
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/17BWIev_DybbML3ObDCORkW83THrNGuJrHlV5sQLdYA0/edit?usp=sharing
>
> All the best,
>
> Katitza
>
> On 7/25/13 7:42 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> > Hi all
> >
> > I was happy with Anja's reformulation and I share her concerns about the
> > risks attached to a global agreement. And great work to the main
> > drafters.. I should have said this before. Just one other thought.
> >
> > We could, theoretically, keep the letter short and concise, and add as
> > an addendum a document that raises broader concerns. But hopefully this
> > will not be necessary.
> >
> > We should try to remember that we are acting on multiple fronts and
> > therefore we don't have to fit all our concerns and demands into every
> > single intervention.
> >
> > I would like to hear from Katitza whether, in the light of EFF's
> > position on the PCLOB, whether she thinks this letter is a bad idea? Not
> > that I think we should not send it, I would just like to have a better
> > understanding of EFF's position on the Best Bits letter.
> >
> > And then another thought. Should Best Bits not also draft letters to
> > other governments on our concerns. Anja mentions India. South Africa
> > also has VERY problematic legislation around monitoring and interception.
> >
> > The list goes on.
> >
> > Anriette
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 25/07/2013 13:29, Anja Kovacs wrote:
> >> Just to clarify my position vis-a-vis Parminder's comments:
> >>
> >> In theory I do think that a strong global framework on privacy
> protections
> >> could contribute to resolving these issues in a significant manner.
> >> Unfortunately, in practice I am not sure how feasible this is at
> present.
> >> As they are necessarily based on compromise, global agreements tend to
> >> congeal around the lowest common denominators. At the moment, I am
> afraid
> >> these will set the bar too low, not in the least because many of the
> >> democracies that one would hope would push for higher standards at the
> >> moment seem to be setting the bar too low domestically, including where
> >> privacy is concerned. This is true not only of the US but also of, for
> >> example, India. In these circumstances, I am worried that a global
> >> agreement will be used first and foremost to cement sovereignty over the
> >> Internet, rather than to defend the rights of Internet users around the
> >> world, something I would not consider a gain. My reformulation of
> >> Anriette's formulation was simply meant to foreground that what we are
> >> asking for is the implementation of existing human rights, not to stop
> us
> >> from creating a debate on this issue. I continue to think, however, that
> >> the best way countries can flag that the time is genuinely ripe for a
> >> global framework is by demonstrating a clear commitment to human rights
> in
> >> these areas domestically. It is countries that would like to see global
> >> coordination on a wide range of issues beyond privacy that might in fact
> >> have the greatest stake in doing so.
> >>
> >> My 2 cents.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Anja
> >>
> >>
> >> On 25 July 2013 07:20, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I agree with Parminder that the letter lacks a forward looking element
> >>> which would deal with the most fundamental issue--the development of an
> >>> integrated (if to a very limited degree multi-polar) ubiquitous
> >>> multi-stakeholder--States+private sector+technical community(?))
> >>> surveillance State. This is  global in nature and will require some
> sort of
> >>> global response and working through this in anticipation of the IGF
> should
> >>> be I think, our major current task.****
> >>>
> >>> ** **
> >>>
> >>> However, I think the letter goes a very considerable degree beyond
> earlier
> >>> such position statements from major (particularly US) CS actors in
> >>> recognizing the legitimate concerns/significance of "foreigners" in the
> >>> current US discussion and on that basis I think it should be supported
> as
> >>> amended.****
> >>>
> >>> ** **
> >>>
> >>> M****
> >>>
> >>> ** **
> >>>
> >>> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:
> >>> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *parminder
> >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 24, 2013 10:45 PM
> >>> *Cc:* &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
> >>>
> >>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Re: Call for comment: civil society letter to
> >>> PCLOB re: human rights impacts of NSA surveillance of 'non-US
> persons'****
> >>>
> >>> ** **
> >>>
> >>> ** **
> >>>
> >>> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 08:23 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:****
> >>>
> >>> I also liked Anriette's language on the "development of a global
> framework
> >>> for protection", though I would suggest we slightly edit it to read
> "the
> >>> development of a global framework for the implementation of
> protections" or
> >>> something along those lines. The reason is that we already have a
> framework
> >>> for protections, ie the human rights framework, but that governments
> seem
> >>> to be happy to disregard this when it comes to surveillance.  ****
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> But so does the US have in place all kinds of higher level principles
> that
> >>> do cover such issues; then why does the letter ask for new legal
> frameworks
> >>> from the US government? As the current frameworks in the US have been
> found
> >>> inadequate, so could it be held true for the global human rights regime
> >>> (arguably truer for the latter) - because it is an undeniable fact -
> >>> although often selectively denied - that the digital space produces
> >>> entirely new realities, which are also unprecedentedly global in
> nature....
> >>> More on US versus UN frameworks below...
> >>>
> >>> ****
> >>>
> >>> ** **
> >>>
> >>> Until governments worldwide give considerably greater evidence of their
> >>> willingness to make the protection of human rights an integral
> component of
> >>> their surveillance plans, I do not think that it is appropriate for
> civil
> >>> society to push for a more comprehensive global framework on security
> >>> issues in general. ****
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 'Global framework on security? Whoever asked for one..... Are we asking
> >>> the US government for new a framework on security, I thought we were
> asking
> >>> for a new framework on privacy protection.... so also for the UN.
> Global
> >>> framework for privacy protection, not for security.
> >>>
> >>> So, pardon my use of ironic language to make my point, apparently we
> can
> >>> ask the US to develop new legal frameworks, and trust that they would
> not
> >>> come up with something worse then they have at present. However, we
> cannot
> >>> at all trust the UN to not come up with legal frameworks worse than
> what we
> >>> have at present, and therefore we should not ever even ask them for the
> >>> same thing that we are ready to ask of the US.
> >>>
> >>> To me, it boils down to trusting the US government to run the world
> more
> >>> than we can trust the UN... This is something I am unwilling to do. If
> even
> >>> Snowden did not teach us the right lesson, perhaps nothing ever would.
> I am
> >>> afraid that all this is of a piece with a widespread tendency to trust
> US
> >>> more than the UN with the trusteeship of the global Internet. I
> obviously
> >>> cannot accept that. As I said in my first posting, it is a well
> written and
> >>> argued letter, but the problem with it is not what it says, but with
> what
> >>> it does not.
> >>>
> >>> I am not against focussing a letter on a particular opportunity and
> end.
> >>> However,  (1) PCLOB is not the wrong agency to advice the US
> government to
> >>> consider global legal frameworks on privacy protection, especially now
> when
> >>> Snowden disclosures tell us what other countries could also be doing,
> >>> including to the US citizens, (2) I did want to have a discussion here
> on
> >>> whether the group considers global frameworks as also a needed remedy
> for
> >>> the problem in focus. I am unable to see how adding a line or two on
> global
> >>> frameworks would throw the letter out of focus.....
> >>>
> >>> parminder
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ****
> >>>
> >>> ** **
> >>>
> >>> On the issue of what constitutes a "Best Bits statement", the points
> made
> >>> here are important and we do indeed need greater clarity on this. At
> the
> >>> same time, it's also important to keep in mind that once statements are
> >>> shared with the wider world, maintaining a distinction between a
> statement
> >>> supported by all (though even on the Baku one I think we had one
> abstention
> >>> by the way, and in any case the Baku group was fairly small) and a
> >>> statement shared and promoted through the Best Bits platform might be
> >>> difficult - even if we are careful to make these distinctions, the
> wider
> >>> world might not.
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps we should therefore simply go for a model in which ALL
> statements
> >>> are considered to be in the latter category, and focus our attention on
> >>> coming up with criteria for which type of statements are appropriate
> (or
> >>> not) for Best Bits instead? I am worried that sending out mixed
> messages
> >>> will only undermine the effectiveness of the advocacy efforts that go
> >>> through Best Bits, though I'd of course be very happy to hear other
> >>> possible solutions to that conundrum as well.****
> >>>
> >>> Thanks and best,
> >>> Anja****
> >>>
> >>> ** **
> >>>
> >>> On 24 July 2013 20:00, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> wrote:****
> >>>
> >>> Dear all,
> >>>
> >>> It would be good to answer the consultation without voicing support for
> >>> a PCLOB investigation. In EFF, we are of the opinion that the PCLOB
> >>> isn't the right place for an investigation.
> >>>
> >>> PCLOB is weak institution, so EFF concern is that its weaknesses foster
> >>> low, expectation politics/rhetoric.  EFF want a Church Committee,
> >>> investigation or at least an existing committee with congress or at
> >>> least an existing committee with congressional subpoena power to
> >>> investigate.
> >>>
> >>> We have three or four blog posts with arguments about why we need
> >>> a special investigatory committee, and at the very least extant
> >>> committees, instead of the PCLOB to investigate.
> >>>
> >>> For more information on our asks please check out:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/why-special-congressional-committee-must-be-created-investigate-nsas
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/response-nsa-we-need-new-church-commission-and-we-need-it-now
> >>> ****
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 7/24/13 7:24 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> >>>> Dear all
> >>>>
> >>>> My view on the letter is to keep it focused on the Call for Comment by
> >>>> the US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board regarding the US
> >>>> government's surveillance programs under the PATRIOT Act and FISA.  I
> >>>> think the letter is already too long.
> >>>>
> >>>> The more focused and to the point (and brief) our comments are, the
> more
> >>>> likely they will be discussed, forwarded, understood, etc. etc..
> >>>> However, I do have a proposal for how to include a reference global
> >>>> legal frameworks that does not change the basic character and purpose
> of
> >>>> the letter as one that addresses an official US body.
> >>>>
> >>>> This letter makes three key points:
> >>>>
> >>>> * Government surveillance must be subject to a strong legal framework
> >>>> that is transparent, necessary to achieve a legitimate goal and
> >>>> proportionate to that goal, authorized by a competent judicial
> >>>> authority, and subject to public oversight.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> *Surveillance of communications conducted under Section 702 must meets
> >>>> international human rights standards for surveillance.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> * In the context of online communications, the privacy and liberty****
> >>>> rights of non-U.S. persons outside the U.S. should bewithin the
> PCLOB's*
> >>> ***
> >>>
> >>>> statutory mandate.
> >>>>
> >>>> We could add something along the following lines:
> >>>>
> >>>> We believe findings and recommendations developed by the PCLOB that
> >>>> ensure that protection of rights of US and non US persons in the
> context
> >>>> of government surveillance would not only be consistent with the US
> >>>> government's frequently stated commitment to 'freedom online'; it
> would
> >>>> also constitute a valuable contribution to the eventual development
> of a
> >>>> global framework for such protections.
> >>>>
> >>>> Btw, this last sentence (quoted below) still uses the term
> 'Americans'.
> >>>> Please change. I also think that it is best to say 'findings and
> >>>> recommendations' rather than 'recommendations and findings' as the
> >>>> former is likely to flow from the latter.
> >>>>
> >>>> "We urge you to make recommendations and findings designed to protect
> >>>> the human rights not only of Americans, but also of non-U.S. persons
> who
> >>>> live outside the United States."
> >>>>
> >>>> Ciao
> >>>>
> >>>> Anriette
> >>>>
> >>>> On 24/07/2013 09:27, parminder wrote:
> >>>>> Thanks to Gene and Jeremy for their responses..
> >>>>>
> >>>>> However, I see no argument here why the letter cannot ask US to also
> >>>>> engage in developing global norms and agreements with regard to
> >>>>> safeguards against invasion of privacy in name of security, and then
> >>>>> adhering to these norms/ agreements. After all, US is a prime party
> to
> >>>>> be appealed to if we are to move towards such global norms/
> >>>>> agreements, and it remains my firm belief that this thing can really
> >>>>> be addressed only through global arrangements,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (Also, shouldnt US groups and US citizens also be concerned about
> >>>>> invasion of their privacy by non US government agents.:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> About Jeremy's arugment against seeking 'global legal frameworks'
> >>>>> being that we ourselves are yet to propose anything concrete, does
> the
> >>>>> proposed letter not ask the US government to develop new 'strong
> legal
> >>>>> frameworks' without actually suggesting their precise forms.. Why
> cant
> >>>>> we do the same for the global level even when we yet dont have our
> >>>>> concrete institutional proposals ready (would we ever be :) )... At
> >>>>> the domestic level of US gov, the letter simply asserts the need, at
> >>>>> the principles level, of privacy protection through 'strong legal
> >>>>> framework'. We can ask the same for the global system, at the level
> of
> >>>>> principles.... Unless of course there is a difference of opinion here
> >>>>> about the principle of a global framework itself, in which case it is
> >>>>> precisely my point to discus it openly...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> parminder
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 07:34 AM, Gene Kimmelman wrote:
> >>>>>> I think Parminder raises some very important points.  I'd like to
> >>>>>> offer a quick observation and await other input:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1.  The question about how to refer to previous statements generated
> >>>>>> through some subgroup of BestBits is very legitimate; we may need a
> >>>>>> more precise description of the letter referred to and who the
> >>>>>> signatories were.  We still need to discuss at the next BestBits
> >>>>>> gathering what our rules of engagement and governance should be.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2.  I fully support the idea of initiating a discussion of what type
> >>>>>> of global legal framework (or maybe normative framework) we should
> be
> >>>>>> galvanizing around.  Maybe even a simple call for the UN to engage a
> >>>>>>  discussion with all stakeholders fully represented, to consider how
> >>>>>> best to enforce human rights charters and principles, would be a
> path
> >>>>>> forward?  Maybe others have a better suggestion, but I wouldn't want
> >>>>>> the "perfect" to stand in the way of the "good enough" for the
> >>>>>> purpose of registering broad CSO interest in a global discussion and
> >>>>>> global policy engagement.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 3.  Whether or not we can all agree on something related to the
> >>>>>> global legal framework, I also urge everyone to be pragmatic about
> >>>>>> the opportunity to register your views with the US-base PCLOB.  This
> >>>>>> is of course only one small piece of the legal struggle, but it is
> >>>>>> very important from a US NGO standpoint to expand the US debate
> >>>>>> beyond US citizens or residents.  The US needs global input to wake
> >>>>>> it up to its broader obligations.  This may  not be enough to change
> >>>>>> policy, but it is a critical enhancement to the US-based NGO
> advocacy
> >>>>>> that could have some impact on the US government.  So even if this
> is
> >>>>>> a flawed, partial solution, and should be connected to something
> >>>>>> related to broader global solution, I believe it could influence US
> >>>>>> policymakers.
> >>>>>> On Jul 23, 2013, at 9:44 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> >>>>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Generally a well written statement. However, it must be judged not
> >>>>>>> only for what it says but also what it does not... The statement
> >>>>>>> appeals to a US government agency to protect human rights of all
> >>>>>>> citizens of the world, especially non US citizens, which is very
> >>>>>>> well. It call for all security measures that the US  " must be
> >>>>>>> subject to a strong legal framework" meaning here just a US legal
> >>>>>>> framework.... I am not convinced that this constitutes an adequate
> >>>>>>> remedy. All security measures should be subject to a strong global
> >>>>>>> or international treaty/ legal framework as well.. That alone will
> >>>>>>> work in an environment where we are all continually immersed in a
> >>>>>>> (somewhat) globally seamless, or at least hyper-connected, digital
> >>>>>>> space.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So, my specific question is, what stops us, as a global civil
> >>>>>>> society group, from calling for a global/international legal
> >>>>>>> framework to ensuring that all security related (and other)
> actions,
> >>>>>>> of all states, including the US, are subject to a clear
> >>>>>>> international regime based on human rights, and any such regime
> >>>>>>> should have adequate enforcement capabilities.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Can we discuss this here...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> While once in a while we as a global civil society group can make
> >>>>>>> specific appeals to one government or the other, but I am unwilling
> >>>>>>> to convert US government to be 'the' key duty bearer and appellate
> >>>>>>> body for global justice. In doing this is a deeper politics, and
> >>>>>>> that is my principal objection to this statement - not to what the
> >>>>>>> statmement says, but what it does not. However, this problem can
> >>>>>>> easily be addressed if the statement includes an appeal for global
> >>>>>>> legal frameworks for the same purpose..... Are the framers of the
> >>>>>>> statement willing to consider this?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Another unconnected point, I often see statements that are signed
> by
> >>>>>>> various actors using the BestBits as a facilitating platform,
> >>>>>>> without them being developed and signed on the behalf of the
> >>>>>>> BestBits group/ coalition, then after being signed  propositioned
> as
> >>>>>>> BestBits statements. Recently I saw such a reference in the press,
> >>>>>>> about a statement that was never signed by the group as a whole
> >>>>>>> being called as a BestBits statement. This proposed letter also
> >>>>>>> refers to an earlier statement being of BestBits coalition whereas
> >>>>>>> it was never signed by the group as a whole...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> parminder
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 06:38 AM, Emma Llanso wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Dear all,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> As you may be aware, the US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight
> >>>>>>>> Board is accepting comments commentary regarding the US
> >>>>>>>> government's surveillance programs under the PATRIOT Act and FISA.
> >>>>>>>> (I've included some information about PCLOB below in case you're
> >>>>>>>> not familiar with this entity.)  I'd like to share with you a
> draft
> >>>>>>>> was put together by CDT, with feedback from a number of folks on
> >>>>>>>> this list, that focuses on the impact these programs have on the
> >>>>>>>> human rights of individuals outside the US:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/17BWIev_DybbML3ObDCORkW83THrNGuJrHlV5sQLdYA0/edit?usp=sharing
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> We feel that the draft text is at a point where it's ready to be
> >>>>>>>> shared with the broader Best Bits community for comment.  Please
> >>>>>>>> share any comments you have on the letter text with the whole
> list.
> >>>>>>>> (I will be traveling on Wednesday and so slow to respond to
> >>>>>>>> email.)  Ideally, we'd like to have a final draft of the letter
> >>>>>>>> text available to circulate during the day on Thursday, giving us
> >>>>>>>> about a week to solicit sign-on from as broad an array of groups
> as
> >>>>>>>> possible.  This is a very compressed timeframe, unfortunately, but
> >>>>>>>> the deadline for submitting comments is August 1st, so there is
> not
> >>>>>>>> much flexibility in the schedule.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The Best Bits interim steering committee has agreed to host the
> >>>>>>>> final letter text on the Best Bits website to facilitate sign-on
> >>>>>>>> once we've reached that point.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It's worth noting here that while a joint letter with broad
> >>>>>>>> international sign in is one way of getting the US government to
> >>>>>>>> consider the rights of non-US persons, so is flooding PCLOB with
> >>>>>>>> individual letters from international groups, so please feel free
> >>>>>>>> to adapt or build on to this letter and submit it separately. We
> >>>>>>>> intentionally did not make recommendations to PCLOB so as to
> garner
> >>>>>>>> broad sign on (more on that below), but individual letters are a
> >>>>>>>> good opportunity to make specific recommendations.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> *Background on the letter:*
> >>>>>>>> PCLOB will be preparing a report and is accepting comments
> >>>>>>>> <
> >>> http://www.regulations.gov/#%21documentDetail;D=PCLOB-2013-0005-0001>
> >>>>>>>> (with no limitations on who can submit comments) until August 1st.
> >>>>>>>> As many of you know, it's been an uphill battle to get any
> >>>>>>>> attention on this critical issue of extraterritorial impacts of
> the
> >>>>>>>> US surveillance programs. PCLOB hosted an open hearing on the NSA
> >>>>>>>> program earlier in July, and there was unfortunately only a single
> >>>>>>>> reference to the human rights of people other than US citizens
> >>>>>>>> during the entire hearing.  We think this comment process is one
> of
> >>>>>>>> the better opportunities that groups from outside the US will have
> >>>>>>>> in making their opinions about the US surveillance activities
> >>>>>>>> heard.  I'd highly encourage organizations and individuals to make
> >>>>>>>> their own comments into this process, in addition to considering
> >>>>>>>> signing this letter.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> As a final note, the letter intentionally does not lay out
> >>>>>>>> recommendations more specific than "take into consideration the
> >>>>>>>> human rights of individuals outside the US", for several reasons.
> >>>>>>>> First, it will likely be more difficult for a broad range of
> groups
> >>>>>>>> to sign onto something urging very specific legal or policy
> >>>>>>>> remedies.  Further, I wouldn't want to see a short, easily agreed
> >>>>>>>> set of recommendations (e.g. focusing on transparency) get
> >>>>>>>> interpreted to mean that those fixes are the only thing the US
> >>>>>>>> government needs to do to remedy the situation.  Transparency is
> an
> >>>>>>>> important initial step, but it's far from the only action needed
> >>>>>>>> here (a point CDT will be emphasizing in our individual comments
> to
> >>>>>>>> PCLOB).  Again, I'd strongly recommend groups file individual
> >>>>>>>> comments as well, particularly if you have specific
> recommendations
> >>>>>>>> and actions for the Board.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Looking forward to your comments,
> >>>>>>>> Emma
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> *PCLOB - WHAT IS IT?* -
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>
> https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/privacy-and-civil-liberties-oversight-board
> >>>>>>>> The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is an advisory
> body
> >>>>>>>> to assist the President and other senior Executive branch
> officials
> >>>>>>>> in ensuring that concerns with respect to privacy and civil
> >>>>>>>> liberties are appropriately considered in the implementation of
> all
> >>>>>>>> laws, regulations, and executive branch policies related to war
> >>>>>>>> against terrorism.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Recommended by the July 22, 2004, report of the National
> Commission
> >>>>>>>> on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, the Privacy and Civil
> >>>>>>>> Liberties Oversight Board was established by the Intelligence
> >>>>>>>> Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. It consists of five
> >>>>>>>> members appointed by and serving at the pleasure of the President.
> >>>>>>>> The Board is part of the White House Office within the Executive
> >>>>>>>> Office of the President and supported by an Executive Director and
> >>>>>>>> staff.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The Board advises the President and other senior executive branch
> >>>>>>>> officials to ensure that concerns with respect to privacy and
> civil
> >>>>>>>> liberties are appropriately considered in the implementation of
> all
> >>>>>>>> laws, regulations, and executive branch policies related to
> efforts
> >>>>>>>> to protect the Nation against terrorism. This includes advising on
> >>>>>>>> whether adequate guidelines, supervision, and oversight exist to
> >>>>>>>> protect these important legal rights of all Americans. In
> addition,
> >>>>>>>> the Board is specifically charged with responsibility for
> reviewing
> >>>>>>>> the terrorism information sharing practices of executive branch
> >>>>>>>> departments and agencies to determine whether guidelines designed
> >>>>>>>> to appropriately protect privacy and civil liberties are being
> >>>>>>>> followed, including those issued by the President on December 16,
> >>>>>>>> 2005. In the course of performing these functions within the
> >>>>>>>> executive branch, the Board seeks the views of private sector,
> >>>>>>>> non-profit and academic institutions, Members of Congress, and all
> >>>>>>>> other interested parties and individuals on these issues.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> This agency has published 13 articles
> >>>>>>>> <
> >>>
> https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/search?conditions%5Bagency_ids%5D%5B%5D=438&skip_results=1#advanced
> >>>>>>>> since 1994.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Emma J. Llansó
> >>>>>>>> Policy Counsel
> >>>>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology
> >>>>>>>> 1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100
> >>>>>>>> Washington, DC 20006
> >>>>>>>> 202-407-8818 | @cendemtech <https://twitter.com/#%21/CenDemTech>
> |
> >>>>>>>> @ellanso <https://twitter.com/#%21/ellanso>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>> --****
> >>>
> >>> Katitza Rodriguez
> >>> International Rights Director
> >>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> >>> katitza at eff.org
> >>> katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)
> >>>
> >>> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom
> >>> of speech since 1990****
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> >>> The Internet Democracy Project
> >>>
> >>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> >>> www.internetdemocracy.in****
> >>>
> >>> ** **
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
> Katitza Rodriguez
> International Rights Director
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> katitza at eff.org
> katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)
>
> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom
> of speech since 1990
>



-- 
Deborah Brown
Senior Policy Analyst
Access | AccessNow.org
E. deborah at accessnow.org
@deblebrown
PGP 0x5EB4727D
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130726/893d3217/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Jul 26 00:34:59 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 10:04:59 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] IGF Cancelled
In-Reply-To: <51F1F10A.7020703@ciroap.org>
References: <003901cdefe1$2263fa70$672bef50$@com> <CE180693.5CCCE%tphang@ntu.edu.sg> <CA+=oXB+GV1V38niRAhGHfO+WgpZTOBbkweyVSPu-RWgjh9kjYg@mail.gmail.com> <CB3ABCBF601D514CBC6CD9BCC99EC1F41C77693F0E@EXCHANGE31.staff.main.ntu.edu.sg> <51F1F10A.7020703@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <51F1FC73.4010709@itforchange.net>


On Friday 26 July 2013 09:16 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 26/07/13 11:31, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote:
>> According to third party sources I asked, ie not the Indonesians, one 
>> major item that added to the cost is that the UN had apparently asked 
>> for US$900k to fly personnel and security equipment for the event.
>
> Time to cut the UN apron strings.

Why sure, we can check with Google. They will be quite happy to run the 
global internet policy dialogue.... It is most astounding that after 
subverting and ditching the tradition of strictly public funding for 
policy spaces and activities, and adopting the neoliberal and 
anti-democratic (and fancy) multistakeholder funding model, now that it 
has collapsed one is to blame the public systems for it....

To repeat: this disaster occurred precisely because of cutting of the 
apron strings that policy space should always have tied to public funds 
and public systems. When Indonesian government said last year that it 
was unable to fund the IGF, it should not have been handed over to a 
private committee headed by a businessman. ... It should have been 
shifted to another country willing to host it.... We are participating 
in an absolute privatisation of governance and politics, and simply 
following the neolib agenda that represents the interests of the most 
powerful...

And this is indeed sheer 'power' - that those who are responsible for a 
'failure' can so conveniently blame others for it, and employ their own 
failure to further their cause....

And why should this be seen as a 'failure'. See it as an opportunity to 
completely do away with pulbic funded and pulbic systems supported 
public spaces... Lets go over completely to corporate funded policy 
spaces and policy making.... Why make these moves in such shifty 
cautious ways. So at least we will all know what is that we are 
contributing to building - what kind of society...

(By the way, right now we have a full fledged experiment of this kind - 
corporate run policy spaces - running in India, it shows the pattern and 
the larger design of certain ideologies and forces, and the extent to 
which they have been successful.)

parminder

(PS: This is a general response, not just to your email, Jeremy. And 
please do excuse my cynical language. These anti-democratic shifts are 
really disturbing.)
>
> -- 
>
> *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.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130726/6355805e/attachment.htm>

From joy at apc.org  Fri Jul 26 00:46:50 2013
From: joy at apc.org (joy)
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:46:50 +1200
Subject: [bestbits] IGF in Indonesia cancelled?
In-Reply-To: <6639186712682845269@unknownmsgid>
References: <CAJqNAHD4D6=a-5g8KHUyNa51FjM2HGDp+YSZC8UZzDHBBCU56g@mail.gmail.com> <51F1F403.4080100@apc.org> <6639186712682845269@unknownmsgid>
Message-ID: <51F1FF3A.3080509@apc.org>


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
 
One follow up - Anriette has last night been in touch with Chengatai who
advises there is no offcial word from the Indonesian government about
cancellation, but they have advised of a shortfall in funds and the IGF
secretariat is working with them to try to secure funds.
Apparently there will be or is a MAG meeting today and there may be a
more formal update soon.
That is all I know at present.
best
Joy



there is a MAG meeting today
On 26/07/2013 4:12 p.m., Bijoy Mitra wrote:
> Dear Colleague,
> I agreeing, we should get clarifications from Secretiate. Regards _.
B.K.Mitra
> -------------------------
> *From:* "joy" <joy at apc.org <mailto:joy at apc.org>>
> *To:* "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
> *Sent:* July 26, 2013 9:29 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] IGF in Indonesia cancelled?
>
>
> Hi Anja - likewise I have heard rumours but nothing confirmed until this.
> I suggest we seek an official response from the Secretariat. It may
yet be that alternative sources of funding are found, but we should seek
a response and some kind of confirmation as soon as possible.
> I'm happy to write to Chengatai - has anyone else already done so?
> Joy
>
> On 26/07/2013 3:45 p.m., Anja Kovacs wrote:
> > Dear all,
>
> > After having heard rumours swirling for a while now, I was very sad
to receive the message below via an AP IGF email list. Looks like the
Indonesia IGF, at least for now, stands cancelled. Anyone here knows more?
>
> > Best,
> > Anja
>
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: *Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)* <TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg
<mailto:TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg>>
> > Date: 26 July 2013 08:50
> > Subject: [Rigf_program] IGF in Indonesia cancelled
> > To: "program at aprigf.asia <mailto:program at aprigf.asia>"
<program at aprigf.asia <mailto:program at aprigf.asia>>
>
>
> > Folks,
>
> > This is sad but official: the Indonesian organizers have cancelled
the IGF. The announcement was made by the chair of the organizing
committee (a businessman) after a meeting with the minister and the
civil society group.
>
> > There is a news report in Bahasa Indonesia at
http://inet.detik.com/read/2013/07/25/135130/2314218/328/kurang-dana-forum-internet-dunia-batal-digelar-di-bali. 
Use Google translate and you will be able to read.
>
> > I had met the civil society organizers just this week. They were
asking for possible tips on fund raising. After exploring the options,
we concluded that they had approached most of the likely sponsors. Yes,
there were some possibilities they had overlooked but these were not many.
>
> > According to the news report, out of the US$2.2M (Rp22 billion)
budget, they had raised US$900k. The Ministry had given US$250k. So they
had a shortfall of US$1.05M.
>
> > Third party sources I checked (i.e. Not the Indonesians themselves)
said that one major cost was that the UN had asked for US$900k to fly
personnel and security apparatus to the meeting.
>
> > Knowing a little of the inside story, I would say the situation is
more complex than one might have guessed. Next year is the election year
for Indonesia. So companies are asking: if I support you now but you do
not win, what happens? Then two weeks before the IGF, there is the APEC
meeting in the same venue. So the feeling that is Indonesia will be on
the world's stage at that time already. Meanwhile, the Minister of
Communication, whose ministry oversees the IGF, is under allegations of
corruption. It's one of those series of unfortunate events.
>
> > Regards,
> > Peng Hwa
>
> > -------------------------
> > CONFIDENTIALITY:This email is intended solely for the person(s)
named and may be confidential and/or privileged.If you are not the
intended recipient,please delete it,notify us and do not copy,use,or
disclose its content.
>
> > Towards A Sustainable Earth:Print Only When Necessary.Thank you.
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rigf_program mailing list
> > Rigf_program at aprigf.asia <mailto:Rigf_program at aprigf.asia>
> > https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program
>
>
>
>
> > --
> > Dr. Anja Kovacs
> > The Internet Democracy Project
>
> > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> > www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
>
>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
 
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJR8f86AAoJEA9zUGgfM+bq8H0H/2fJj3t9Gdf610Rrm912SB3w
9WciwawhSbvNZZluaHtfit+3UeOEA6IpqJC44JyiXkEQBGOIPaSP0Ewxmd92tHG2
xyk4POmCwkJq6LLwLRinUS1Dfd6nkw6Qmx78JaXvpmO+Nc6jc27xrcO6C4+NpvEE
b8o2d7o4l0fgq/hx2rOoooI8aX0+GrlhhW115kQBUO2qvFgHzvBPJN9A2ERCGcin
a6TkJx53iPZLKjmCZSPRgDxbXcDmnxfQYXMVsz5ohiow3l52GGWHa+sRPGqSDLjt
YMoe+JLeEKZkpS7eFaiBvD8lKHk9yi0CTmv055QR6nDWELXoepjk5nnXAevoWBU=
=24dA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130726/3cb2561c/attachment.htm>

From dbu at donnybu.com  Fri Jul 26 00:53:43 2013
From: dbu at donnybu.com (Donny B.U.)
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 11:53:43 +0700
Subject: [bestbits] IGF in Indonesia cancelled?
In-Reply-To: <51F1FF3A.3080509@apc.org>
References: <CAJqNAHD4D6=a-5g8KHUyNa51FjM2HGDp+YSZC8UZzDHBBCU56g@mail.gmail.com>
	<51F1F403.4080100@apc.org>
	<6639186712682845269@unknownmsgid>
	<51F1FF3A.3080509@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CAJOH5-x=FPpfnCNA7VsQSDh8c6a68tr=4T=XoiUWAt7RSejaag@mail.gmail.com>

yes, there will be a MAG meeting today at UTC +13
also indeed, copy of official letter from the government not received yet
by the committee

-dbu-


On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:46 AM, joy <joy at apc.org> wrote:

>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> One follow up - Anriette has last night been in touch with Chengatai who
> advises there is no offcial word from the Indonesian government about
> cancellation, but they have advised of a shortfall in funds and the IGF
> secretariat is working with them to try to secure funds.
> Apparently there will be or is a MAG meeting today and there may be a more
> formal update soon.
> That is all I know at present.
> best
> Joy
>
>
>
> there is a MAG meeting today
>
> On 26/07/2013 4:12 p.m., Bijoy Mitra wrote:
> > Dear Colleague,
> > I agreeing, we should get clarifications from Secretiate. Regards _.
> B.K.Mitra
> > -------------------------
> > *From:* "joy" <joy at apc.org <mailto:joy at apc.org> <joy at apc.org>>
> > *To:* "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net><bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>"
> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net><bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> >
> > *Sent:* July 26, 2013 9:29 AM
> > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] IGF in Indonesia cancelled?
>
> >
> >
> > Hi Anja - likewise I have heard rumours but nothing confirmed until this.
> > I suggest we seek an official response from the Secretariat. It may yet
> be that alternative sources of funding are found, but we should seek a
> response and some kind of confirmation as soon as possible.
> > I'm happy to write to Chengatai - has anyone else already done so?
> > Joy
> >
> > On 26/07/2013 3:45 p.m., Anja Kovacs wrote:
> > > Dear all,
> >
> > > After having heard rumours swirling for a while now, I was very sad to
> receive the message below via an AP IGF email list. Looks like the
> Indonesia IGF, at least for now, stands cancelled. Anyone here knows more?
> >
> > > Best,
> > > Anja
> >
> > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > From: *Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)* <TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg
> <mailto:TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg> <TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg>>
> > > Date: 26 July 2013 08:50
> > > Subject: [Rigf_program] IGF in Indonesia cancelled
> > > To: "program at aprigf.asia <mailto:program at aprigf.asia><program at aprigf.asia>"
> <program at aprigf.asia <mailto:program at aprigf.asia> <program at aprigf.asia>>
> >
> >
> > > Folks,
> >
> > > This is sad but official: the Indonesian organizers have cancelled the
> IGF. The announcement was made by the chair of the organizing committee (a
> businessman) after a meeting with the minister and the civil society group.
> >
> > > There is a news report in Bahasa Indonesia at
> http://inet.detik.com/read/2013/07/25/135130/2314218/328/kurang-dana-forum-internet-dunia-batal-digelar-di-bali.
> Use Google translate and you will be able to read.
> >
> > > I had met the civil society organizers just this week. They were
> asking for possible tips on fund raising. After exploring the options, we
> concluded that they had approached most of the likely sponsors. Yes, there
> were some possibilities they had overlooked but these were not many.
> >
> > > According to the news report, out of the US$2.2M (Rp22 billion)
> budget, they had raised US$900k. The Ministry had given US$250k. So they
> had a shortfall of US$1.05M.
> >
> > > Third party sources I checked (i.e. Not the Indonesians themselves)
> said that one major cost was that the UN had asked for US$900k to fly
> personnel and security apparatus to the meeting.
> >
> > > Knowing a little of the inside story, I would say the situation is
> more complex than one might have guessed. Next year is the election year
> for Indonesia. So companies are asking: if I support you now but you do not
> win, what happens? Then two weeks before the IGF, there is the APEC meeting
> in the same venue. So the feeling that is Indonesia will be on the world's
> stage at that time already. Meanwhile, the Minister of Communication, whose
> ministry oversees the IGF, is under allegations of corruption. It's one of
> those series of unfortunate events.
> >
> > > Regards,
> > > Peng Hwa
> >
> > > -------------------------
> > > CONFIDENTIALITY:This email is intended solely for the person(s) named
> and may be confidential and/or privileged.If you are not the intended
> recipient,please delete it,notify us and do not copy,use,or disclose its
> content.
> >
> > > Towards A Sustainable Earth:Print Only When Necessary.Thank you.
> >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Rigf_program mailing list
> > > Rigf_program at aprigf.asia <mailto:Rigf_program at aprigf.asia><Rigf_program at aprigf.asia>
> > > https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > --
> > > Dr. Anja Kovacs
> > > The Internet Democracy Project
> >
> > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> > > www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/><http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
> >
> >
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJR8f86AAoJEA9zUGgfM+bq8H0H/2fJj3t9Gdf610Rrm912SB3w
> 9WciwawhSbvNZZluaHtfit+3UeOEA6IpqJC44JyiXkEQBGOIPaSP0Ewxmd92tHG2
> xyk4POmCwkJq6LLwLRinUS1Dfd6nkw6Qmx78JaXvpmO+Nc6jc27xrcO6C4+NpvEE
> b8o2d7o4l0fgq/hx2rOoooI8aX0+GrlhhW115kQBUO2qvFgHzvBPJN9A2ERCGcin
> a6TkJx53iPZLKjmCZSPRgDxbXcDmnxfQYXMVsz5ohiow3l52GGWHa+sRPGqSDLjt
> YMoe+JLeEKZkpS7eFaiBvD8lKHk9yi0CTmv055QR6nDWELXoepjk5nnXAevoWBU=
> =24dA
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>


-- 
e: dbu at donnybu.com | t: @donnybu | f: donnybu | w: donnybu.com | p:
+62818930932
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130726/57c149b8/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Jul 26 08:10:33 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 17:40:33 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: Call for comment: civil society letter to PCLOB
 re: human rights impacts of NSA surveillance of 'non-US persons'
In-Reply-To: <CALU7RQbkjGtX51gye1dHMy9Foa+GzrYX5LVXHYdpcUhEL36vNQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <51EF2902.1080702@cdt.org> <51EF316B.4030306@itforchange.net> <94BC60FF-AF14-46B8-B16D-6B6D01C40522@gmail.com> <51EF81D5.9090802@itforchange.net> <51EFB97F.9090702@apc.org> <51EFE4EF.40403@eff.org> <CAJqNAHCj0EnRFyPBpmdO7MDA-fSZMPDzeO-wSOj+68njYG=sDA@mail.gmail.com> <51F00B97.20509@itforchange.net> <001501ce88d9$68801bb0$39805310$@gmail.com> <CAJqNAHBcr=S-bPYGCbiaKbmfmK7MOspmeeBwaVOEn2SiSMCHtQ@mail.gmail.com> <51F10F40.1010800@apc.org> <51F18DD2.2090303@eff.org> <CALU7RQbkjGtX51gye1dHMy9Foa+GzrYX5LVXHYdpcUhEL36vNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <51F26739.1020709@itforchange.net>


Hi Deborah


    "We urge you to make recommendations and findings designed to
    protect the human rights not only of U.S.-persons, but also of
    non-U.S. persons. We believe that such findings and recommendations
    would not only be consistent with the U.S. government's frequently
    stated commitment to 'freedom online', but would also constitute a
    valuable contribution to developing a global framework for
    implementing such protections."

To me, the para read as if a global framework should then be developed 
to implement protections that US government will legislate on the advice 
of PCLOB. This I think is not the drafters' intention.

And if indeed the above para is to be amended, my organisation will be 
willing to sign if it ends in this fashion......" would also constitute 
a valuable contribution to developing a global framework in the 
concerned area".... Although we remain quite concerned about the extra 
ordinary sensitivities in closely evaluating every single word and turn 
of phrase with a view that it might not in the least ever suggest that 
there could be any international program to pursue in this area as 
well.... This is rather un- understandable when the sole topic of this 
endeavour is of preserving the rights on non-citizens in the digital 
space over which a particular government seem to have jurisdiction and 
control - which clearly is an issue pertaining to the governance of the 
cross border digital space.

BTW, do remember that in the recent case related to Chevron 
<http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/07/chevron-ecuador-american-email-legal-activists-journalists> 
an US court has clearly ruled that non citizens do not have relevant 
constitutional protections...

parminder


On Friday 26 July 2013 09:59 AM, Deborah Brown wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Please find the edited PCLOB letter posted on the Best Bits website 
> here: http://bestbits.net/pclob/
>
> As Emma noted in her initial email the goal was to have a final draft 
> of the letter text available to circulate during the day on Thursday, 
> so we're just a little behind schedule. Hopefully you will find that 
> this letter reflects the suggestions on this thread and addresses the 
> task at hand.
>
> *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.
>
> The deadline for submission is 1 August, so I think the goal is to 
> close the letter for signatures by end of 31 July. Emma or Matthew, 
> can you please confirm? This leaves just under a week for sign on, 
> which hopefully is a realistic timeframe.
>
> As was mentioned earlier, international groups are welcome to submit 
> their own letters as well, and Anriette made an excellent suggestion 
> that Best Bits may want to prepare for other governments. Is anyone 
> interested in taking the lead on this?
>
> Finally, since we have a week lead up before submitting this comment 
> to PCLOB, should we be trying to get some international press 
> coverage? It may be ambitious, but it could be valuable for those who 
> support the letter to reach out to media in the countries where they 
> are based with coordinated messaging. What do others think?
>
> Best regards,
> Deborah
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org 
> <mailto:katitza at eff.org>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Anriette,
>
>     I'm out of the office and I'm unware about alll the nuances of our
>     position for this submission to the PCLOB. My colleague, Danny
>     O'brien,
>     EFF International Director, is the one who is writing the
>     international
>     angle of this particular EFF submission to the PCLOB.  I'm cc-ing
>     him to
>     the list. He is aware about the Best Bits coalition initiative.
>
>     Danny: The letter is here in case you have a little time to look
>     at it.
>
>     https://docs.google.com/document/d/17BWIev_DybbML3ObDCORkW83THrNGuJrHlV5sQLdYA0/edit?usp=sharing
>
>     All the best,
>
>     Katitza
>
>     On 7/25/13 7:42 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>     > Hi all
>     >
>     > I was happy with Anja's reformulation and I share her concerns
>     about the
>     > risks attached to a global agreement. And great work to the main
>     > drafters.. I should have said this before. Just one other thought.
>     >
>     > We could, theoretically, keep the letter short and concise, and
>     add as
>     > an addendum a document that raises broader concerns. But
>     hopefully this
>     > will not be necessary.
>     >
>     > We should try to remember that we are acting on multiple fronts and
>     > therefore we don't have to fit all our concerns and demands into
>     every
>     > single intervention.
>     >
>     > I would like to hear from Katitza whether, in the light of EFF's
>     > position on the PCLOB, whether she thinks this letter is a bad
>     idea? Not
>     > that I think we should not send it, I would just like to have a
>     better
>     > understanding of EFF's position on the Best Bits letter.
>     >
>     > And then another thought. Should Best Bits not also draft letters to
>     > other governments on our concerns. Anja mentions India. South Africa
>     > also has VERY problematic legislation around monitoring and
>     interception.
>     >
>     > The list goes on.
>     >
>     > Anriette
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > On 25/07/2013 13:29, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>     >> Just to clarify my position vis-a-vis Parminder's comments:
>     >>
>     >> In theory I do think that a strong global framework on privacy
>     protections
>     >> could contribute to resolving these issues in a significant manner.
>     >> Unfortunately, in practice I am not sure how feasible this is
>     at present.
>     >> As they are necessarily based on compromise, global agreements
>     tend to
>     >> congeal around the lowest common denominators. At the moment, I
>     am afraid
>     >> these will set the bar too low, not in the least because many
>     of the
>     >> democracies that one would hope would push for higher standards
>     at the
>     >> moment seem to be setting the bar too low domestically,
>     including where
>     >> privacy is concerned. This is true not only of the US but also
>     of, for
>     >> example, India. In these circumstances, I am worried that a global
>     >> agreement will be used first and foremost to cement sovereignty
>     over the
>     >> Internet, rather than to defend the rights of Internet users
>     around the
>     >> world, something I would not consider a gain. My reformulation of
>     >> Anriette's formulation was simply meant to foreground that what
>     we are
>     >> asking for is the implementation of existing human rights, not
>     to stop us
>     >> from creating a debate on this issue. I continue to think,
>     however, that
>     >> the best way countries can flag that the time is genuinely ripe
>     for a
>     >> global framework is by demonstrating a clear commitment to
>     human rights in
>     >> these areas domestically. It is countries that would like to
>     see global
>     >> coordination on a wide range of issues beyond privacy that
>     might in fact
>     >> have the greatest stake in doing so.
>     >>
>     >> My 2 cents.
>     >>
>     >> Best,
>     >> Anja
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> On 25 July 2013 07:20, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com
>     <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>> wrote:
>     >>
>     >>> I agree with Parminder that the letter lacks a forward looking
>     element
>     >>> which would deal with the most fundamental issue--the
>     development of an
>     >>> integrated (if to a very limited degree multi-polar) ubiquitous
>     >>> multi-stakeholder--States+private sector+technical community(?))
>     >>> surveillance State. This is  global in nature and will require
>     some sort of
>     >>> global response and working through this in anticipation of
>     the IGF should
>     >>> be I think, our major current task.****
>     >>>
>     >>> ** **
>     >>>
>     >>> However, I think the letter goes a very considerable degree
>     beyond earlier
>     >>> such position statements from major (particularly US) CS actors in
>     >>> recognizing the legitimate concerns/significance of
>     "foreigners" in the
>     >>> current US discussion and on that basis I think it should be
>     supported as
>     >>> amended.****
>     >>>
>     >>> ** **
>     >>>
>     >>> M****
>     >>>
>     >>> ** **
>     >>>
>     >>> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>     <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> [mailto:
>     >>> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>     <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>] *On Behalf Of *parminder
>     >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 24, 2013 10:45 PM
>     >>> *Cc:* &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>&gt,
>     >>>
>     >>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Re: Call for comment: civil society
>     letter to
>     >>> PCLOB re: human rights impacts of NSA surveillance of 'non-US
>     persons'****
>     >>>
>     >>> ** **
>     >>>
>     >>> ** **
>     >>>
>     >>> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 08:23 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:****
>     >>>
>     >>> I also liked Anriette's language on the "development of a
>     global framework
>     >>> for protection", though I would suggest we slightly edit it to
>     read "the
>     >>> development of a global framework for the implementation of
>     protections" or
>     >>> something along those lines. The reason is that we already
>     have a framework
>     >>> for protections, ie the human rights framework, but that
>     governments seem
>     >>> to be happy to disregard this when it comes to surveillance.  ****
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>> But so does the US have in place all kinds of higher level
>     principles that
>     >>> do cover such issues; then why does the letter ask for new
>     legal frameworks
>     >>> from the US government? As the current frameworks in the US
>     have been found
>     >>> inadequate, so could it be held true for the global human
>     rights regime
>     >>> (arguably truer for the latter) - because it is an undeniable
>     fact -
>     >>> although often selectively denied - that the digital space
>     produces
>     >>> entirely new realities, which are also unprecedentedly global
>     in nature....
>     >>> More on US versus UN frameworks below...
>     >>>
>     >>> ****
>     >>>
>     >>> ** **
>     >>>
>     >>> Until governments worldwide give considerably greater evidence
>     of their
>     >>> willingness to make the protection of human rights an integral
>     component of
>     >>> their surveillance plans, I do not think that it is
>     appropriate for civil
>     >>> society to push for a more comprehensive global framework on
>     security
>     >>> issues in general. ****
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>> 'Global framework on security? Whoever asked for one..... Are
>     we asking
>     >>> the US government for new a framework on security, I thought
>     we were asking
>     >>> for a new framework on privacy protection.... so also for the
>     UN. Global
>     >>> framework for privacy protection, not for security.
>     >>>
>     >>> So, pardon my use of ironic language to make my point,
>     apparently we can
>     >>> ask the US to develop new legal frameworks, and trust that
>     they would not
>     >>> come up with something worse then they have at present.
>     However, we cannot
>     >>> at all trust the UN to not come up with legal frameworks worse
>     than what we
>     >>> have at present, and therefore we should not ever even ask
>     them for the
>     >>> same thing that we are ready to ask of the US.
>     >>>
>     >>> To me, it boils down to trusting the US government to run the
>     world more
>     >>> than we can trust the UN... This is something I am unwilling
>     to do. If even
>     >>> Snowden did not teach us the right lesson, perhaps nothing
>     ever would. I am
>     >>> afraid that all this is of a piece with a widespread tendency
>     to trust US
>     >>> more than the UN with the trusteeship of the global Internet.
>     I obviously
>     >>> cannot accept that. As I said in my first posting, it is a
>     well written and
>     >>> argued letter, but the problem with it is not what it says,
>     but with what
>     >>> it does not.
>     >>>
>     >>> I am not against focussing a letter on a particular
>     opportunity and end.
>     >>> However,  (1) PCLOB is not the wrong agency to advice the US
>     government to
>     >>> consider global legal frameworks on privacy protection,
>     especially now when
>     >>> Snowden disclosures tell us what other countries could also be
>     doing,
>     >>> including to the US citizens, (2) I did want to have a
>     discussion here on
>     >>> whether the group considers global frameworks as also a needed
>     remedy for
>     >>> the problem in focus. I am unable to see how adding a line or
>     two on global
>     >>> frameworks would throw the letter out of focus.....
>     >>>
>     >>> parminder
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>> ****
>     >>>
>     >>> ** **
>     >>>
>     >>> On the issue of what constitutes a "Best Bits statement", the
>     points made
>     >>> here are important and we do indeed need greater clarity on
>     this. At the
>     >>> same time, it's also important to keep in mind that once
>     statements are
>     >>> shared with the wider world, maintaining a distinction between
>     a statement
>     >>> supported by all (though even on the Baku one I think we had
>     one abstention
>     >>> by the way, and in any case the Baku group was fairly small) and a
>     >>> statement shared and promoted through the Best Bits platform
>     might be
>     >>> difficult - even if we are careful to make these distinctions,
>     the wider
>     >>> world might not.
>     >>>
>     >>> Perhaps we should therefore simply go for a model in which ALL
>     statements
>     >>> are considered to be in the latter category, and focus our
>     attention on
>     >>> coming up with criteria for which type of statements are
>     appropriate (or
>     >>> not) for Best Bits instead? I am worried that sending out
>     mixed messages
>     >>> will only undermine the effectiveness of the advocacy efforts
>     that go
>     >>> through Best Bits, though I'd of course be very happy to hear
>     other
>     >>> possible solutions to that conundrum as well.****
>     >>>
>     >>> Thanks and best,
>     >>> Anja****
>     >>>
>     >>> ** **
>     >>>
>     >>> On 24 July 2013 20:00, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org
>     <mailto:katitza at eff.org>> wrote:****
>     >>>
>     >>> Dear all,
>     >>>
>     >>> It would be good to answer the consultation without voicing
>     support for
>     >>> a PCLOB investigation. In EFF, we are of the opinion that the
>     PCLOB
>     >>> isn't the right place for an investigation.
>     >>>
>     >>> PCLOB is weak institution, so EFF concern is that its
>     weaknesses foster
>     >>> low, expectation politics/rhetoric.  EFF want a Church Committee,
>     >>> investigation or at least an existing committee with congress
>     or at
>     >>> least an existing committee with congressional subpoena power to
>     >>> investigate.
>     >>>
>     >>> We have three or four blog posts with arguments about why we need
>     >>> a special investigatory committee, and at the very least extant
>     >>> committees, instead of the PCLOB to investigate.
>     >>>
>     >>> For more information on our asks please check out:
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/why-special-congressional-committee-must-be-created-investigate-nsas
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/response-nsa-we-need-new-church-commission-and-we-need-it-now
>     >>> ****
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>> On 7/24/13 7:24 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>     >>>> Dear all
>     >>>>
>     >>>> My view on the letter is to keep it focused on the Call for
>     Comment by
>     >>>> the US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board regarding
>     the US
>     >>>> government's surveillance programs under the PATRIOT Act and
>     FISA.  I
>     >>>> think the letter is already too long.
>     >>>>
>     >>>> The more focused and to the point (and brief) our comments
>     are, the more
>     >>>> likely they will be discussed, forwarded, understood, etc. etc..
>     >>>> However, I do have a proposal for how to include a reference
>     global
>     >>>> legal frameworks that does not change the basic character and
>     purpose of
>     >>>> the letter as one that addresses an official US body.
>     >>>>
>     >>>> This letter makes three key points:
>     >>>>
>     >>>> * Government surveillance must be subject to a strong legal
>     framework
>     >>>> that is transparent, necessary to achieve a legitimate goal and
>     >>>> proportionate to that goal, authorized by a competent judicial
>     >>>> authority, and subject to public oversight.
>     >>>>
>     >>>>
>     >>>> *Surveillance of communications conducted under Section 702
>     must meets
>     >>>> international human rights standards for surveillance.
>     >>>>
>     >>>>
>     >>>> * In the context of online communications, the privacy and
>     liberty****
>     >>>> rights of non-U.S. persons outside the U.S. should bewithin
>     the PCLOB's*
>     >>> ***
>     >>>
>     >>>> statutory mandate.
>     >>>>
>     >>>> We could add something along the following lines:
>     >>>>
>     >>>> We believe findings and recommendations developed by the
>     PCLOB that
>     >>>> ensure that protection of rights of US and non US persons in
>     the context
>     >>>> of government surveillance would not only be consistent with
>     the US
>     >>>> government's frequently stated commitment to 'freedom
>     online'; it would
>     >>>> also constitute a valuable contribution to the eventual
>     development of a
>     >>>> global framework for such protections.
>     >>>>
>     >>>> Btw, this last sentence (quoted below) still uses the term
>     'Americans'.
>     >>>> Please change. I also think that it is best to say 'findings and
>     >>>> recommendations' rather than 'recommendations and findings'
>     as the
>     >>>> former is likely to flow from the latter.
>     >>>>
>     >>>> "We urge you to make recommendations and findings designed to
>     protect
>     >>>> the human rights not only of Americans, but also of non-U.S.
>     persons who
>     >>>> live outside the United States."
>     >>>>
>     >>>> Ciao
>     >>>>
>     >>>> Anriette
>     >>>>
>     >>>> On 24/07/2013 09:27, parminder wrote:
>     >>>>> Thanks to Gene and Jeremy for their responses..
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> However, I see no argument here why the letter cannot ask US
>     to also
>     >>>>> engage in developing global norms and agreements with regard to
>     >>>>> safeguards against invasion of privacy in name of security,
>     and then
>     >>>>> adhering to these norms/ agreements. After all, US is a
>     prime party to
>     >>>>> be appealed to if we are to move towards such global norms/
>     >>>>> agreements, and it remains my firm belief that this thing
>     can really
>     >>>>> be addressed only through global arrangements,
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> (Also, shouldnt US groups and US citizens also be concerned
>     about
>     >>>>> invasion of their privacy by non US government agents.:
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> About Jeremy's arugment against seeking 'global legal
>     frameworks'
>     >>>>> being that we ourselves are yet to propose anything
>     concrete, does the
>     >>>>> proposed letter not ask the US government to develop new
>     'strong legal
>     >>>>> frameworks' without actually suggesting their precise
>     forms.. Why cant
>     >>>>> we do the same for the global level even when we yet dont
>     have our
>     >>>>> concrete institutional proposals ready (would we ever be :)
>     )... At
>     >>>>> the domestic level of US gov, the letter simply asserts the
>     need, at
>     >>>>> the principles level, of privacy protection through 'strong
>     legal
>     >>>>> framework'. We can ask the same for the global system, at
>     the level of
>     >>>>> principles.... Unless of course there is a difference of
>     opinion here
>     >>>>> about the principle of a global framework itself, in which
>     case it is
>     >>>>> precisely my point to discus it openly...
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> parminder
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 07:34 AM, Gene Kimmelman wrote:
>     >>>>>> I think Parminder raises some very important points.  I'd
>     like to
>     >>>>>> offer a quick observation and await other input:
>     >>>>>>
>     >>>>>> 1.  The question about how to refer to previous statements
>     generated
>     >>>>>> through some subgroup of BestBits is very legitimate; we
>     may need a
>     >>>>>> more precise description of the letter referred to and who the
>     >>>>>> signatories were.  We still need to discuss at the next
>     BestBits
>     >>>>>> gathering what our rules of engagement and governance
>     should be.
>     >>>>>>
>     >>>>>> 2.  I fully support the idea of initiating a discussion of
>     what type
>     >>>>>> of global legal framework (or maybe normative framework) we
>     should be
>     >>>>>> galvanizing around.  Maybe even a simple call for the UN to
>     engage a
>     >>>>>>  discussion with all stakeholders fully represented, to
>     consider how
>     >>>>>> best to enforce human rights charters and principles, would
>     be a path
>     >>>>>> forward?  Maybe others have a better suggestion, but I
>     wouldn't want
>     >>>>>> the "perfect" to stand in the way of the "good enough" for the
>     >>>>>> purpose of registering broad CSO interest in a global
>     discussion and
>     >>>>>> global policy engagement.
>     >>>>>>
>     >>>>>> 3.  Whether or not we can all agree on something related to the
>     >>>>>> global legal framework, I also urge everyone to be
>     pragmatic about
>     >>>>>> the opportunity to register your views with the US-base
>     PCLOB.  This
>     >>>>>> is of course only one small piece of the legal struggle,
>     but it is
>     >>>>>> very important from a US NGO standpoint to expand the US debate
>     >>>>>> beyond US citizens or residents.  The US needs global input
>     to wake
>     >>>>>> it up to its broader obligations.  This may  not be enough
>     to change
>     >>>>>> policy, but it is a critical enhancement to the US-based
>     NGO advocacy
>     >>>>>> that could have some impact on the US government.  So even
>     if this is
>     >>>>>> a flawed, partial solution, and should be connected to
>     something
>     >>>>>> related to broader global solution, I believe it could
>     influence US
>     >>>>>> policymakers.
>     >>>>>> On Jul 23, 2013, at 9:44 PM, parminder
>     <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>
>     >>>>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net
>     <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>> wrote:
>     >>>>>>
>     >>>>>>> Generally a well written statement. However, it must be
>     judged not
>     >>>>>>> only for what it says but also what it does not... The
>     statement
>     >>>>>>> appeals to a US government agency to protect human rights
>     of all
>     >>>>>>> citizens of the world, especially non US citizens, which
>     is very
>     >>>>>>> well. It call for all security measures that the US  " must be
>     >>>>>>> subject to a strong legal framework" meaning here just a
>     US legal
>     >>>>>>> framework.... I am not convinced that this constitutes an
>     adequate
>     >>>>>>> remedy. All security measures should be subject to a
>     strong global
>     >>>>>>> or international treaty/ legal framework as well.. That
>     alone will
>     >>>>>>> work in an environment where we are all continually
>     immersed in a
>     >>>>>>> (somewhat) globally seamless, or at least hyper-connected,
>     digital
>     >>>>>>> space.
>     >>>>>>>
>     >>>>>>> So, my specific question is, what stops us, as a global civil
>     >>>>>>> society group, from calling for a global/international legal
>     >>>>>>> framework to ensuring that all security related (and
>     other) actions,
>     >>>>>>> of all states, including the US, are subject to a clear
>     >>>>>>> international regime based on human rights, and any such
>     regime
>     >>>>>>> should have adequate enforcement capabilities.
>     >>>>>>>
>     >>>>>>> Can we discuss this here...
>     >>>>>>>
>     >>>>>>> While once in a while we as a global civil society group
>     can make
>     >>>>>>> specific appeals to one government or the other, but I am
>     unwilling
>     >>>>>>> to convert US government to be 'the' key duty bearer and
>     appellate
>     >>>>>>> body for global justice. In doing this is a deeper
>     politics, and
>     >>>>>>> that is my principal objection to this statement - not to
>     what the
>     >>>>>>> statmement says, but what it does not. However, this
>     problem can
>     >>>>>>> easily be addressed if the statement includes an appeal
>     for global
>     >>>>>>> legal frameworks for the same purpose..... Are the framers
>     of the
>     >>>>>>> statement willing to consider this?
>     >>>>>>>
>     >>>>>>> Another unconnected point, I often see statements that are
>     signed by
>     >>>>>>> various actors using the BestBits as a facilitating platform,
>     >>>>>>> without them being developed and signed on the behalf of the
>     >>>>>>> BestBits group/ coalition, then after being signed
>      propositioned as
>     >>>>>>> BestBits statements. Recently I saw such a reference in
>     the press,
>     >>>>>>> about a statement that was never signed by the group as a
>     whole
>     >>>>>>> being called as a BestBits statement. This proposed letter
>     also
>     >>>>>>> refers to an earlier statement being of BestBits coalition
>     whereas
>     >>>>>>> it was never signed by the group as a whole...
>     >>>>>>>
>     >>>>>>> parminder
>     >>>>>>>
>     >>>>>>>
>     >>>>>>>
>     >>>>>>> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 06:38 AM, Emma Llanso wrote:
>     >>>>>>>> Dear all,
>     >>>>>>>>
>     >>>>>>>> As you may be aware, the US Privacy and Civil Liberties
>     Oversight
>     >>>>>>>> Board is accepting comments commentary regarding the US
>     >>>>>>>> government's surveillance programs under the PATRIOT Act
>     and FISA.
>     >>>>>>>> (I've included some information about PCLOB below in case
>     you're
>     >>>>>>>> not familiar with this entity.)  I'd like to share with
>     you a draft
>     >>>>>>>> was put together by CDT, with feedback from a number of
>     folks on
>     >>>>>>>> this list, that focuses on the impact these programs have
>     on the
>     >>>>>>>> human rights of individuals outside the US:
>     >>>>>>>>
>     >>>
>     https://docs.google.com/document/d/17BWIev_DybbML3ObDCORkW83THrNGuJrHlV5sQLdYA0/edit?usp=sharing
>     >>>>>>>>
>     >>>>>>>> We feel that the draft text is at a point where it's
>     ready to be
>     >>>>>>>> shared with the broader Best Bits community for comment.
>      Please
>     >>>>>>>> share any comments you have on the letter text with the
>     whole list.
>     >>>>>>>> (I will be traveling on Wednesday and so slow to respond to
>     >>>>>>>> email.)  Ideally, we'd like to have a final draft of the
>     letter
>     >>>>>>>> text available to circulate during the day on Thursday,
>     giving us
>     >>>>>>>> about a week to solicit sign-on from as broad an array of
>     groups as
>     >>>>>>>> possible.  This is a very compressed timeframe,
>     unfortunately, but
>     >>>>>>>> the deadline for submitting comments is August 1st, so
>     there is not
>     >>>>>>>> much flexibility in the schedule.
>     >>>>>>>>
>     >>>>>>>> The Best Bits interim steering committee has agreed to
>     host the
>     >>>>>>>> final letter text on the Best Bits website to facilitate
>     sign-on
>     >>>>>>>> once we've reached that point.
>     >>>>>>>>
>     >>>>>>>> It's worth noting here that while a joint letter with broad
>     >>>>>>>> international sign in is one way of getting the US
>     government to
>     >>>>>>>> consider the rights of non-US persons, so is flooding
>     PCLOB with
>     >>>>>>>> individual letters from international groups, so please
>     feel free
>     >>>>>>>> to adapt or build on to this letter and submit it
>     separately. We
>     >>>>>>>> intentionally did not make recommendations to PCLOB so as
>     to garner
>     >>>>>>>> broad sign on (more on that below), but individual
>     letters are a
>     >>>>>>>> good opportunity to make specific recommendations.
>     >>>>>>>>
>     >>>>>>>> *Background on the letter:*
>     >>>>>>>> PCLOB will be preparing a report and is accepting comments
>     >>>>>>>> <
>     >>>
>     http://www.regulations.gov/#%21documentDetail;D=PCLOB-2013-0005-0001>
>     >>>>>>>> (with no limitations on who can submit comments) until
>     August 1st.
>     >>>>>>>> As many of you know, it's been an uphill battle to get any
>     >>>>>>>> attention on this critical issue of extraterritorial
>     impacts of the
>     >>>>>>>> US surveillance programs. PCLOB hosted an open hearing on
>     the NSA
>     >>>>>>>> program earlier in July, and there was unfortunately only
>     a single
>     >>>>>>>> reference to the human rights of people other than US
>     citizens
>     >>>>>>>> during the entire hearing.  We think this comment process
>     is one of
>     >>>>>>>> the better opportunities that groups from outside the US
>     will have
>     >>>>>>>> in making their opinions about the US surveillance activities
>     >>>>>>>> heard.  I'd highly encourage organizations and
>     individuals to make
>     >>>>>>>> their own comments into this process, in addition to
>     considering
>     >>>>>>>> signing this letter.
>     >>>>>>>>
>     >>>>>>>> As a final note, the letter intentionally does not lay out
>     >>>>>>>> recommendations more specific than "take into
>     consideration the
>     >>>>>>>> human rights of individuals outside the US", for several
>     reasons.
>     >>>>>>>> First, it will likely be more difficult for a broad range
>     of groups
>     >>>>>>>> to sign onto something urging very specific legal or policy
>     >>>>>>>> remedies.  Further, I wouldn't want to see a short,
>     easily agreed
>     >>>>>>>> set of recommendations (e.g. focusing on transparency) get
>     >>>>>>>> interpreted to mean that those fixes are the only thing
>     the US
>     >>>>>>>> government needs to do to remedy the situation.
>      Transparency is an
>     >>>>>>>> important initial step, but it's far from the only action
>     needed
>     >>>>>>>> here (a point CDT will be emphasizing in our individual
>     comments to
>     >>>>>>>> PCLOB).  Again, I'd strongly recommend groups file individual
>     >>>>>>>> comments as well, particularly if you have specific
>     recommendations
>     >>>>>>>> and actions for the Board.
>     >>>>>>>>
>     >>>>>>>>
>     >>>>>>>> Looking forward to your comments,
>     >>>>>>>> Emma
>     >>>>>>>>
>     >>>>>>>>
>     >>>>>>>> *PCLOB - WHAT IS IT?* -
>     >>>>>>>>
>     >>>
>     https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/privacy-and-civil-liberties-oversight-board
>     >>>>>>>> The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is an
>     advisory body
>     >>>>>>>> to assist the President and other senior Executive branch
>     officials
>     >>>>>>>> in ensuring that concerns with respect to privacy and civil
>     >>>>>>>> liberties are appropriately considered in the
>     implementation of all
>     >>>>>>>> laws, regulations, and executive branch policies related
>     to war
>     >>>>>>>> against terrorism.
>     >>>>>>>>
>     >>>>>>>> Recommended by the July 22, 2004, report of the National
>     Commission
>     >>>>>>>> on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, the Privacy
>     and Civil
>     >>>>>>>> Liberties Oversight Board was established by the Intelligence
>     >>>>>>>> Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. It consists
>     of five
>     >>>>>>>> members appointed by and serving at the pleasure of the
>     President.
>     >>>>>>>> The Board is part of the White House Office within the
>     Executive
>     >>>>>>>> Office of the President and supported by an Executive
>     Director and
>     >>>>>>>> staff.
>     >>>>>>>>
>     >>>>>>>> The Board advises the President and other senior
>     executive branch
>     >>>>>>>> officials to ensure that concerns with respect to privacy
>     and civil
>     >>>>>>>> liberties are appropriately considered in the
>     implementation of all
>     >>>>>>>> laws, regulations, and executive branch policies related
>     to efforts
>     >>>>>>>> to protect the Nation against terrorism. This includes
>     advising on
>     >>>>>>>> whether adequate guidelines, supervision, and oversight
>     exist to
>     >>>>>>>> protect these important legal rights of all Americans. In
>     addition,
>     >>>>>>>> the Board is specifically charged with responsibility for
>     reviewing
>     >>>>>>>> the terrorism information sharing practices of executive
>     branch
>     >>>>>>>> departments and agencies to determine whether guidelines
>     designed
>     >>>>>>>> to appropriately protect privacy and civil liberties are
>     being
>     >>>>>>>> followed, including those issued by the President on
>     December 16,
>     >>>>>>>> 2005. In the course of performing these functions within the
>     >>>>>>>> executive branch, the Board seeks the views of private
>     sector,
>     >>>>>>>> non-profit and academic institutions, Members of
>     Congress, and all
>     >>>>>>>> other interested parties and individuals on these issues.
>     >>>>>>>>
>     >>>>>>>> This agency has published 13 articles
>     >>>>>>>> <
>     >>>
>     https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/search?conditions%5Bagency_ids%5D%5B%5D=438&skip_results=1#advanced
>     >>>>>>>> since 1994.
>     >>>>>>>>
>     >>>>>>>>
>     >>>>>>>> --
>     >>>>>>>> Emma J. Llansó
>     >>>>>>>> Policy Counsel
>     >>>>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology
>     >>>>>>>> 1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100
>     >>>>>>>> Washington, DC 20006
>     >>>>>>>> 202-407-8818 <tel:202-407-8818> | @cendemtech
>     <https://twitter.com/#%21/CenDemTech> |
>     >>>>>>>> @ellanso <https://twitter.com/#%21/ellanso>
>     >>>>>
>     >>>
>     >>> --****
>     >>>
>     >>> Katitza Rodriguez
>     >>> International Rights Director
>     >>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>     >>> katitza at eff.org <mailto:katitza at eff.org>
>     >>> katitza at datos-personales.org
>     <mailto:katitza at datos-personales.org> (personal email)
>     >>>
>     >>> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights
>     and freedom
>     >>> of speech since 1990****
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>> --
>     >>> Dr. Anja Kovacs
>     >>> The Internet Democracy Project
>     >>>
>     >>> +91 9899028053 <tel:%2B91%209899028053> | @anjakovacs
>     >>> www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in>****
>     >>>
>     >>> ** **
>     >>>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >
>
>
>     --
>     Katitza Rodriguez
>     International Rights Director
>     Electronic Frontier Foundation
>     katitza at eff.org <mailto:katitza at eff.org>
>     katitza at datos-personales.org <mailto:katitza at datos-personales.org>
>     (personal email)
>
>     Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and
>     freedom
>     of speech since 1990
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Deborah Brown
> Senior Policy Analyst
> Access | AccessNow.org
> E. deborah at accessnow.org <mailto:deborah at accessnow.org>
> @deblebrown
> PGP 0x5EB4727D

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130726/fbf6d118/attachment.htm>

From avri at acm.org  Fri Jul 26 09:28:40 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 09:28:40 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] IGF in Indonesia cancelled?
In-Reply-To: <CAJOH5-x=FPpfnCNA7VsQSDh8c6a68tr=4T=XoiUWAt7RSejaag@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJqNAHD4D6=a-5g8KHUyNa51FjM2HGDp+YSZC8UZzDHBBCU56g@mail.gmail.com> <51F1F403.4080100@apc.org> <6639186712682845269@unknownmsgid> <51F1FF3A.3080509@apc.org> <CAJOH5-x=FPpfnCNA7VsQSDh8c6a68tr=4T=XoiUWAt7RSejaag@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8DA1EA73-0319-4479-BC20-9BCBE404491A@acm.org>

Hi,

I expect that time between when a letter is announced, sent and then received is the time during which the mad search for money will occur.

Cards are being laid on the table, but the game isn't over yet.

avri

On 26 Jul 2013, at 00:53, Donny B.U. wrote:

> 
> yes, there will be a MAG meeting today at UTC +13
> also indeed, copy of official letter from the government not received yet by the committee 
> 
> -dbu-
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:46 AM, joy <joy at apc.org> wrote:
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- 
> Hash: SHA1 
>  
> One follow up - Anriette has last night been in touch with Chengatai who advises there is no offcial word from the Indonesian government about cancellation, but they have advised of a shortfall in funds and the IGF secretariat is working with them to try to secure funds.
> Apparently there will be or is a MAG meeting today and there may be a more formal update soon.
> That is all I know at present.
> best
> Joy
> 
> 
> 
> there is a MAG meeting today
> 
> On 26/07/2013 4:12 p.m., Bijoy Mitra wrote:
> > Dear Colleague,
> 
>       > I agreeing, we should get clarifications from Secretiate.
>       Regards _. B.K.Mitra 
> 
> 
>       > -------------------------
> 
> 
>       > *From:* "joy" <
> joy at apc.org <mailto:joy at apc.org>>
> 
>       > *To:* "
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> 
>       
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> "
>       <
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> 
>       
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
> 
>       > *Sent:* July 26, 2013 9:29 AM
> 
> 
>       > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] IGF in Indonesia cancelled?
> 
> 
> 
>       >
> 
> 
>       >
> 
> 
>       > Hi Anja - likewise I have heard rumours but nothing confirmed
>       until this.
> 
> 
>       > I suggest we seek an official response from the Secretariat.
>       It may yet be that alternative sources of funding are found, but
>       we should seek a response and some kind of confirmation as soon as
>       possible.
> 
> 
>       > I'm happy to write to Chengatai - has anyone else already
>       done so?
> 
> 
>       > Joy
> 
> 
>       >
> 
> 
>       > On 26/07/2013 3:45 p.m., Anja Kovacs wrote:
> 
> 
>       > > Dear all,
> 
> 
>       >
> 
> 
>       > > After having heard rumours swirling for a while now, I
>       was very sad to receive the message below via an AP IGF email
>       list. Looks like the Indonesia IGF, at least for now, stands
>       cancelled. Anyone here knows more?
> 
> 
>       >
> 
> 
>       > > Best,
> 
> 
>       > > Anja
> 
> 
>       >
> 
> 
>       > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> 
> 
>       > > From: *Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)* <
> TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg
> 
>       
> <mailto:TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg>>
> 
>       > > Date: 26 July 2013 08:50
> 
> 
>       > > Subject: [Rigf_program] IGF in Indonesia cancelled
> 
> 
>       > > To: "
> program at aprigf.asia
> 
>       
> <mailto:program at aprigf.asia>" <program at aprigf.asia
> 
>       
> <mailto:program at aprigf.asia>>
> 
>       >
> 
> 
>       >
> 
> 
>       > > Folks,
> 
> 
>       >
> 
> 
>       > > This is sad but official: the Indonesian organizers have
>       cancelled the IGF. The announcement was made by the chair of the
>       organizing committee (a businessman) after a meeting with the
>       minister and the civil society group.
> 
> 
>       >
> 
> 
>       > > There is a news report in Bahasa Indonesia at
>       
> http://inet.detik.com/read/2013/07/25/135130/2314218/328/kurang-dana-forum-internet-dunia-batal-digelar-di-bali
> . 
>       Use Google translate and you will be able to read.
> 
> 
>       >
> 
> 
>       > > I had met the civil society organizers just this week.
>       They were asking for possible tips on fund raising. After
>       exploring the options, we concluded that they had approached most
>       of the likely sponsors. Yes, there were some possibilities they
>       had overlooked but these were not many.
> 
> 
>       >
> 
> 
>       > > According to the news report, out of the US$2.2M (Rp22
>       billion) budget, they had raised US$900k. The Ministry had given
>       US$250k. So they had a shortfall of US$1.05M.
> 
> 
>       >
> 
> 
>       > > Third party sources I checked (i.e. Not the Indonesians
>       themselves) said that one major cost was that the UN had asked for
>       US$900k to fly personnel and security apparatus to the meeting.
> 
> 
>       >
> 
> 
>       > > Knowing a little of the inside story, I would say the
>       situation is more complex than one might have guessed. Next year
>       is the election year for Indonesia. So companies are asking: if I
>       support you now but you do not win, what happens? Then two weeks
>       before the IGF, there is the APEC meeting in the same venue. So
>       the feeling that is Indonesia will be on the world's stage at that
>       time already. Meanwhile, the Minister of Communication, whose
>       ministry oversees the IGF, is under allegations of corruption.
>       It's one of those series of unfortunate events.
> 
> 
>       >
> 
> 
>       > > Regards,
> 
> 
>       > > Peng Hwa
> 
> 
>       >
> 
> 
>       > > -------------------------
> 
> 
>       > > CONFIDENTIALITY:This email is intended solely for the
>       person(s) named and may be confidential and/or privileged.If you
>       are not the intended recipient,please delete it,notify us and do
>       not copy,use,or disclose its content.
> 
> 
>       >
> 
> 
>       > > Towards A Sustainable Earth:Print Only When
>       Necessary.Thank you.
> 
> 
>       >
> 
> 
>       > > _______________________________________________
> 
> 
>       > > Rigf_program mailing list
> 
> 
>       > > 
> Rigf_program at aprigf.asia
> 
>       
> <mailto:Rigf_program at aprigf.asia>
> 
>       > >
>       
> https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program
> 
>       >
> 
> 
>       >
> 
> 
>       >
> 
> 
>       >
> 
> 
>       > > --
> 
> 
>       > > Dr. Anja Kovacs
> 
> 
>       > > The Internet Democracy Project
> 
> 
>       >
> 
> 
>       > > 
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> 
>       > > 
> www.internetdemocracy.in
> 
>       
> <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
> 
>       >
> 
> 
>       >
> 
> 
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- 
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) 
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ 
>  
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJR8f86AAoJEA9zUGgfM+bq8H0H/2fJj3t9Gdf610Rrm912SB3w 
> 9WciwawhSbvNZZluaHtfit+3UeOEA6IpqJC44JyiXkEQBGOIPaSP0Ewxmd92tHG2 
> xyk4POmCwkJq6LLwLRinUS1Dfd6nkw6Qmx78JaXvpmO+Nc6jc27xrcO6C4+NpvEE 
> b8o2d7o4l0fgq/hx2rOoooI8aX0+GrlhhW115kQBUO2qvFgHzvBPJN9A2ERCGcin 
> a6TkJx53iPZLKjmCZSPRgDxbXcDmnxfQYXMVsz5ohiow3l52GGWHa+sRPGqSDLjt 
> YMoe+JLeEKZkpS7eFaiBvD8lKHk9yi0CTmv055QR6nDWELXoepjk5nnXAevoWBU= 
> =24dA 
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> e: dbu at donnybu.com | t: @donnybu | f: donnybu | w: donnybu.com | p: +62818930932


From parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Jul 27 03:42:01 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 13:12:01 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal
In-Reply-To: <710A140D-0C7F-4E28-89C2-F7738EBD31F2@gmail.com>
References: <710A140D-0C7F-4E28-89C2-F7738EBD31F2@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <51F379C9.5010807@itforchange.net>


Following up on the current IGF cancellation imbroglio, I happened to 
see what is called as the 'fund raising proposal' 
<https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BylRrf_lFlA9OXhieGt5WUJsMkU/edit> of 
the managing committee of Bali IGF..... Sorry to say, but it is a pure 
scandal....

Against donations, it promises funders to be able to recommend speakers 
in the closing ceremony, organising of events, invitation to high level 
meeting, banners all around inside the venue (hundreds of them), special 
promotional feature in the IGF book, logos on the website, on the daily 
IGF bulletin, on various equipment in the venue and many other 
things..... Government can make donations and in return "may lead a 
session in the IGF and be responsible for opening, summary, and the 
closing of events....."

Scandalous!! This is selling off the UN, selling off of global public 
policy spaces... The fact is, I dont want to go to such an IGF. I want 
to have nothing to do with it.

Who authorised all this? Can the MAG please respond. They certainly knew 
about the mentioned 'fund raising proposal' and about how the 2013 IGF 
was being organised. Why did they remain complicit, or is it that they 
actively promoted it?  (For a start the civil society members in the MAG 
who are on this list may please clarify.) Who authorised selling off the 
global IG policy dialogue space in this way... Does this correspond to 
the ground rules of a UN convened and run event which in my 
understanding the IGF continues to be.

  It was certainly never intended in the WSIS mandate of the IGF... At 
the WG on IGF improvements too we were quite clear that IGF is a 
government hosted UN event. How was such a big shift be accomplished. 
And done without people getting a whiff or it, what to say, a public 
discussion.. I have seen many problematic changes inside the MAG-IGF 
structure over the last year or so, which are aimed at a kind of 
capture, but this one simply takes the cake.

Does the civil society want to speak up on this issue.

(As I said earlier, when, at the Baku IGF, the Indonesian government 
showed its unwillingness to host 21013 IGF, MAG, IGF secretariat, UNDESA 
or whoever, had no business to allocate it to a private group, even if 
under government’s weak tutelage. They should have offered it to other 
governments, one of which would  certainly have taken the offer. What 
has happened is a natural flow from what is euphemistically called as a 
multistakeholder convened/ funded IGF, largely free from UN and 
governmental linkages. And this is what so many - including on this list 
- have been promoting. It is basically a corporate controlled and run IGF  )


parminder


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130727/a028156c/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Mon Jul  8 10:02:50 2013
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 10:02:50 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Privacy_Group_to_Ask_Supreme_Court_to?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?_Stop_N=2ES=2EA=2E=92s_Phone_Spying_Program?=
In-Reply-To: <CANF49EmYO3YwhB-d7E=EGN6djkkaRWBjUu7fRBYt_Xj3VEPz=g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANF49EmYO3YwhB-d7E=EGN6djkkaRWBjUu7fRBYt_Xj3VEPz=g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAcNVa3k=O89PDcvuyzNQTtw3hSZWhhg6iDANu9TTC_S0w@mail.gmail.com>

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/08/us/privacy-group-to-ask-supreme-court-to-stop-nsas-phone-spying-program.html?pagewanted=print
July 7, 2013
Privacy Group to Ask Supreme Court to Stop N.S.A.’s Phone Spying
Program By JAMES
RISEN<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/james_risen/index.html>

WASHINGTON — A privacy rights group plans to file an emergency petition
with the Supreme
Court<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/supreme_court/index.html?inline=nyt-org>
on
Monday asking it to stop theNational Security
Agency<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_security_agency/index.html?8qa>’s
domestic surveillance program that collects the telephone records of
millions of Americans.

The group, the Electronic Privacy Information Center <http://epic.org/>,
says it is taking the extraordinary legal step of going directly to the
Supreme Court because the sweeping collection of the phone records of
American citizens has created “exceptional circumstances” that only the
nation’s highest court can address.

The group, based in Washington, also said it was taking its case to the
Supreme Court because it could not challenge the legality of the N.S.A.
program at the secret court that approved it, the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court, known as the FISA court, and because lower federal
courts did not have the authority to review the secret court’s orders.

In its petition, the group said the FISA court had “exceeded its statutory
jurisdiction when it ordered production of millions of domestic telephone
records that cannot plausibly be relevant to an authorized investigation.”

The suit is the latest in a series of legal challenges to the N.S.A.’s
domestic spying operations that have been filed over the past month after
disclosures by a former N.S.A. contractor, Edward J. Snowden. Based on a
document leaked by Mr. Snowden, The Guardian revealed early last month that
the FISA court had issued an order in April directing Verizon Business
Network Services to turn over all of the telephone records for its
customers to the N.S.A. The secret court
order<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order>
was
also published by The Guardian.

Within days of the disclosure of the court order, the American Civil
Liberties Union filed suit in federal court in New York. Separately, Larry
Klayman, a conservative lawyer who runs a group called Freedom Watch, filed
a class-action lawsuit in federal court in Washington on behalf of Verizon
customers.

Marc Rotenberg, the executive director of the Electronic Privacy
Information Center, said his group’s lawsuit would be the first to directly
challenge the legal authority of the FISA court to approve the phone
records’ collection under the Patriot
Act<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/u/usa_patriot_act/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier>
.

Alan Butler, a lawyer for the group, said the judge “lacked the authority
to require production of all domestic call detail records.” He noted that
the Patriot Act provision cited by the FISA court required that the
business records produced be “relevant” to an authorized national security
investigation. “It is simply implausible that all call detail records are
relevant,” Mr. Butler said.

The new challenges come after the failure of a legal campaign against the
N.S.A.’s domestic spying operations during the administration of President
George W. Bush. A series of lawsuits were brought against an N.S.A. program
of wiretapping without warrants soon after the existence of the program was
revealed by The New York Times in December 2005.

Those lawsuits were against the telecommunications companies that
cooperated with the N.S.A. program, but Congress later gave the companies
retroactive legal immunity when it overhauled the nation’s national
security wiretapping law in 2008. Those lawsuits also suffered in federal
courts because it was difficult for the plaintiffs to prove that they had
actually been spied upon by the N.S.A., since the domestic spying
operations were secret and the courts refused to force the government to
release any documents to reveal the targets of the surveillance.

But the new lawsuits benefit from the publication of the secret court order
concerning Verizon, providing evidence that the records of Verizon
customers have been collected. The American Civil Liberties Union, in its
lawsuit, argues that it has legal standing to bring its case because the
group is a Verizon customer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130708/411dd4ff/attachment.htm>

From pwilson at apnic.net  Sat Jul 27 05:25:45 2013
From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson)
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 19:25:45 +1000
Subject: [bestbits] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal
In-Reply-To: <51F379C9.5010807@itforchange.net>
References: <710A140D-0C7F-4E28-89C2-F7738EBD31F2@gmail.com> <51F379C9.5010807@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <F4B53787-D2BF-4EBB-8850-62527E5FAB84@apnic.net>

Pardon me Parminder, but where exactly is the "scandal"?  It would help if you could explain what position you are taking.

This organising committee has been "delegated" the task of hosting the IGF, and simply cannot raise the funds through donations.  The Government has been unable to contribute (recently declining yet again, and proposing to cancel the event); and the UN, far from supporting the event financially, requires substantial costs to be paid for secure, staff, travel and other.

The Indonesian committee is a multistakeholder grouping, including industry and community.  They are unable to attract donations, so they are proposing, it seems, to attract funding by providing some traditional "value" back to contributors.  The deal is nothing new - it seems to be a rather standard sponsorship arrangement.

As far as I am aware there has been no clearance given from anyone for this particular approach; so I assume it is still a "proposal".  For a hard-working committee, which has been more-or-less cut adrift, this kind of additional fund-raising work was not expected, on top of the big job of making the event happen.  They are largely alone and trying to do their best, to support an event which is supposed to be inclusive and supportive of new modes of organisation, yet support seems to be sadly lacking.

Rather than cries of "scandal" I'm sure that constructive contributions would be far more welcomed, by those who are actually doing the work.

Paul.



On 27/07/2013, at 5:42 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> 
> Following up on the current IGF cancellation imbroglio, I happened to see what is called as the 'fund raising proposal' of the managing committee of Bali IGF..... Sorry to say, but it is a pure scandal....
> 
> Against donations, it promises funders to be able to recommend speakers in the closing ceremony, organising of events, invitation to high level meeting, banners all around inside the venue (hundreds of them), special promotional feature in the IGF book, logos on the website, on the daily IGF bulletin, on various equipment in the venue and many other things..... Government can make donations and in return "may lead a session in the IGF and be responsible for opening, summary, and the closing of events....."
> 
> Scandalous!! This is selling off the UN, selling off of global public policy spaces... The fact is, I dont want to go to such an IGF. I want to have nothing to do with it. 
> 
> Who authorised all this? Can the MAG please respond. They certainly knew about the mentioned 'fund raising proposal' and about how the 2013 IGF was being organised. Why did they remain complicit, or is it that they actively promoted it?  (For a start the civil society members in the MAG who are on this list may please clarify.) Who authorised selling off the global IG policy dialogue space in this way... Does this correspond to the ground rules of a UN convened and run event which in my understanding the IGF continues to be. 
> 
>  It was certainly never intended in the WSIS mandate of the IGF... At the WG on IGF improvements too we were quite clear that IGF is a government hosted UN event. How was such a big shift be accomplished. And done without people getting a whiff or it, what to say, a public discussion.. I have seen many problematic changes inside the MAG-IGF structure over the last year or so, which are aimed at a kind of capture, but this one simply takes the cake. 
> 
> Does the civil society want to speak up on this issue.
> 
> (As I said earlier, when, at the Baku IGF, the Indonesian government showed its unwillingness to host 21013 IGF, MAG, IGF secretariat, UNDESA or whoever, had no business to allocate it to a private group, even if under government’s weak tutelage. They should have offered it to other governments, one of which would  certainly have taken the offer. What has happened is a natural flow from what is euphemistically called as a multistakeholder convened/ funded IGF, largely free from UN and governmental linkages. And this is what so many - including on this list - have been promoting. It is basically a corporate controlled and run IGF  )
> 
> 
> parminder
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2880 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130727/84eafca0/attachment.bin>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Jul 27 06:14:11 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 15:44:11 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal
In-Reply-To: <F4B53787-D2BF-4EBB-8850-62527E5FAB84@apnic.net>
References: <710A140D-0C7F-4E28-89C2-F7738EBD31F2@gmail.com> <51F379C9.5010807@itforchange.net> <F4B53787-D2BF-4EBB-8850-62527E5FAB84@apnic.net>
Message-ID: <51F39D73.3040100@itforchange.net>


On Saturday 27 July 2013 02:55 PM, Paul Wilson wrote:
> Pardon me Parminder, but where exactly is the "scandal"?  It would help if you could explain what position you are taking.

Paul (and Nick)

What is the scandal here? Well, I can give a long response and then we 
can keep arguing over it. And I dont think this is a point that I 
consider open for arguments. So I will give a short one, even at the 
risk of sounding blunt for which I apologise in advance. If you dont see 
a scandal here, either you dont understand democracy or you dont value 
it. Period.

(I am further sorry that you have these views since you are also the 
chair of the so-called Asia Pacific regional IGF. Shows how deep the 
malaise has gone, while Nero plays on his flute.)

BYW, would you allow the parliament of Australia, or even the public 
assemblies at your local town hall, to get corporatised in this manner? 
I mean, poor financial conditions of governments can always be cited as 
the convenient reason.

parminder


>
> This organising committee has been "delegated" the task of hosting the IGF, and simply cannot raise the funds through donations.  The Government has been unable to contribute (recently declining yet again, and proposing to cancel the event); and the UN, far from supporting the event financially, requires substantial costs to be paid for secure, staff, travel and other.
>
> The Indonesian committee is a multistakeholder grouping, including industry and community.  They are unable to attract donations, so they are proposing, it seems, to attract funding by providing some traditional "value" back to contributors.  The deal is nothing new - it seems to be a rather standard sponsorship arrangement.
>
> As far as I am aware there has been no clearance given from anyone for this particular approach; so I assume it is still a "proposal".  For a hard-working committee, which has been more-or-less cut adrift, this kind of additional fund-raising work was not expected, on top of the big job of making the event happen.  They are largely alone and trying to do their best, to support an event which is supposed to be inclusive and supportive of new modes of organisation, yet support seems to be sadly lacking.
>
> Rather than cries of "scandal" I'm sure that constructive contributions would be far more welcomed, by those who are actually doing the work.
>
> Paul.
>
>
>
> On 27/07/2013, at 5:42 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>> Following up on the current IGF cancellation imbroglio, I happened to see what is called as the 'fund raising proposal' of the managing committee of Bali IGF..... Sorry to say, but it is a pure scandal....
>>
>> Against donations, it promises funders to be able to recommend speakers in the closing ceremony, organising of events, invitation to high level meeting, banners all around inside the venue (hundreds of them), special promotional feature in the IGF book, logos on the website, on the daily IGF bulletin, on various equipment in the venue and many other things..... Government can make donations and in return "may lead a session in the IGF and be responsible for opening, summary, and the closing of events....."
>>
>> Scandalous!! This is selling off the UN, selling off of global public policy spaces... The fact is, I dont want to go to such an IGF. I want to have nothing to do with it.
>>
>> Who authorised all this? Can the MAG please respond. They certainly knew about the mentioned 'fund raising proposal' and about how the 2013 IGF was being organised. Why did they remain complicit, or is it that they actively promoted it?  (For a start the civil society members in the MAG who are on this list may please clarify.) Who authorised selling off the global IG policy dialogue space in this way... Does this correspond to the ground rules of a UN convened and run event which in my understanding the IGF continues to be.
>>
>>   It was certainly never intended in the WSIS mandate of the IGF... At the WG on IGF improvements too we were quite clear that IGF is a government hosted UN event. How was such a big shift be accomplished. And done without people getting a whiff or it, what to say, a public discussion.. I have seen many problematic changes inside the MAG-IGF structure over the last year or so, which are aimed at a kind of capture, but this one simply takes the cake.
>>
>> Does the civil society want to speak up on this issue.
>>
>> (As I said earlier, when, at the Baku IGF, the Indonesian government showed its unwillingness to host 21013 IGF, MAG, IGF secretariat, UNDESA or whoever, had no business to allocate it to a private group, even if under government’s weak tutelage. They should have offered it to other governments, one of which would  certainly have taken the offer. What has happened is a natural flow from what is euphemistically called as a multistakeholder convened/ funded IGF, largely free from UN and governmental linkages. And this is what so many - including on this list - have been promoting. It is basically a corporate controlled and run IGF  )
>>
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>


From nashton at consensus.pro  Sat Jul 27 11:45:16 2013
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 15:45:16 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal
In-Reply-To: <51F39D73.3040100@itforchange.net>
References: <710A140D-0C7F-4E28-89C2-F7738EBD31F2@gmail.com> <51F379C9.5010807@itforchange.net> <F4B53787-D2BF-4EBB-8850-62527E5FAB84@apnic.net> <51F39D73.3040100@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <0000014020ce2a14-27729e87-8097-4550-9f01-d7d3412c8e46-000000@email.amazonses.com>

I have no idea why I'm being mentioned (assuming I'm the Nick in question) on this thread, as I didn't comment on it.

On 27 Jul 2013, at 12:14, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> 
> On Saturday 27 July 2013 02:55 PM, Paul Wilson wrote:
>> Pardon me Parminder, but where exactly is the "scandal"?  It would help if you could explain what position you are taking.
> 
> Paul (and Nick)
> 
> What is the scandal here? Well, I can give a long response and then we can keep arguing over it. And I dont think this is a point that I consider open for arguments. So I will give a short one, even at the risk of sounding blunt for which I apologise in advance. If you dont see a scandal here, either you dont understand democracy or you dont value it. Period.
> 
> (I am further sorry that you have these views since you are also the chair of the so-called Asia Pacific regional IGF. Shows how deep the malaise has gone, while Nero plays on his flute.)
> 
> BYW, would you allow the parliament of Australia, or even the public assemblies at your local town hall, to get corporatised in this manner? I mean, poor financial conditions of governments can always be cited as the convenient reason.
> 
> parminder
> 
> 
>> 
>> This organising committee has been "delegated" the task of hosting the IGF, and simply cannot raise the funds through donations.  The Government has been unable to contribute (recently declining yet again, and proposing to cancel the event); and the UN, far from supporting the event financially, requires substantial costs to be paid for secure, staff, travel and other.
>> 
>> The Indonesian committee is a multistakeholder grouping, including industry and community.  They are unable to attract donations, so they are proposing, it seems, to attract funding by providing some traditional "value" back to contributors.  The deal is nothing new - it seems to be a rather standard sponsorship arrangement.
>> 
>> As far as I am aware there has been no clearance given from anyone for this particular approach; so I assume it is still a "proposal".  For a hard-working committee, which has been more-or-less cut adrift, this kind of additional fund-raising work was not expected, on top of the big job of making the event happen.  They are largely alone and trying to do their best, to support an event which is supposed to be inclusive and supportive of new modes of organisation, yet support seems to be sadly lacking.
>> 
>> Rather than cries of "scandal" I'm sure that constructive contributions would be far more welcomed, by those who are actually doing the work.
>> 
>> Paul.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 27/07/2013, at 5:42 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> Following up on the current IGF cancellation imbroglio, I happened to see what is called as the 'fund raising proposal' of the managing committee of Bali IGF..... Sorry to say, but it is a pure scandal....
>>> 
>>> Against donations, it promises funders to be able to recommend speakers in the closing ceremony, organising of events, invitation to high level meeting, banners all around inside the venue (hundreds of them), special promotional feature in the IGF book, logos on the website, on the daily IGF bulletin, on various equipment in the venue and many other things..... Government can make donations and in return "may lead a session in the IGF and be responsible for opening, summary, and the closing of events....."
>>> 
>>> Scandalous!! This is selling off the UN, selling off of global public policy spaces... The fact is, I dont want to go to such an IGF. I want to have nothing to do with it.
>>> 
>>> Who authorised all this? Can the MAG please respond. They certainly knew about the mentioned 'fund raising proposal' and about how the 2013 IGF was being organised. Why did they remain complicit, or is it that they actively promoted it?  (For a start the civil society members in the MAG who are on this list may please clarify.) Who authorised selling off the global IG policy dialogue space in this way... Does this correspond to the ground rules of a UN convened and run event which in my understanding the IGF continues to be.
>>> 
>>>  It was certainly never intended in the WSIS mandate of the IGF... At the WG on IGF improvements too we were quite clear that IGF is a government hosted UN event. How was such a big shift be accomplished. And done without people getting a whiff or it, what to say, a public discussion.. I have seen many problematic changes inside the MAG-IGF structure over the last year or so, which are aimed at a kind of capture, but this one simply takes the cake.
>>> 
>>> Does the civil society want to speak up on this issue.
>>> 
>>> (As I said earlier, when, at the Baku IGF, the Indonesian government showed its unwillingness to host 21013 IGF, MAG, IGF secretariat, UNDESA or whoever, had no business to allocate it to a private group, even if under government’s weak tutelage. They should have offered it to other governments, one of which would  certainly have taken the offer. What has happened is a natural flow from what is euphemistically called as a multistakeholder convened/ funded IGF, largely free from UN and governmental linkages. And this is what so many - including on this list - have been promoting. It is basically a corporate controlled and run IGF  )
>>> 
>>> 
>>> parminder
>>> 
>>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130727/d5010162/attachment.sig>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Jul 28 07:50:01 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 17:20:01 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the
 corporatisation scandal
In-Reply-To: <A0A6348C-A4B7-4877-9973-2344663F78B2@ciroap.org>
References: <710A140D-0C7F-4E28-89C2-F7738EBD31F2@gmail.com> <51F379C9.5010807@itforchange.net> <A0A6348C-A4B7-4877-9973-2344663F78B2@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <51F50569.8000205@itforchange.net>


On Saturday 27 July 2013 03:33 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 27/07/2013, at 3:42 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>> Following up on the current IGF cancellation imbroglio, I happened to 
>> see what is called as the 'fund raising proposal' 
>> <https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BylRrf_lFlA9OXhieGt5WUJsMkU/edit> of 
>> the managing committee of Bali IGF..... Sorry to say, but it is a 
>> pure scandal....
>
> This is hopefully just naivety on the part of the local organisers, 
> who didn't appreciate the difference between the IGF and any other 
> Internet conference.

Well, may be.... although we tend to be selective about whom are we 
ready to easily forgive and for what... But in any case, what about the 
IGF secretariat and the MAG. Can they also be considered naive and / or 
innocent.  They obviously knew of this document. BTW, the document says 
that it is trying a new multistakeholder model for holding the IGFs..  
Does it not then constitute an express blessing by the IGF secretariat 
and the MAG to such a 'new model'.


IGFs are held under the UN flag and the IGF space is subject to UN 
conference rules and immunities..... Would many things in the document 
not fundamentally be violative of some of these norms and rules.... In 
other circumstances, this would have immediately led to an inquiry and 
questions being raised officially about how did the IGF secretarit and 
the MAG allow such a thing.... But we are not in normal circumstances,  
this is the times of a strong ascendency of neo-liberal ideology..... 
And those who need to have triggered the outrage, the civil society, 
seem to be happy to quietly condone it as well.

And what about the 1 million dollar that has been raised, I would think, 
on the basis this document. Is the IGF now bound by the promises made 
under the sponsorship deals.... And if these deals are not valid, 
because we would not want to deliver on the promises, can we still 
consider to have that 1 million dollar for holding the IGF?


parminder



> They can be forgiven for this because indeed until now there has been 
> precious little difference between the IGF and any other Internet 
> conference.  That this could have happened is more of an indictment of 
> the state of the IGF than of the Indonesian team.
>
> -- 
>
> *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.
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130728/37946e53/attachment.htm>

From deborah at accessnow.org  Sun Jul 28 13:12:08 2013
From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown)
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 13:12:08 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Re: Call for comment: civil society letter to PCLOB
 re: human rights impacts of NSA surveillance of 'non-US persons'
In-Reply-To: <51F26739.1020709@itforchange.net>
References: <51EF2902.1080702@cdt.org>
	<51EF316B.4030306@itforchange.net>
	<94BC60FF-AF14-46B8-B16D-6B6D01C40522@gmail.com>
	<51EF81D5.9090802@itforchange.net>
	<51EFB97F.9090702@apc.org>
	<51EFE4EF.40403@eff.org>
	<CAJqNAHCj0EnRFyPBpmdO7MDA-fSZMPDzeO-wSOj+68njYG=sDA@mail.gmail.com>
	<51F00B97.20509@itforchange.net>
	<001501ce88d9$68801bb0$39805310$@gmail.com>
	<CAJqNAHBcr=S-bPYGCbiaKbmfmK7MOspmeeBwaVOEn2SiSMCHtQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<51F10F40.1010800@apc.org>
	<51F18DD2.2090303@eff.org>
	<CALU7RQbkjGtX51gye1dHMy9Foa+GzrYX5LVXHYdpcUhEL36vNQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<51F26739.1020709@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CALU7RQbza7Ww4ecnPh5W8WMjedL7A4EzQGZxZosR6SbvrRgj8w@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

First, thank you Parminder for raising this important concern. Some of the
original drafters of the text, as well as those who had commented on this
particular sentence, made a concerted effort to clarify and incorporate the
various views and concerns expressed on the sentence in question. The
following formulation was reached as a compromise:
"We believe that such findings and recommendations would not only be
consistent with the U.S. government’s frequently stated commitment to
‘freedom online’, but would also constitute a valuable contribution to
developing and implementing a robust global framework for such protections."

Recognizing that this was not a perfect process and that we'll need to
strive to do better in the future, I hope many on this list be able to
support this text and recognize the effort that went into trying to
accommodate various viewpoints.

The text has been updated to reflect this small change, and is available
for sign on here: http://bestbits.net/pclob/

Best regards,
Deborah


On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 8:10 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

>
> Hi Deborah
>
>
> "We urge you to make recommendations and findings designed to protect the
> human rights not only of U.S.-persons, but also of non-U.S. persons. We
> believe that such findings and recommendations would not only be consistent
> with the U.S. government’s frequently stated commitment to ‘freedom
> online’, but would also constitute a valuable contribution to developing a
> global framework for implementing such protections."
>
> To me, the para read as if a global framework should then be developed to
> implement protections that US government will legislate on the advice of
> PCLOB. This I think is not the drafters' intention.
>
> And if indeed the above para is to be amended, my organisation will be
> willing to sign if it ends in this fashion......" would also constitute a
> valuable contribution to developing a global framework in the concerned
> area".... Although we remain quite concerned about the extra ordinary
> sensitivities in closely evaluating every single word and turn of phrase
> with a view that it might not in the least ever suggest that there could be
> any international program to pursue in this area as well.... This is rather
> un- understandable when the sole topic of this endeavour is of preserving
> the rights on non-citizens in the digital space over which a particular
> government seem to have jurisdiction and control - which clearly is an
> issue pertaining to the governance of the cross border digital space.
>
> BTW, do remember that in the recent case related to Chevron<http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/07/chevron-ecuador-american-email-legal-activists-journalists>an US court has clearly ruled that non citizens do not have relevant
> constitutional protections...
>
> parminder
>
>
>  On Friday 26 July 2013 09:59 AM, Deborah Brown wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
>  Please find the edited PCLOB letter posted on the Best Bits website
> here: http://bestbits.net/pclob/
>
>  As Emma noted in her initial email the goal was to have a final draft of
> the letter text available to circulate during the day on Thursday, so we're
> just a little behind schedule. Hopefully you will find that this letter
> reflects the suggestions on this thread and addresses the task at hand.
>
>  *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.
>
>  The deadline for submission is 1 August, so I think the goal is to close
> the letter for signatures by end of 31 July. Emma or Matthew, can you
> please confirm? This leaves just under a week for sign on, which hopefully
> is a realistic timeframe.
>
>  As was mentioned earlier, international groups are welcome to submit
> their own letters as well, and Anriette made an excellent suggestion that
> Best Bits may want to prepare for other governments. Is anyone interested
> in taking the lead on this?
>
>  Finally, since we have a week lead up before submitting this comment to
> PCLOB, should we be trying to get some international press coverage? It may
> be ambitious, but it could be valuable for those who support the letter to
> reach out to media in the countries where they are based with coordinated
> messaging. What do others think?
>
>  Best regards,
> Deborah
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org>wrote:
>
>> Hi Anriette,
>>
>> I'm out of the office and I'm unware about alll the nuances of our
>> position for this submission to the PCLOB. My colleague, Danny O'brien,
>> EFF International Director, is the one who is writing the international
>> angle of this particular EFF submission to the PCLOB.  I'm cc-ing him to
>> the list. He is aware about the Best Bits coalition initiative.
>>
>> Danny: The letter is here in case you have a little time to look at it.
>>
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/17BWIev_DybbML3ObDCORkW83THrNGuJrHlV5sQLdYA0/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Katitza
>>
>> On 7/25/13 7:42 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>> > Hi all
>> >
>> > I was happy with Anja's reformulation and I share her concerns about the
>> > risks attached to a global agreement. And great work to the main
>> > drafters.. I should have said this before. Just one other thought.
>> >
>> > We could, theoretically, keep the letter short and concise, and add as
>> > an addendum a document that raises broader concerns. But hopefully this
>> > will not be necessary.
>> >
>> > We should try to remember that we are acting on multiple fronts and
>> > therefore we don't have to fit all our concerns and demands into every
>> > single intervention.
>> >
>> > I would like to hear from Katitza whether, in the light of EFF's
>> > position on the PCLOB, whether she thinks this letter is a bad idea? Not
>> > that I think we should not send it, I would just like to have a better
>> > understanding of EFF's position on the Best Bits letter.
>> >
>> > And then another thought. Should Best Bits not also draft letters to
>> > other governments on our concerns. Anja mentions India. South Africa
>> > also has VERY problematic legislation around monitoring and
>> interception.
>> >
>> > The list goes on.
>> >
>> > Anriette
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 25/07/2013 13:29, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>> >> Just to clarify my position vis-a-vis Parminder's comments:
>> >>
>> >> In theory I do think that a strong global framework on privacy
>> protections
>> >> could contribute to resolving these issues in a significant manner.
>> >> Unfortunately, in practice I am not sure how feasible this is at
>> present.
>> >> As they are necessarily based on compromise, global agreements tend to
>> >> congeal around the lowest common denominators. At the moment, I am
>> afraid
>> >> these will set the bar too low, not in the least because many of the
>> >> democracies that one would hope would push for higher standards at the
>> >> moment seem to be setting the bar too low domestically, including where
>> >> privacy is concerned. This is true not only of the US but also of, for
>> >> example, India. In these circumstances, I am worried that a global
>> >> agreement will be used first and foremost to cement sovereignty over
>> the
>> >> Internet, rather than to defend the rights of Internet users around the
>> >> world, something I would not consider a gain. My reformulation of
>> >> Anriette's formulation was simply meant to foreground that what we are
>> >> asking for is the implementation of existing human rights, not to stop
>> us
>> >> from creating a debate on this issue. I continue to think, however,
>> that
>> >> the best way countries can flag that the time is genuinely ripe for a
>> >> global framework is by demonstrating a clear commitment to human
>> rights in
>> >> these areas domestically. It is countries that would like to see global
>> >> coordination on a wide range of issues beyond privacy that might in
>> fact
>> >> have the greatest stake in doing so.
>> >>
>> >> My 2 cents.
>> >>
>> >> Best,
>> >> Anja
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 25 July 2013 07:20, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> I agree with Parminder that the letter lacks a forward looking element
>> >>> which would deal with the most fundamental issue--the development of
>> an
>> >>> integrated (if to a very limited degree multi-polar) ubiquitous
>> >>> multi-stakeholder--States+private sector+technical community(?))
>> >>> surveillance State. This is  global in nature and will require some
>> sort of
>> >>> global response and working through this in anticipation of the IGF
>> should
>> >>> be I think, our major current task.****
>> >>>
>> >>> ** **
>> >>>
>> >>> However, I think the letter goes a very considerable degree beyond
>> earlier
>> >>> such position statements from major (particularly US) CS actors in
>> >>> recognizing the legitimate concerns/significance of "foreigners" in
>> the
>> >>> current US discussion and on that basis I think it should be
>> supported as
>> >>> amended.****
>> >>>
>> >>> ** **
>> >>>
>> >>> M****
>> >>>
>> >>> ** **
>> >>>
>> >>> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:
>> >>> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *parminder
>> >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 24, 2013 10:45 PM
>> >>> *Cc:* &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
>> >>>
>> >>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Re: Call for comment: civil society letter
>> to
>> >>> PCLOB re: human rights impacts of NSA surveillance of 'non-US
>> persons'****
>> >>>
>> >>> ** **
>> >>>
>> >>> ** **
>> >>>
>> >>> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 08:23 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:****
>> >>>
>> >>> I also liked Anriette's language on the "development of a global
>> framework
>> >>> for protection", though I would suggest we slightly edit it to read
>> "the
>> >>> development of a global framework for the implementation of
>> protections" or
>> >>> something along those lines. The reason is that we already have a
>> framework
>> >>> for protections, ie the human rights framework, but that governments
>> seem
>> >>> to be happy to disregard this when it comes to surveillance.  ****
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> But so does the US have in place all kinds of higher level principles
>> that
>> >>> do cover such issues; then why does the letter ask for new legal
>> frameworks
>> >>> from the US government? As the current frameworks in the US have been
>> found
>> >>> inadequate, so could it be held true for the global human rights
>> regime
>> >>> (arguably truer for the latter) - because it is an undeniable fact -
>> >>> although often selectively denied - that the digital space produces
>> >>> entirely new realities, which are also unprecedentedly global in
>> nature....
>> >>> More on US versus UN frameworks below...
>> >>>
>> >>> ****
>> >>>
>> >>> ** **
>> >>>
>> >>> Until governments worldwide give considerably greater evidence of
>> their
>> >>> willingness to make the protection of human rights an integral
>> component of
>> >>> their surveillance plans, I do not think that it is appropriate for
>> civil
>> >>> society to push for a more comprehensive global framework on security
>> >>> issues in general. ****
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> 'Global framework on security? Whoever asked for one..... Are we
>> asking
>> >>> the US government for new a framework on security, I thought we were
>> asking
>> >>> for a new framework on privacy protection.... so also for the UN.
>> Global
>> >>> framework for privacy protection, not for security.
>> >>>
>> >>> So, pardon my use of ironic language to make my point, apparently we
>> can
>> >>> ask the US to develop new legal frameworks, and trust that they would
>> not
>> >>> come up with something worse then they have at present. However, we
>> cannot
>> >>> at all trust the UN to not come up with legal frameworks worse than
>> what we
>> >>> have at present, and therefore we should not ever even ask them for
>> the
>> >>> same thing that we are ready to ask of the US.
>> >>>
>> >>> To me, it boils down to trusting the US government to run the world
>> more
>> >>> than we can trust the UN... This is something I am unwilling to do.
>> If even
>> >>> Snowden did not teach us the right lesson, perhaps nothing ever
>> would. I am
>> >>> afraid that all this is of a piece with a widespread tendency to
>> trust US
>> >>> more than the UN with the trusteeship of the global Internet. I
>> obviously
>> >>> cannot accept that. As I said in my first posting, it is a well
>> written and
>> >>> argued letter, but the problem with it is not what it says, but with
>> what
>> >>> it does not.
>> >>>
>> >>> I am not against focussing a letter on a particular opportunity and
>> end.
>> >>> However,  (1) PCLOB is not the wrong agency to advice the US
>> government to
>> >>> consider global legal frameworks on privacy protection, especially
>> now when
>> >>> Snowden disclosures tell us what other countries could also be doing,
>> >>> including to the US citizens, (2) I did want to have a discussion
>> here on
>> >>> whether the group considers global frameworks as also a needed remedy
>> for
>> >>> the problem in focus. I am unable to see how adding a line or two on
>> global
>> >>> frameworks would throw the letter out of focus.....
>> >>>
>> >>> parminder
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> ****
>> >>>
>> >>> ** **
>> >>>
>> >>> On the issue of what constitutes a "Best Bits statement", the points
>> made
>> >>> here are important and we do indeed need greater clarity on this. At
>> the
>> >>> same time, it's also important to keep in mind that once statements
>> are
>> >>> shared with the wider world, maintaining a distinction between a
>> statement
>> >>> supported by all (though even on the Baku one I think we had one
>> abstention
>> >>> by the way, and in any case the Baku group was fairly small) and a
>> >>> statement shared and promoted through the Best Bits platform might be
>> >>> difficult - even if we are careful to make these distinctions, the
>> wider
>> >>> world might not.
>> >>>
>> >>> Perhaps we should therefore simply go for a model in which ALL
>> statements
>> >>> are considered to be in the latter category, and focus our attention
>> on
>> >>> coming up with criteria for which type of statements are appropriate
>> (or
>> >>> not) for Best Bits instead? I am worried that sending out mixed
>> messages
>> >>> will only undermine the effectiveness of the advocacy efforts that go
>> >>> through Best Bits, though I'd of course be very happy to hear other
>> >>> possible solutions to that conundrum as well.****
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks and best,
>> >>> Anja****
>> >>>
>> >>> ** **
>> >>>
>> >>> On 24 July 2013 20:00, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> wrote:****
>> >>>
>> >>> Dear all,
>> >>>
>> >>> It would be good to answer the consultation without voicing support
>> for
>> >>> a PCLOB investigation. In EFF, we are of the opinion that the PCLOB
>> >>> isn't the right place for an investigation.
>> >>>
>> >>> PCLOB is weak institution, so EFF concern is that its weaknesses
>> foster
>> >>> low, expectation politics/rhetoric.  EFF want a Church Committee,
>> >>> investigation or at least an existing committee with congress or at
>> >>> least an existing committee with congressional subpoena power to
>> >>> investigate.
>> >>>
>> >>> We have three or four blog posts with arguments about why we need
>> >>> a special investigatory committee, and at the very least extant
>> >>> committees, instead of the PCLOB to investigate.
>> >>>
>> >>> For more information on our asks please check out:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/why-special-congressional-committee-must-be-created-investigate-nsas
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/response-nsa-we-need-new-church-commission-and-we-need-it-now
>> >>> ****
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On 7/24/13 7:24 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>> >>>> Dear all
>> >>>>
>> >>>> My view on the letter is to keep it focused on the Call for Comment
>> by
>> >>>> the US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board regarding the US
>> >>>> government's surveillance programs under the PATRIOT Act and FISA.  I
>> >>>> think the letter is already too long.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The more focused and to the point (and brief) our comments are, the
>> more
>> >>>> likely they will be discussed, forwarded, understood, etc. etc..
>> >>>> However, I do have a proposal for how to include a reference global
>> >>>> legal frameworks that does not change the basic character and
>> purpose of
>> >>>> the letter as one that addresses an official US body.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> This letter makes three key points:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> * Government surveillance must be subject to a strong legal framework
>> >>>> that is transparent, necessary to achieve a legitimate goal and
>> >>>> proportionate to that goal, authorized by a competent judicial
>> >>>> authority, and subject to public oversight.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> *Surveillance of communications conducted under Section 702 must
>> meets
>> >>>> international human rights standards for surveillance.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> * In the context of online communications, the privacy and
>> liberty****
>> >>>> rights of non-U.S. persons outside the U.S. should bewithin the
>> PCLOB's*
>> >>> ***
>> >>>
>> >>>> statutory mandate.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> We could add something along the following lines:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> We believe findings and recommendations developed by the PCLOB that
>> >>>> ensure that protection of rights of US and non US persons in the
>> context
>> >>>> of government surveillance would not only be consistent with the US
>> >>>> government's frequently stated commitment to 'freedom online'; it
>> would
>> >>>> also constitute a valuable contribution to the eventual development
>> of a
>> >>>> global framework for such protections.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Btw, this last sentence (quoted below) still uses the term
>> 'Americans'.
>> >>>> Please change. I also think that it is best to say 'findings and
>> >>>> recommendations' rather than 'recommendations and findings' as the
>> >>>> former is likely to flow from the latter.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> "We urge you to make recommendations and findings designed to protect
>> >>>> the human rights not only of Americans, but also of non-U.S. persons
>> who
>> >>>> live outside the United States."
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Ciao
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Anriette
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On 24/07/2013 09:27, parminder wrote:
>> >>>>> Thanks to Gene and Jeremy for their responses..
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> However, I see no argument here why the letter cannot ask US to also
>> >>>>> engage in developing global norms and agreements with regard to
>> >>>>> safeguards against invasion of privacy in name of security, and then
>> >>>>> adhering to these norms/ agreements. After all, US is a prime party
>> to
>> >>>>> be appealed to if we are to move towards such global norms/
>> >>>>> agreements, and it remains my firm belief that this thing can really
>> >>>>> be addressed only through global arrangements,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> (Also, shouldnt US groups and US citizens also be concerned about
>> >>>>> invasion of their privacy by non US government agents.:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> About Jeremy's arugment against seeking 'global legal frameworks'
>> >>>>> being that we ourselves are yet to propose anything concrete, does
>> the
>> >>>>> proposed letter not ask the US government to develop new 'strong
>> legal
>> >>>>> frameworks' without actually suggesting their precise forms.. Why
>> cant
>> >>>>> we do the same for the global level even when we yet dont have our
>> >>>>> concrete institutional proposals ready (would we ever be :) )... At
>> >>>>> the domestic level of US gov, the letter simply asserts the need, at
>> >>>>> the principles level, of privacy protection through 'strong legal
>> >>>>> framework'. We can ask the same for the global system, at the level
>> of
>> >>>>> principles.... Unless of course there is a difference of opinion
>> here
>> >>>>> about the principle of a global framework itself, in which case it
>> is
>> >>>>> precisely my point to discus it openly...
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> parminder
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 07:34 AM, Gene Kimmelman wrote:
>> >>>>>> I think Parminder raises some very important points.  I'd like to
>> >>>>>> offer a quick observation and await other input:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> 1.  The question about how to refer to previous statements
>> generated
>> >>>>>> through some subgroup of BestBits is very legitimate; we may need a
>> >>>>>> more precise description of the letter referred to and who the
>> >>>>>> signatories were.  We still need to discuss at the next BestBits
>> >>>>>> gathering what our rules of engagement and governance should be.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> 2.  I fully support the idea of initiating a discussion of what
>> type
>> >>>>>> of global legal framework (or maybe normative framework) we should
>> be
>> >>>>>> galvanizing around.  Maybe even a simple call for the UN to engage
>> a
>> >>>>>>  discussion with all stakeholders fully represented, to consider
>> how
>> >>>>>> best to enforce human rights charters and principles, would be a
>> path
>> >>>>>> forward?  Maybe others have a better suggestion, but I wouldn't
>> want
>> >>>>>> the "perfect" to stand in the way of the "good enough" for the
>> >>>>>> purpose of registering broad CSO interest in a global discussion
>> and
>> >>>>>> global policy engagement.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> 3.  Whether or not we can all agree on something related to the
>> >>>>>> global legal framework, I also urge everyone to be pragmatic about
>> >>>>>> the opportunity to register your views with the US-base PCLOB.
>>  This
>> >>>>>> is of course only one small piece of the legal struggle, but it is
>> >>>>>> very important from a US NGO standpoint to expand the US debate
>> >>>>>> beyond US citizens or residents.  The US needs global input to wake
>> >>>>>> it up to its broader obligations.  This may  not be enough to
>> change
>> >>>>>> policy, but it is a critical enhancement to the US-based NGO
>> advocacy
>> >>>>>> that could have some impact on the US government.  So even if this
>> is
>> >>>>>> a flawed, partial solution, and should be connected to something
>> >>>>>> related to broader global solution, I believe it could influence US
>> >>>>>> policymakers.
>> >>>>>> On Jul 23, 2013, at 9:44 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>> >>>>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Generally a well written statement. However, it must be judged not
>> >>>>>>> only for what it says but also what it does not... The statement
>> >>>>>>> appeals to a US government agency to protect human rights of all
>> >>>>>>> citizens of the world, especially non US citizens, which is very
>> >>>>>>> well. It call for all security measures that the US  " must be
>> >>>>>>> subject to a strong legal framework" meaning here just a US legal
>> >>>>>>> framework.... I am not convinced that this constitutes an adequate
>> >>>>>>> remedy. All security measures should be subject to a strong global
>> >>>>>>> or international treaty/ legal framework as well.. That alone will
>> >>>>>>> work in an environment where we are all continually immersed in a
>> >>>>>>> (somewhat) globally seamless, or at least hyper-connected, digital
>> >>>>>>> space.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> So, my specific question is, what stops us, as a global civil
>> >>>>>>> society group, from calling for a global/international legal
>> >>>>>>> framework to ensuring that all security related (and other)
>> actions,
>> >>>>>>> of all states, including the US, are subject to a clear
>> >>>>>>> international regime based on human rights, and any such regime
>> >>>>>>> should have adequate enforcement capabilities.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Can we discuss this here...
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> While once in a while we as a global civil society group can make
>> >>>>>>> specific appeals to one government or the other, but I am
>> unwilling
>> >>>>>>> to convert US government to be 'the' key duty bearer and appellate
>> >>>>>>> body for global justice. In doing this is a deeper politics, and
>> >>>>>>> that is my principal objection to this statement - not to what the
>> >>>>>>> statmement says, but what it does not. However, this problem can
>> >>>>>>> easily be addressed if the statement includes an appeal for global
>> >>>>>>> legal frameworks for the same purpose..... Are the framers of the
>> >>>>>>> statement willing to consider this?
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Another unconnected point, I often see statements that are signed
>> by
>> >>>>>>> various actors using the BestBits as a facilitating platform,
>> >>>>>>> without them being developed and signed on the behalf of the
>> >>>>>>> BestBits group/ coalition, then after being signed  propositioned
>> as
>> >>>>>>> BestBits statements. Recently I saw such a reference in the press,
>> >>>>>>> about a statement that was never signed by the group as a whole
>> >>>>>>> being called as a BestBits statement. This proposed letter also
>> >>>>>>> refers to an earlier statement being of BestBits coalition whereas
>> >>>>>>> it was never signed by the group as a whole...
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> parminder
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On Wednesday 24 July 2013 06:38 AM, Emma Llanso wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> Dear all,
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> As you may be aware, the US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight
>> >>>>>>>> Board is accepting comments commentary regarding the US
>> >>>>>>>> government's surveillance programs under the PATRIOT Act and
>> FISA.
>> >>>>>>>> (I've included some information about PCLOB below in case you're
>> >>>>>>>> not familiar with this entity.)  I'd like to share with you a
>> draft
>> >>>>>>>> was put together by CDT, with feedback from a number of folks on
>> >>>>>>>> this list, that focuses on the impact these programs have on the
>> >>>>>>>> human rights of individuals outside the US:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/17BWIev_DybbML3ObDCORkW83THrNGuJrHlV5sQLdYA0/edit?usp=sharing
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> We feel that the draft text is at a point where it's ready to be
>> >>>>>>>> shared with the broader Best Bits community for comment.  Please
>> >>>>>>>> share any comments you have on the letter text with the whole
>> list.
>> >>>>>>>> (I will be traveling on Wednesday and so slow to respond to
>> >>>>>>>> email.)  Ideally, we'd like to have a final draft of the letter
>> >>>>>>>> text available to circulate during the day on Thursday, giving us
>> >>>>>>>> about a week to solicit sign-on from as broad an array of groups
>> as
>> >>>>>>>> possible.  This is a very compressed timeframe, unfortunately,
>> but
>> >>>>>>>> the deadline for submitting comments is August 1st, so there is
>> not
>> >>>>>>>> much flexibility in the schedule.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> The Best Bits interim steering committee has agreed to host the
>> >>>>>>>> final letter text on the Best Bits website to facilitate sign-on
>> >>>>>>>> once we've reached that point.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> It's worth noting here that while a joint letter with broad
>> >>>>>>>> international sign in is one way of getting the US government to
>> >>>>>>>> consider the rights of non-US persons, so is flooding PCLOB with
>> >>>>>>>> individual letters from international groups, so please feel free
>> >>>>>>>> to adapt or build on to this letter and submit it separately. We
>> >>>>>>>> intentionally did not make recommendations to PCLOB so as to
>> garner
>> >>>>>>>> broad sign on (more on that below), but individual letters are a
>> >>>>>>>> good opportunity to make specific recommendations.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> *Background on the letter:*
>> >>>>>>>> PCLOB will be preparing a report and is accepting comments
>> >>>>>>>> <
>> >>> http://www.regulations.gov/#%21documentDetail;D=PCLOB-2013-0005-0001>
>> >>>>>>>> (with no limitations on who can submit comments) until August
>> 1st.
>> >>>>>>>> As many of you know, it's been an uphill battle to get any
>> >>>>>>>> attention on this critical issue of extraterritorial impacts of
>> the
>> >>>>>>>> US surveillance programs. PCLOB hosted an open hearing on the NSA
>> >>>>>>>> program earlier in July, and there was unfortunately only a
>> single
>> >>>>>>>> reference to the human rights of people other than US citizens
>> >>>>>>>> during the entire hearing.  We think this comment process is one
>> of
>> >>>>>>>> the better opportunities that groups from outside the US will
>> have
>> >>>>>>>> in making their opinions about the US surveillance activities
>> >>>>>>>> heard.  I'd highly encourage organizations and individuals to
>> make
>> >>>>>>>> their own comments into this process, in addition to considering
>> >>>>>>>> signing this letter.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> As a final note, the letter intentionally does not lay out
>> >>>>>>>> recommendations more specific than "take into consideration the
>> >>>>>>>> human rights of individuals outside the US", for several reasons.
>> >>>>>>>> First, it will likely be more difficult for a broad range of
>> groups
>> >>>>>>>> to sign onto something urging very specific legal or policy
>> >>>>>>>> remedies.  Further, I wouldn't want to see a short, easily agreed
>> >>>>>>>> set of recommendations (e.g. focusing on transparency) get
>> >>>>>>>> interpreted to mean that those fixes are the only thing the US
>> >>>>>>>> government needs to do to remedy the situation.  Transparency is
>> an
>> >>>>>>>> important initial step, but it's far from the only action needed
>> >>>>>>>> here (a point CDT will be emphasizing in our individual comments
>> to
>> >>>>>>>> PCLOB).  Again, I'd strongly recommend groups file individual
>> >>>>>>>> comments as well, particularly if you have specific
>> recommendations
>> >>>>>>>> and actions for the Board.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Looking forward to your comments,
>> >>>>>>>> Emma
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> *PCLOB - WHAT IS IT?* -
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>
>> https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/privacy-and-civil-liberties-oversight-board
>> >>>>>>>> The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is an advisory
>> body
>> >>>>>>>> to assist the President and other senior Executive branch
>> officials
>> >>>>>>>> in ensuring that concerns with respect to privacy and civil
>> >>>>>>>> liberties are appropriately considered in the implementation of
>> all
>> >>>>>>>> laws, regulations, and executive branch policies related to war
>> >>>>>>>> against terrorism.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Recommended by the July 22, 2004, report of the National
>> Commission
>> >>>>>>>> on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, the Privacy and
>> Civil
>> >>>>>>>> Liberties Oversight Board was established by the Intelligence
>> >>>>>>>> Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. It consists of five
>> >>>>>>>> members appointed by and serving at the pleasure of the
>> President.
>> >>>>>>>> The Board is part of the White House Office within the Executive
>> >>>>>>>> Office of the President and supported by an Executive Director
>> and
>> >>>>>>>> staff.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> The Board advises the President and other senior executive branch
>> >>>>>>>> officials to ensure that concerns with respect to privacy and
>> civil
>> >>>>>>>> liberties are appropriately considered in the implementation of
>> all
>> >>>>>>>> laws, regulations, and executive branch policies related to
>> efforts
>> >>>>>>>> to protect the Nation against terrorism. This includes advising
>> on
>> >>>>>>>> whether adequate guidelines, supervision, and oversight exist to
>> >>>>>>>> protect these important legal rights of all Americans. In
>> addition,
>> >>>>>>>> the Board is specifically charged with responsibility for
>> reviewing
>> >>>>>>>> the terrorism information sharing practices of executive branch
>> >>>>>>>> departments and agencies to determine whether guidelines designed
>> >>>>>>>> to appropriately protect privacy and civil liberties are being
>> >>>>>>>> followed, including those issued by the President on December 16,
>> >>>>>>>> 2005. In the course of performing these functions within the
>> >>>>>>>> executive branch, the Board seeks the views of private sector,
>> >>>>>>>> non-profit and academic institutions, Members of Congress, and
>> all
>> >>>>>>>> other interested parties and individuals on these issues.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> This agency has published 13 articles
>> >>>>>>>> <
>> >>>
>> https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/search?conditions%5Bagency_ids%5D%5B%5D=438&skip_results=1#advanced
>> >>>>>>>> since 1994.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>>> Emma J. Llansó
>> >>>>>>>> Policy Counsel
>> >>>>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology
>> >>>>>>>> 1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100
>> >>>>>>>> Washington, DC 20006
>> >>>>>>>> 202-407-8818 | @cendemtech <https://twitter.com/#%21/CenDemTech>
>> |
>> >>>>>>>> @ellanso <https://twitter.com/#%21/ellanso>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --****
>> >>>
>> >>> Katitza Rodriguez
>> >>> International Rights Director
>> >>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>> >>> katitza at eff.org
>> >>> katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)
>> >>>
>> >>> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and
>> freedom
>> >>> of speech since 1990****
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Dr. Anja Kovacs
>> >>> The Internet Democracy Project
>> >>>
>> >>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>> >>> www.internetdemocracy.in****
>> >>>
>> >>> ** **
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Katitza Rodriguez
>> International Rights Director
>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>> katitza at eff.org
>> katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)
>>
>> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom
>> of speech since 1990
>>
>
>
>
>  --
>  Deborah Brown
> Senior Policy Analyst
>  Access | AccessNow.org
> E. deborah at accessnow.org
> @deblebrown
>  PGP 0x5EB4727D
>
>
>


-- 
Deborah Brown
Senior Policy Analyst
Access | AccessNow.org
E. deborah at accessnow.org
@deblebrown
PGP 0x5EB4727D
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130728/494696dd/attachment.htm>

From anriette at apc.org  Sun Jul 28 16:18:12 2013
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 22:18:12 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the
 corporatisation scandal
In-Reply-To: <51F50569.8000205@itforchange.net>
References: <710A140D-0C7F-4E28-89C2-F7738EBD31F2@gmail.com> <51F379C9.5010807@itforchange.net> <A0A6348C-A4B7-4877-9973-2344663F78B2@ciroap.org> <51F50569.8000205@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <51F57C84.7010803@apc.org>

This document has never, to my knowledge, been made available to the
MAG. Other MAG members on these lists can confirm or provide contrary
information.

Nor has any other host country funding document or strategy - again to
my knowledge - been made available to previous MAGs.

The MAG's mandate is to develop the programme of the IGF. Broadening
this mandate was discussed during the WG IGF Improvements but that basic
mandate has not changed.

The Secretariat has when requested provided access to information about
its budget and the UN Trust Fund.

Personally I believe that more transparency around the host country
agreement is needed. That would be one mechanisms for preventing, early
on in the process, such abuse of the values and principles that we think
of as IGF organising principles.

Anriette


On 28/07/2013 13:50, parminder wrote:
>
> On Saturday 27 July 2013 03:33 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> On 27/07/2013, at 3:42 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>
>>> Following up on the current IGF cancellation imbroglio, I happened
>>> to see what is called as the 'fund raising proposal'
>>> <https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BylRrf_lFlA9OXhieGt5WUJsMkU/edit>
>>> of the managing committee of Bali IGF..... Sorry to say, but it is a
>>> pure scandal....
>>
>> This is hopefully just naivety on the part of the local organisers,
>> who didn't appreciate the difference between the IGF and any other
>> Internet conference.
>
> Well, may be.... although we tend to be selective about whom are we
> ready to easily forgive and for what... But in any case, what about
> the IGF secretariat and the MAG. Can they also be considered naive and
> / or innocent.  They obviously knew of this document. BTW, the
> document says that it is trying a new multistakeholder model for
> holding the IGFs..  Does it not then constitute an express blessing by
> the IGF secretariat and the MAG to such a 'new model'.
>
>
> IGFs are held under the UN flag and the IGF space is subject to UN
> conference rules and immunities..... Would many things in the document
> not fundamentally be violative of some of these norms and rules.... In
> other circumstances, this would have immediately led to an inquiry and
> questions being raised officially about how did the IGF secretarit and
> the MAG allow such a thing.... But we are not in normal
> circumstances,  this is the times of a strong ascendency of
> neo-liberal ideology..... And those who need to have triggered the
> outrage, the civil society, seem to be happy to quietly condone it as
> well.
>
> And what about the 1 million dollar that has been raised, I would
> think, on the basis this document. Is the IGF now bound by the
> promises made under the sponsorship deals.... And if these deals are
> not valid, because we would not want to deliver on the promises, can
> we still consider to have that 1 million dollar for holding the IGF?
>
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>> They can be forgiven for this because indeed until now there has been
>> precious little difference between the IGF and any other Internet
>> conference.  That this could have happened is more of an indictment
>> of the state of the IGF than of the Indonesian team.
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> *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.
>>
>>
>
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
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 ellanso at cdt.org  Mon Jul 29 10:32:29 2013
From: ellanso at cdt.org (Emma Llanso)
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 10:32:29 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Call for sign-on: civil society letter to PCLOB
Message-ID: <51F67CFD.6070805@cdt.org>

Hi all,

Thank you to everyone on the steering committee and main list for your 
insightful comments and engagement with this letter text (and a big 
thanks to Deborah for helping shepherd the letter through its final 
editing and posting stages!).  I know the final text isn't perfect, but 
I hope it's something that many of the groups on this list will be able 
to consider signing.

Comments to PCLOB 
<http://www.regulations.gov/#%21documentDetail;D=PCLOB-2013-0005-0001> 
are due August 1st, so time is very short.  If you'd like to sign on to 
the letter, you can do so here: http://bestbits.net/pclob/ .  And please 
share with your other networks if you think this would interest them.  
We'd love to see a strong representation of groups outside the US 
commenting in this process, whether it's by joining the letter and/or 
submitting individual comments.

Thanks again,
Emma

-- 
Emma J. Llansó
Policy Counsel
Center for Democracy & Technology
1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20006
202-407-8818 | @cendemtech <https://twitter.com/#%21/CenDemTech> | 
@ellanso <https://twitter.com/#%21/ellanso>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130729/29800dd8/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Jul 29 15:38:04 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 01:08:04 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the
 corporatisation scandal
In-Reply-To: <2644E3B1-85A5-4363-A74D-39FB7155FE34@uzh.ch>
References: <v9pwneqn9yesjl8ljjrkrjox.1375058550356@email.android.com> <2644E3B1-85A5-4363-A74D-39FB7155FE34@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <51F6C49C.4010007@itforchange.net>


So we have it from two prominent civil society members of the MAG (as 
also earlier the chair of the so called Asia Pacific Regional IGF) that 
there is really nothing wrong with the document under question - the 
Indonesian IGF organising committee's official funding proposal. That is 
really disappointing and actually painful to me, for I take this 
document to be a frontal attack on democracy, and on the possibility 
that the people of the world could direct the manner in which the 
Internet evolves and is governed.

But perhaps they may re-think their positions now that the MAG chair has 
openly disapproved of the document and disassociated from it, speaking 
of 'commercialisation of the IGF'. And the document has been withdrawn 
from the host country website. (I had downloaded it suspecting such an 
eventuality, and it is enclosed.)

That an act of whistle-blowing on such a grave threat to democracy has 
faced the kind of aggressive reaction on this list itself is a comment 
on the health of the IGC, and in general the IG civil society..... 
Despite being posted to three civil society lists, over the last few 
days there has been no civil society  response to this outrage. The 
institution - of civil society -  that is supposed to be the watchdog 
against abuse of power by the most powerful seem to be acting more loyal 
than the king.....

I am travelling, and a bit constrained on time, but I will soon post a 
detailed response to Anriette's email, to which Bill agrees below, in 
which she affirms that there isnt anything quite wrong with  with the 
Indonesian IGF committee's fund raising proposal document.

parminder

On Monday 29 July 2013 10:57 AM, William Drake wrote:
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>
>> Date: 07/29/2013 1:48 AM (GMT+05:30)
>> To: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"<,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>," <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal
>>
>>
>> This document has never, to my knowledge, been made available to the
>> MAG. Other MAG members on these lists can confirm or provide contrary
>> information.
> confirm
>
>> Has anyone actually read this proposal in full? Assuming it is an
>> official proposal (which is just an assumption) it does not actually
>> offer proper speaking slots for cash at all. With the possible exception
>> of private sector sponsors being able to 'nominate' speakers for closing
>> ceremony. As I said earlier, the MAG has not seen this document (unless
>> I missed it).
>>
>> But I don't see how this is a new model. Or am I missing something?
> No you are not
>
> Bill

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130730/50fc8662/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: fundraising proposal IGF2013 - rev10b.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1493926 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130730/50fc8662/attachment.pdf>

From anriette at apc.org  Mon Jul 29 16:03:32 2013
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 22:03:32 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the
 corporatisation scandal
In-Reply-To: <51F6C49C.4010007@itforchange.net>
References: <v9pwneqn9yesjl8ljjrkrjox.1375058550356@email.android.com> <2644E3B1-85A5-4363-A74D-39FB7155FE34@uzh.ch> <51F6C49C.4010007@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <51F6CA94.5040205@apc.org>

Dear Parminder

I did not say there is "nothing wrong with the document".

You tend to twist people's words in order to score political points,
Parminder. I find this tendency, and your general readiness to launch
into attack, very disappointing coming from someone (and an
organisation) whose views I generally respect.

I said that it was not obviously a "new" model as I have seen similar
branding and sponsorship strategies at previous IGFs. I gave an example
of Nairobi.

If this was not the case, and previous IGF host did not provide sponsors
branding, invites to events, etc. please let me know. I would be
pleasantly surprised.

I also said that some of the claims about the document were not
accurate, or were exaggerated, such as that it offered speaking slots
for cash. I felt that these claims were disrespectful to the Indonesian 
IGF organising committee - if we are to challenge them, let's at least
read their document carefully, and ask questions before moving into
attack mode.

I did not express support for the document, or for the specific approach
to accessing resources for an event of this nature. I said, however,
that I have seen that approach in most of the large UN events that I
have been involved in - certainly those in developing countries. Much as
I don't like this approach, I have come to learn over the years that
even UN events or events hosted by governments often have to depend on
this as a means of mobilising resources (and facilitating participation).

If civil society involved in the IGF wants to take a stance against
these branding strategies we should probably have done so earlier in the
IGF process.

It is not too late to start now, but let's be realistic, let's first
learn more about how host countries have operated to date, and once we
have all our facts straight we can hopefully express concern and posit
alternative models.

Anriette


On 29/07/2013 21:38, parminder wrote:
>
> So we have it from two prominent civil society members of the MAG (as
> also earlier the chair of the so called Asia Pacific Regional IGF)
> that there is really nothing wrong with the document under question -
> the Indonesian IGF organising committee's official funding proposal.
> That is really disappointing and actually painful to me, for I take
> this document to be a frontal attack on democracy, and on the
> possibility that the people of the world could direct the manner in
> which the Internet evolves and is governed.
>
> But perhaps they may re-think their positions now that the MAG chair
> has openly disapproved of the document and disassociated from it,
> speaking of 'commercialisation of the IGF'. And the document has been
> withdrawn from the host country website. (I had downloaded it
> suspecting such an eventuality, and it is enclosed.)
>
> That an act of whistle-blowing on such a grave threat to democracy has
> faced the kind of aggressive reaction on this list itself is a comment
> on the health of the IGC, and in general the IG civil society.....
> Despite being posted to three civil society lists, over the last few
> days there has been no civil society  response to this outrage. The
> institution - of civil society -  that is supposed to be the watchdog
> against abuse of power by the most powerful seem to be acting more
> loyal than the king.....
>
> I am travelling, and a bit constrained on time, but I will soon post a
> detailed response to Anriette's email, to which Bill agrees below, in
> which she affirms that there isnt anything quite wrong with  with the
> Indonesian IGF committee's fund raising proposal document.
>
> parminder
>
> On Monday 29 July 2013 10:57 AM, William Drake wrote:
>>> -------- Original message --------
>>> From: Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>
>>> Date: 07/29/2013 1:48 AM (GMT+05:30)
>>> To: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"<,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,"
>>> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF -
>>> and the corporatisation scandal
>>>
>>>
>>> This document has never, to my knowledge, been made available to the
>>> MAG. Other MAG members on these lists can confirm or provide contrary
>>> information.
>> confirm
>>
>>> Has anyone actually read this proposal in full? Assuming it is an
>>> official proposal (which is just an assumption) it does not actually
>>> offer proper speaking slots for cash at all. With the possible
>>> exception
>>> of private sector sponsors being able to 'nominate' speakers for
>>> closing
>>> ceremony. As I said earlier, the MAG has not seen this document (unless
>>> I missed it).
>>>
>>> But I don't see how this is a new model. Or am I missing something?
>> No you are not
>>
>> Bill
>
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
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 Jul 30 06:18:29 2013
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 19:18:29 +0900
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the
 corporatisation scandal
In-Reply-To: <51F6C49C.4010007@itforchange.net>
References: <v9pwneqn9yesjl8ljjrkrjox.1375058550356@email.android.com> <2644E3B1-85A5-4363-A74D-39FB7155FE34@uzh.ch> <51F6C49C.4010007@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <F4045BDF-17FA-4A7B-985F-93A30EA23783@glocom.ac.jp>


On Jul 30, 2013, at 4:38 AM, parminder wrote:

> 
> So we have it from two prominent civil society members of the MAG (as also earlier the chair of the so called Asia Pacific Regional IGF)


About the "so called" AP regional IGF. See <http://aprigf.asia/>
 
Apologies for the cross posting.

The process is open to anyone.  Mailing lists are open, e.g. <https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program>.  Mailing lists have public archives e.g. <https://mailman.dotasia.org/pipermail/rigf_program/> <https://mailman.dotasia.org/pipermail/rigf_discuss/>. 
 
Late 2012 through 2013, lengthy discussions (see list archives) about improving process of organizing/holding a regional AP IGF resulted in the creation of a multi-stakeholder steering group <http://aprigf.asia/msg.html>, anyone can join.  At the same time a Request For Proposals to host an APrIGF was drafted <http://aprigf.asia/hosting_aprigf.html> (see list archives), the 2014 process will start soon.  List members issued an open call for themes of the meeting and workshops (call widely distributed, expect most on these lists will have seen), evaluation conducted through the open lists (see archives).  Sponsor page <http://2013.rigf.asia/sponsorship/>.
 
<http://2013.rigf.asia/> September 4-6, 2013, Seoul, Korea.

Can always do better.

Best,

Adam



> that there is really nothing wrong with the document under question - the Indonesian IGF organising committee's official funding proposal. That is really disappointing and actually painful to me, for I take this document to be a frontal attack on democracy, and on the possibility that the people of the world could direct the manner in which the Internet evolves and is governed. 
> 
> But perhaps they may re-think their positions now that the MAG chair has openly disapproved of the document and disassociated from it, speaking of 'commercialisation of the IGF'. And the document has been withdrawn from the host country website. (I had downloaded it suspecting such an eventuality, and it is enclosed.)  
> 
> That an act of whistle-blowing on such a grave threat to democracy has faced the kind of aggressive reaction on this list itself is a comment on the health of the IGC, and in general the IG civil society..... Despite being posted to three civil society lists, over the last few days there has been no civil society  response to this outrage. The institution - of civil society -  that is supposed to be the watchdog against abuse of power by the most powerful seem to be acting more loyal than the king.....
> 
> I am travelling, and a bit constrained on time, but I will soon post a detailed response to Anriette's email, to which Bill agrees below, in which she affirms that there isnt anything quite wrong with  with the Indonesian IGF committee's fund raising proposal document. 
> 
> parminder 
> 
> On Monday 29 July 2013 10:57 AM, William Drake wrote:
>>> -------- Original message --------
>>> From: Anriette Esterhuysen 
>>> <anriette at apc.org>
>>>  
>>> Date: 07/29/2013 1:48 AM (GMT+05:30) 
>>> To: parminder 
>>> <parminder at itforchange.net>
>>>  
>>> Cc: 
>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"<,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>," <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>>  
>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> This document has never, to my knowledge, been made available to the
>>> MAG. Other MAG members on these lists can confirm or provide contrary
>>> information.
>>> 
>> confirm
>> 
>> 
>>> Has anyone actually read this proposal in full? Assuming it is an
>>> official proposal (which is just an assumption) it does not actually
>>> offer proper speaking slots for cash at all. With the possible exception
>>> of private sector sponsors being able to 'nominate' speakers for closing
>>> ceremony. As I said earlier, the MAG has not seen this document (unless
>>> I missed it).
>>> 
>>> But I don't see how this is a new model. Or am I missing something?
>>> 
>> No you are not
>> 
>> Bill
>> 
> 
> <fundraising proposal IGF2013 - rev10b.pdf>


From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Mon Jul  8 16:01:28 2013
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 17:01:28 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits steering group
In-Reply-To: <20130708074349.glgjfwhkw00kccw8@webmail.opentransfer.com>
References: <51DA674C.5060305@ciroap.org>
	<20130708074349.glgjfwhkw00kccw8@webmail.opentransfer.com>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK0GadCRPe3Oeg+08CTRh1piZmAv8Aqb1r6jzrM7kYa53A@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Jeremy,

Thank you and all the others that helped to give life to the initiative.
And thanks to the volunteers who will help it take its first institutional
steps. I can only second Farooq's words and good wishes.

Marília

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:43 AM, <jam at globalilluminators.org> wrote:

> Dear Jeremy and Steering group,
>
>      I am glad to know this institutionalization and it shows that we are
> moving ahead with a good pace and only this way we can have a positive
> impact on society. I highly appreciate the willingness of group to accept
> this responsibility and I extend my positive support for the group. I hope
> this institutionalization will improve our effectiveness and efficiency.
>
> Good Luck :-)
>
> Regards
> --
> Farooq Ahmed Jam
> Executive Director
> Global Illuminators
> Contact: +60102546571
> E-mail:jam at globalilluminators.**org <E-mail%3Ajam at globalilluminators.org>
> Weblink: www.globalilluminators.org
>
>
> Quoting Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>:
>
>  Best Bits came into being as a very loose, grassroots coalition, and
>> this has worked very well.  At the same time, it has now reached a point
>> of maturity (and influence) where the benefits of institutionalising it
>> a bit more strongly would probably outweigh the risks of doing so.
>>
>> To this end, a few volunteers have come (or been prodded!) forward to
>> serve as an initial steering group.  Since we don't already have a
>> democratic procedure for selecting such a steering group, we haven't
>> tried to invent one.  Rather, it will be the steering group itself that
>> is responsible for recommending such a procedure for the rest of us to
>> adopt.
>>
>> So, inevitably arbitrarily, the initial group will include myself and
>> Andrew Puddephatt (for continuity, since we have been loosely
>> coordinating to date), and to fill out the geographical balance Anja
>> Kovacs, Deborah Brown, Joana Varon and Nnenna Nwakanma.
>>
>> The initial steering group will be responsible for recommending a
>> process for making future such appointments, will distribute the few
>> organisational tasks between themselves, may come up with some ideas on
>> strategy and fundraising for the rest of us to consider, and can help
>> mediate disputes if there are any.
>>
>> So please let's thank them for coming forward and volunteering their
>> time.  Equally, thanks to everyone else who has contributed, and who
>> continues to do so - your help is also greatly valued.
>>
>> --
>>
>> *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<http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone>
>>
>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
>> <http://www.**consumersinternational.org<http://www.consumersinternational.org>>
>> |
>> www.facebook.com/**consumersinternational<http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>
>> <http://www.facebook.com/**consumersinternational<http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>
>> >
>>
>> Read our email confidentiality notice
>> <http://www.**consumersinternational.org/**email-confidentiality<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>>.
>> Don't
>>
>> print this email unless necessary.
>>
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
Lattes: http://lattes.cnpq.br/8105109073917731
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130708/e93cbe68/attachment.htm>

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Tue Jul 30 06:40:52 2013
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 19:40:52 +0900
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the
 corporatisation scandal
In-Reply-To: <51F6CA94.5040205@apc.org>
References: <v9pwneqn9yesjl8ljjrkrjox.1375058550356@email.android.com> <2644E3B1-85A5-4363-A74D-39FB7155FE34@uzh.ch> <51F6C49C.4010007@itforchange.net> <51F6CA94.5040205@apc.org>
Message-ID: <BED495C6-3D8A-4A6F-8B9D-1E10162E6F44@glocom.ac.jp>

Hi Anriette,
 
The document, both from the host website and google doc are both helpful and worrying.  
 
Helpful: we can see expected total cost, $2.2 million, not sure that's been shared before, and a detailed breakdown of the costs involved in hosting an IGF.  The UN costs are not $900,000 for security or whatever the rumor last week, look to be just under $700,000: including interpretation (largest cost), scribes, web staff (i.e. remote access).  Security including site visit just over $100,000 (meeting under the UN flag with the immunities and myth that provides, security required onsite as it is UN territory).  Scribing costs in the past have sometimes been covered by sponsors, so the hosts might be able to cut some expenditure by passing that along to a supporter (I know they were told this...)
 
Worrying:  it is an extremely naive document, and it would be worse if the proposals were implementable: generally they're not.  That it's been online for so long we have to expect it's been used, and that's bad -- seems they have raised over $1million, hopefully not based on the options in the proposal. Have to hope that the Secretariat/DESA is now explaining to the Indonesian group why it's so wrong (and not implementable).  

My understanding:
 
Cannot put commercial advertising alongside the UN logo making the hosts ideas to use all literature including the book for ads/sponsorship not possible.  This has been made clear on the MAG list many times over the years.  Advertising inside the venue is not possible (there's the village for that purpose, and space is mainly for the community). So there goes another opportunity.  
 
The host country jointly organize the opening and closing ceremonies with the UN, they do not have an unlimited number of slots (2 or 3 including their official representatives of govt and the IGF chair), so there's nothing there for a sponsor.  Hosts can appoint a chair to each main session: good luck trying to sell that, it's essentially a non-speaking roll, perhaps they person would wear a company t-shirt and cap...
 
Not sure it's helpful you keep picking on Nairobi as if there was something wrong with how that meeting was organized.  See the partner pages, the main sponsors were Kenyan govt ministries or agencies.  Compare to the list of speakers <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2011-igf-nairobi> and the slots the host can influence; among the sponsors only IDRC got a slot (and as you know IDRC have been a very longstanding partner in ICT and Internet policy research in Kenya, a logical choice.)  So what are you trying to say?  There are enough people around who will pick-up on your comments as something sinister (while no doubt expecting magic funds to fly them to the next meeting.)
 
Nairobi was interesting in the effort made to link the IGF to the local community: lectures by some of the notable IGF guests organized at local universities, visits to the iHub, meetings with industry groups, meetings with local civil society.  I know this kind of arms-length value-add was explained to the Indonesian host team, but seems they have ignored. 
 
Baku had problems: the hosts seemed to want to link the IGF to their local IT exhibition "Bakutel" (the conference in the other half of the meeting facility.)  UN made clear that the UN logo and IGF brand could not be used.  Some rumor that the two were linked in local press, but nothing on site.  A problem just about dodged there.  Egypt where Suzanne Mubarak's billion dollar scams took center stage.

There needs to be clarity about what's permitted and what's not, hope you will raise this in the MAG. Not just the UN rules about it's logo and how ads/promotion inside the venue, but standards we as a community think appropriate for the IGF.  

Also need to ask what the IGF improvement group looked at in terms of funding and sustainability?  What recommendations about commercial tie-in, what's acceptable (we need funds) and what's not?  A lesson from all this is people CS recommends to these working groups must report back and seek advice from the community, collectively we might be able to reach sensible decisions.
 
Best,

Adam


On Jul 30, 2013, at 5:03 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:

> Dear Parminder
> 
> I did not say there is "nothing wrong with the document".
> 
> You tend to twist people's words in order to score political points,
> Parminder. I find this tendency, and your general readiness to launch
> into attack, very disappointing coming from someone (and an
> organisation) whose views I generally respect.
> 
> I said that it was not obviously a "new" model as I have seen similar
> branding and sponsorship strategies at previous IGFs. I gave an example
> of Nairobi.
> 
> If this was not the case, and previous IGF host did not provide sponsors
> branding, invites to events, etc. please let me know. I would be
> pleasantly surprised.
> 
> I also said that some of the claims about the document were not
> accurate, or were exaggerated, such as that it offered speaking slots
> for cash. I felt that these claims were disrespectful to the Indonesian 
> IGF organising committee - if we are to challenge them, let's at least
> read their document carefully, and ask questions before moving into
> attack mode.
> 
> I did not express support for the document, or for the specific approach
> to accessing resources for an event of this nature. I said, however,
> that I have seen that approach in most of the large UN events that I
> have been involved in - certainly those in developing countries. Much as
> I don't like this approach, I have come to learn over the years that
> even UN events or events hosted by governments often have to depend on
> this as a means of mobilising resources (and facilitating participation).
> 
> If civil society involved in the IGF wants to take a stance against
> these branding strategies we should probably have done so earlier in the
> IGF process.
> 
> It is not too late to start now, but let's be realistic, let's first
> learn more about how host countries have operated to date, and once we
> have all our facts straight we can hopefully express concern and posit
> alternative models.
> 
> Anriette
> 
> 
> On 29/07/2013 21:38, parminder wrote:
>> 
>> So we have it from two prominent civil society members of the MAG (as
>> also earlier the chair of the so called Asia Pacific Regional IGF)
>> that there is really nothing wrong with the document under question -
>> the Indonesian IGF organising committee's official funding proposal.
>> That is really disappointing and actually painful to me, for I take
>> this document to be a frontal attack on democracy, and on the
>> possibility that the people of the world could direct the manner in
>> which the Internet evolves and is governed.
>> 
>> But perhaps they may re-think their positions now that the MAG chair
>> has openly disapproved of the document and disassociated from it,
>> speaking of 'commercialisation of the IGF'. And the document has been
>> withdrawn from the host country website. (I had downloaded it
>> suspecting such an eventuality, and it is enclosed.)
>> 
>> That an act of whistle-blowing on such a grave threat to democracy has
>> faced the kind of aggressive reaction on this list itself is a comment
>> on the health of the IGC, and in general the IG civil society.....
>> Despite being posted to three civil society lists, over the last few
>> days there has been no civil society  response to this outrage. The
>> institution - of civil society -  that is supposed to be the watchdog
>> against abuse of power by the most powerful seem to be acting more
>> loyal than the king.....
>> 
>> I am travelling, and a bit constrained on time, but I will soon post a
>> detailed response to Anriette's email, to which Bill agrees below, in
>> which she affirms that there isnt anything quite wrong with  with the
>> Indonesian IGF committee's fund raising proposal document.
>> 
>> parminder
>> 
>> On Monday 29 July 2013 10:57 AM, William Drake wrote:
>>>> -------- Original message --------
>>>> From: Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>
>>>> Date: 07/29/2013 1:48 AM (GMT+05:30)
>>>> To: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>>>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"<,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,"
>>>> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF -
>>>> and the corporatisation scandal
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> This document has never, to my knowledge, been made available to the
>>>> MAG. Other MAG members on these lists can confirm or provide contrary
>>>> information.
>>> confirm
>>> 
>>>> Has anyone actually read this proposal in full? Assuming it is an
>>>> official proposal (which is just an assumption) it does not actually
>>>> offer proper speaking slots for cash at all. With the possible
>>>> exception
>>>> of private sector sponsors being able to 'nominate' speakers for
>>>> closing
>>>> ceremony. As I said earlier, the MAG has not seen this document (unless
>>>> I missed it).
>>>> 
>>>> But I don't see how this is a new model. Or am I missing something?
>>> No you are not
>>> 
>>> Bill
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------
> 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


From Andrew at gp-digital.org  Tue Jul 30 07:12:40 2013
From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt)
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 12:12:40 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the
 corporatisation scandal
In-Reply-To: <BED495C6-3D8A-4A6F-8B9D-1E10162E6F44@glocom.ac.jp>
References: <v9pwneqn9yesjl8ljjrkrjox.1375058550356@email.android.com>
 <2644E3B1-85A5-4363-A74D-39FB7155FE34@uzh.ch>
 <51F6C49C.4010007@itforchange.net> <51F6CA94.5040205@apc.org>
 <BED495C6-3D8A-4A6F-8B9D-1E10162E6F44@glocom.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CBD572072A0@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>

Thanks Adam - for me, this is very helpful in clarifying things.  Like you I found seeing the detailed budget (for the first time) very helpful.  I also thought that th proposals were naive and unimplementable (perhaps because the committee found themselves in a desperate position). 

Instead of rehashing past errors of judgement I wonder if it would be helpful, in moving forward, for civil society groups to discuss how to prevent capture of global convenings by powerful interests and perhaps propose ethical parameters that are both practical and appropriate for the funding of international events?

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

-----Original Message-----
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Adam Peake
Sent: 30 July 2013 11:41
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Anriette Esterhuysen
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal

Hi Anriette,
 
The document, both from the host website and google doc are both helpful and worrying.  
 
Helpful: we can see expected total cost, $2.2 million, not sure that's been shared before, and a detailed breakdown of the costs involved in hosting an IGF.  The UN costs are not $900,000 for security or whatever the rumor last week, look to be just under $700,000: including interpretation (largest cost), scribes, web staff (i.e. remote access).  Security including site visit just over $100,000 (meeting under the UN flag with the immunities and myth that provides, security required onsite as it is UN territory).  Scribing costs in the past have sometimes been covered by sponsors, so the hosts might be able to cut some expenditure by passing that along to a supporter (I know they were told this...)
 
Worrying:  it is an extremely naive document, and it would be worse if the proposals were implementable: generally they're not.  That it's been online for so long we have to expect it's been used, and that's bad -- seems they have raised over $1million, hopefully not based on the options in the proposal. Have to hope that the Secretariat/DESA is now explaining to the Indonesian group why it's so wrong (and not implementable).  

My understanding:
 
Cannot put commercial advertising alongside the UN logo making the hosts ideas to use all literature including the book for ads/sponsorship not possible.  This has been made clear on the MAG list many times over the years.  Advertising inside the venue is not possible (there's the village for that purpose, and space is mainly for the community). So there goes another opportunity.  
 
The host country jointly organize the opening and closing ceremonies with the UN, they do not have an unlimited number of slots (2 or 3 including their official representatives of govt and the IGF chair), so there's nothing there for a sponsor.  Hosts can appoint a chair to each main session: good luck trying to sell that, it's essentially a non-speaking roll, perhaps they person would wear a company t-shirt and cap...
 
Not sure it's helpful you keep picking on Nairobi as if there was something wrong with how that meeting was organized.  See the partner pages, the main sponsors were Kenyan govt ministries or agencies.  Compare to the list of speakers <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2011-igf-nairobi> and the slots the host can influence; among the sponsors only IDRC got a slot (and as you know IDRC have been a very longstanding partner in ICT and Internet policy research in Kenya, a logical choice.)  So what are you trying to say?  There are enough people around who will pick-up on your comments as something sinister (while no doubt expecting magic funds to fly them to the next meeting.)
 
Nairobi was interesting in the effort made to link the IGF to the local community: lectures by some of the notable IGF guests organized at local universities, visits to the iHub, meetings with industry groups, meetings with local civil society.  I know this kind of arms-length value-add was explained to the Indonesian host team, but seems they have ignored. 
 
Baku had problems: the hosts seemed to want to link the IGF to their local IT exhibition "Bakutel" (the conference in the other half of the meeting facility.)  UN made clear that the UN logo and IGF brand could not be used.  Some rumor that the two were linked in local press, but nothing on site.  A problem just about dodged there.  Egypt where Suzanne Mubarak's billion dollar scams took center stage.

There needs to be clarity about what's permitted and what's not, hope you will raise this in the MAG. Not just the UN rules about it's logo and how ads/promotion inside the venue, but standards we as a community think appropriate for the IGF.  

Also need to ask what the IGF improvement group looked at in terms of funding and sustainability?  What recommendations about commercial tie-in, what's acceptable (we need funds) and what's not?  A lesson from all this is people CS recommends to these working groups must report back and seek advice from the community, collectively we might be able to reach sensible decisions.
 
Best,

Adam


On Jul 30, 2013, at 5:03 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:

> Dear Parminder
> 
> I did not say there is "nothing wrong with the document".
> 
> You tend to twist people's words in order to score political points, 
> Parminder. I find this tendency, and your general readiness to launch 
> into attack, very disappointing coming from someone (and an
> organisation) whose views I generally respect.
> 
> I said that it was not obviously a "new" model as I have seen similar 
> branding and sponsorship strategies at previous IGFs. I gave an 
> example of Nairobi.
> 
> If this was not the case, and previous IGF host did not provide 
> sponsors branding, invites to events, etc. please let me know. I would 
> be pleasantly surprised.
> 
> I also said that some of the claims about the document were not 
> accurate, or were exaggerated, such as that it offered speaking slots 
> for cash. I felt that these claims were disrespectful to the 
> Indonesian IGF organising committee - if we are to challenge them, 
> let's at least read their document carefully, and ask questions before 
> moving into attack mode.
> 
> I did not express support for the document, or for the specific 
> approach to accessing resources for an event of this nature. I said, 
> however, that I have seen that approach in most of the large UN events 
> that I have been involved in - certainly those in developing 
> countries. Much as I don't like this approach, I have come to learn 
> over the years that even UN events or events hosted by governments 
> often have to depend on this as a means of mobilising resources (and facilitating participation).
> 
> If civil society involved in the IGF wants to take a stance against 
> these branding strategies we should probably have done so earlier in 
> the IGF process.
> 
> It is not too late to start now, but let's be realistic, let's first 
> learn more about how host countries have operated to date, and once we 
> have all our facts straight we can hopefully express concern and posit 
> alternative models.
> 
> Anriette
> 
> 
> On 29/07/2013 21:38, parminder wrote:
>> 
>> So we have it from two prominent civil society members of the MAG (as 
>> also earlier the chair of the so called Asia Pacific Regional IGF) 
>> that there is really nothing wrong with the document under question - 
>> the Indonesian IGF organising committee's official funding proposal.
>> That is really disappointing and actually painful to me, for I take 
>> this document to be a frontal attack on democracy, and on the 
>> possibility that the people of the world could direct the manner in 
>> which the Internet evolves and is governed.
>> 
>> But perhaps they may re-think their positions now that the MAG chair 
>> has openly disapproved of the document and disassociated from it, 
>> speaking of 'commercialisation of the IGF'. And the document has been 
>> withdrawn from the host country website. (I had downloaded it 
>> suspecting such an eventuality, and it is enclosed.)
>> 
>> That an act of whistle-blowing on such a grave threat to democracy 
>> has faced the kind of aggressive reaction on this list itself is a 
>> comment on the health of the IGC, and in general the IG civil society.....
>> Despite being posted to three civil society lists, over the last few 
>> days there has been no civil society  response to this outrage. The 
>> institution - of civil society -  that is supposed to be the watchdog 
>> against abuse of power by the most powerful seem to be acting more 
>> loyal than the king.....
>> 
>> I am travelling, and a bit constrained on time, but I will soon post 
>> a detailed response to Anriette's email, to which Bill agrees below, 
>> in which she affirms that there isnt anything quite wrong with  with 
>> the Indonesian IGF committee's fund raising proposal document.
>> 
>> parminder
>> 
>> On Monday 29 July 2013 10:57 AM, William Drake wrote:
>>>> -------- Original message --------
>>>> From: Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>
>>>> Date: 07/29/2013 1:48 AM (GMT+05:30)
>>>> To: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>>>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"<,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,"
>>>> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples
>>>> .org
>>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - 
>>>> and the corporatisation scandal
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> This document has never, to my knowledge, been made available to 
>>>> the MAG. Other MAG members on these lists can confirm or provide 
>>>> contrary information.
>>> confirm
>>> 
>>>> Has anyone actually read this proposal in full? Assuming it is an 
>>>> official proposal (which is just an assumption) it does not 
>>>> actually offer proper speaking slots for cash at all. With the 
>>>> possible exception of private sector sponsors being able to 
>>>> 'nominate' speakers for closing ceremony. As I said earlier, the 
>>>> MAG has not seen this document (unless I missed it).
>>>> 
>>>> But I don't see how this is a new model. Or am I missing something?
>>> No you are not
>>> 
>>> Bill
>> 
>> 
> 
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------
> 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


From avri at acm.org  Tue Jul 30 10:32:22 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 16:32:22 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the
 corporatisation scandal
In-Reply-To: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CBD572072A0@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
References: <v9pwneqn9yesjl8ljjrkrjox.1375058550356@email.android.com> <2644E3B1-85A5-4363-A74D-39FB7155FE34@uzh.ch> <51F6C49C.4010007@itforchange.net> <51F6CA94.5040205@apc.org> <BED495C6-3D8A-4A6F-8B9D-1E10162E6F44@glocom.ac.jp> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CBD572072A0@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
Message-ID: <D409BE00-16D9-41AA-9D7A-C7E7B251D979@acm.org>


On 30 Jul 2013, at 13:12, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:

> Instead of rehashing past errors of judgement I wonder if it would be helpful, in moving forward, for civil society groups to discuss how to prevent capture of global convenings by powerful interests and perhaps propose ethical parameters that are both practical and appropriate for the funding of international events?


I think this is a good approach to take.  

I would add that it is probably best to do this without the vitriol and accusations we sometimes see from some of our members/participants.

thanks

avri


From anriette at apc.org  Tue Jul 30 11:31:58 2013
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 17:31:58 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the
 corporatisation scandal
In-Reply-To: <BED495C6-3D8A-4A6F-8B9D-1E10162E6F44@glocom.ac.jp>
References: <v9pwneqn9yesjl8ljjrkrjox.1375058550356@email.android.com> <2644E3B1-85A5-4363-A74D-39FB7155FE34@uzh.ch> <51F6C49C.4010007@itforchange.net> <51F6CA94.5040205@apc.org> <BED495C6-3D8A-4A6F-8B9D-1E10162E6F44@glocom.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <51F7DC6E.7070103@apc.org>

Dear Adam

Responses below.


On 30/07/2013 12:40, Adam Peake wrote:
> Hi Anriette,
>  
> The document, both from the host website and google doc are both helpful and worrying.  
>  
> Helpful: we can see expected total cost, $2.2 million, not sure that's been shared before, and a detailed breakdown of the costs involved in hosting an IGF.  The UN costs are not $900,000 for security or whatever the rumor last week, look to be just under $700,000: including interpretation (largest cost), scribes, web staff (i.e. remote access).  Security including site visit just over $100,000 (meeting under the UN flag with the immunities and myth that provides, security required onsite as it is UN territory).  Scribing costs in the past have sometimes been covered by sponsors, so the hosts might be able to cut some expenditure by passing that along to a supporter (I know they were told this...)

Agree..it is helpful, but what would be really helpful would be more
transparency on IGF financing all round. As well as on UN processes and
rules and requirements.

> Worrying:  it is an extremely naive document, and it would be worse if the proposals were implementable: generally they're not.  That it's been online for so long we have to expect it's been used, and that's bad -- seems they have raised over $1million, hopefully not based on the options in the proposal. Have to hope that the Secretariat/DESA is now explaining to the Indonesian group why it's so wrong (and not implementable).  
>
> My understanding:
>  
> Cannot put commercial advertising alongside the UN logo making the hosts ideas to use all literature including the book for ads/sponsorship not possible.  This has been made clear on the MAG list many times over the years.  Advertising inside the venue is not possible (there's the village for that purpose, and space is mainly for the community). So there goes another opportunity.  

Good to have this confirmed. My memory is not always reliable, but I do
recall seeing sponsors material in IGF bags, and also banners.. but
perhaps that was just in the exhibition areas. In Baku I think there
were banners from some sponsors inside the venue. And at other IGF's I
recall seeing some sponsor banners outside the main venue, and in the
gala venues...but I might be wrong.
> The host country jointly organize the opening and closing ceremonies with the UN, they do not have an unlimited number of slots (2 or 3 including their official representatives of govt and the IGF chair), so there's nothing there for a sponsor.  Hosts can appoint a chair to each main session: good luck trying to sell that, it's essentially a non-speaking roll, perhaps they person would wear a company t-shirt and cap...

In the Google doc (that is the only doc I saw) the offer to 'open or
close' sessions was only there for governments. The offer to nominate a
speaker for the closing ceremony was made to the private sector.  I am
not at all expressing approval for this. But my point was that this does
not exactly amount to 'speaking slots for cash'.
> Not sure it's helpful you keep picking on Nairobi as if there was something wrong with how that meeting was organized.  

I did not mean to say there was something wrong with how Nairobi was
organised. I know how hard Alice and the rest of the team worked to
organise it.  My point is actually that I don't think it is possible for
a host country with limited resources to host an IGF without additional
financial support.

> See the partner pages, the main sponsors were Kenyan govt ministries or agencies.  Compare to the list of speakers <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2011-igf-nairobi> and the slots the host can influence; among the sponsors only IDRC got a slot (and as you know IDRC have been a very longstanding partner in ICT and Internet policy research in Kenya, a logical choice.)  So what are you trying to say?  There are enough people around who will pick-up on your comments as something sinister (while no doubt expecting magic funds to fly them to the next meeting.)
I should probably just go back to not posting to the governance list at
all. It is hard to find the time to draft messages so carefully that
they are not misinterpreted. Please do read my messages again. I was not
criticising the Kenyan IGF.

I also did not say that previous IGFs 'sold' speaking slots. I said that
they do give branding opportunity to sponsors, and that I would be
surprised if sponsors did not get invitations to events/dinners, etc..
But this is very different from allowing sponsors to influence the agenda.

IDRC had a speaking slot and a moderating slot if I recall. APC proposed
IDRC people as speakers and moderators, so their presence might have had
nothing to do with their sponsorship. I simply pointed to the Nairobi
website to make the point that host countries have previously given
sponsors some branding, and used the 'bronze/gold' etc. categories for
sponsorships. The African IGF also used this last year. The Baku IGF
website also acknowledges sponsors - http://igf2012.com/  I was NOT
picking on Kenya!!


> Nairobi was interesting in the effort made to link the IGF to the local community: lectures by some of the notable IGF guests organized at local universities, visits to the iHub, meetings with industry groups, meetings with local civil society.  I know this kind of arms-length value-add was explained to the Indonesian host team, but seems they have ignored. 
I think this approach used at the Nairobi IGF was fantastic, and
certainly helped to make it the biggest IGF to date, and a very
successful one. As for what has been explained to the Indonesians, and
what they have done, I don't have enough knowledge about it pass
judgement. We need to hear from them.
>  
> Baku had problems: the hosts seemed to want to link the IGF to their local IT exhibition "Bakutel" (the conference in the other half of the meeting facility.)  UN made clear that the UN logo and IGF brand could not be used.  Some rumor that the two were linked in local press, but nothing on site.  A problem just about dodged there.  Egypt where Suzanne Mubarak's billion dollar scams took center stage.

In my view, while branding for sponsors can be a problem and make the
IGF look commercial, the real danger lies in precisely that kind of
thing - Egypt springing the First Lady on us unexpectedly. Also the
government of Azerbaijan placing speakers on the closing panel that
appeared to have no other purpose other than spouting government
propaganda and contradicting the repression of free speech that we
experienced first hand during the event.

If the Indonesian organising committee was actually selling spaces in
the programme, on panels, open forums, etc.. it would extremely serious.
My point was that it was not clear from that document that they were
actually doing that. They seemed to be leaning overboard to get
sponsors, which is risky, but not quite the same as letting sponsors buy
space on the agenda.
> There needs to be clarity about what's permitted and what's not, hope you will raise this in the MAG. Not just the UN rules about it's logo and how ads/promotion inside the venue, but standards we as a community think appropriate for the IGF.  

Will raise it. The MAG mandate is limited, but as concerns have been
expressed about the Indonesian financing strategy affecting the
programme and basic character of the IGF, it is important for the MAG to
talk about it - and I believe for the Indonesian organising committee
and the secretariat to provide clarification.

This also has relevance for regional IGFs. How far should one go in
establishing rules and procedures...

I would think that some basic, easy to understand principles are what
are needed. Here is what the secretariat developed, and placed on the
IGF website. Is it enough?

*IGF initiatives organizational principles*

Regional and national IGF initiatives should follow the principles and
practices of open, inclusive, non commercial, and multi-stakeholder
participation in both formulation of the initiative and in any other
initiative related events.

In order to be listed on the IGF website as an IGF initiative, IGF
initiatives should provide the following information to the IGF Secretariat:

1. A report of past activities indicating the members of the initiative

2. A list of members or main organizers comprising at least three
representatives of different stakeholder groups

3. A dedicated webpage or website, with a contact person and a working
email address

The IGF initiatives are kindly requested to include in their reports the
following:

Description of the organising process
Description of how the mutli-stakeholder model is maintained 
The published agenda
The total number of attendees and a break down of attendance for each
stakeholder group at the IGF initiatives meetings


>
> Also need to ask what the IGF improvement group looked at in terms of funding and sustainability?  What recommendations about commercial tie-in, what's acceptable (we need funds) and what's not?  A lesson from all this is people CS recommends to these working groups must report back and seek advice from the community, collectively we might be able to reach sensible decisions.

The discussion in the IGF improvement working group on financing was
never fully recorded, as in the end there was no consensus on what to
include, or even on whether it was in our mandate or not.

As Parminder has said, he, and the government of India, proposed full
public funding through the UN. Some felt this was not realistic. Some UN
personnel shared that there are risks attached to his as well (just look
at what happened with UNESCO).  Most people were able to agree to a
'mixed-model'.

Commercial tie-in was touched on indirectly but not explicitly. What was
discussed was the importance of contributions to the the IGF through the
UN Trust Fund  not being tied to influence over decision-making over the
programme/secretariat hiring, etc..

Some people suggested that this was already happening. This resulted in
quite a lot of tension, particularly as some of the largest donor
countries were part of the working group, and they felt this was a very
unfair accusation.

General agreement between all in the working group was that transparency
is essential and that UN Trust Fund procedures seemed quite opaque,
which no one was comfortable with. The secretariat provided information
that was requested, which was appreciated, but I think we were left with
a feeling that the information should have been easier to get. E.g. the
secretariat to request permission from the UN Trust Fund administrators
in order to release certain information.

We also did talk about the need for a more flexible mechanisms for
funding, particularly small contributions.

We did not touch on how host countries operate beyond acknowledging that
their contributions are very substantial, and should be given more
recognition. There was more.. but I would say that most of our
discussions focused on costs of participation of people from developing
countries (including speakers), and on being able to secure the
financial support to strengthen the secretariat's capacity.

The UN related costs did not come up.

Anriette


>  
> Best,
>
> Adam
>
>
> On Jul 30, 2013, at 5:03 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>
>> Dear Parminder
>>
>> I did not say there is "nothing wrong with the document".
>>
>> You tend to twist people's words in order to score political points,
>> Parminder. I find this tendency, and your general readiness to launch
>> into attack, very disappointing coming from someone (and an
>> organisation) whose views I generally respect.
>>
>> I said that it was not obviously a "new" model as I have seen similar
>> branding and sponsorship strategies at previous IGFs. I gave an example
>> of Nairobi.
>>
>> If this was not the case, and previous IGF host did not provide sponsors
>> branding, invites to events, etc. please let me know. I would be
>> pleasantly surprised.
>>
>> I also said that some of the claims about the document were not
>> accurate, or were exaggerated, such as that it offered speaking slots
>> for cash. I felt that these claims were disrespectful to the Indonesian 
>> IGF organising committee - if we are to challenge them, let's at least
>> read their document carefully, and ask questions before moving into
>> attack mode.
>>
>> I did not express support for the document, or for the specific approach
>> to accessing resources for an event of this nature. I said, however,
>> that I have seen that approach in most of the large UN events that I
>> have been involved in - certainly those in developing countries. Much as
>> I don't like this approach, I have come to learn over the years that
>> even UN events or events hosted by governments often have to depend on
>> this as a means of mobilising resources (and facilitating participation).
>>
>> If civil society involved in the IGF wants to take a stance against
>> these branding strategies we should probably have done so earlier in the
>> IGF process.
>>
>> It is not too late to start now, but let's be realistic, let's first
>> learn more about how host countries have operated to date, and once we
>> have all our facts straight we can hopefully express concern and posit
>> alternative models.
>>
>> Anriette
>>
>>
>> On 29/07/2013 21:38, parminder wrote:
>>> So we have it from two prominent civil society members of the MAG (as
>>> also earlier the chair of the so called Asia Pacific Regional IGF)
>>> that there is really nothing wrong with the document under question -
>>> the Indonesian IGF organising committee's official funding proposal.
>>> That is really disappointing and actually painful to me, for I take
>>> this document to be a frontal attack on democracy, and on the
>>> possibility that the people of the world could direct the manner in
>>> which the Internet evolves and is governed.
>>>
>>> But perhaps they may re-think their positions now that the MAG chair
>>> has openly disapproved of the document and disassociated from it,
>>> speaking of 'commercialisation of the IGF'. And the document has been
>>> withdrawn from the host country website. (I had downloaded it
>>> suspecting such an eventuality, and it is enclosed.)
>>>
>>> That an act of whistle-blowing on such a grave threat to democracy has
>>> faced the kind of aggressive reaction on this list itself is a comment
>>> on the health of the IGC, and in general the IG civil society.....
>>> Despite being posted to three civil society lists, over the last few
>>> days there has been no civil society  response to this outrage. The
>>> institution - of civil society -  that is supposed to be the watchdog
>>> against abuse of power by the most powerful seem to be acting more
>>> loyal than the king.....
>>>
>>> I am travelling, and a bit constrained on time, but I will soon post a
>>> detailed response to Anriette's email, to which Bill agrees below, in
>>> which she affirms that there isnt anything quite wrong with  with the
>>> Indonesian IGF committee's fund raising proposal document.
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>> On Monday 29 July 2013 10:57 AM, William Drake wrote:
>>>>> -------- Original message --------
>>>>> From: Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>
>>>>> Date: 07/29/2013 1:48 AM (GMT+05:30)
>>>>> To: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>>>>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"<,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,"
>>>>> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF -
>>>>> and the corporatisation scandal
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This document has never, to my knowledge, been made available to the
>>>>> MAG. Other MAG members on these lists can confirm or provide contrary
>>>>> information.
>>>> confirm
>>>>
>>>>> Has anyone actually read this proposal in full? Assuming it is an
>>>>> official proposal (which is just an assumption) it does not actually
>>>>> offer proper speaking slots for cash at all. With the possible
>>>>> exception
>>>>> of private sector sponsors being able to 'nominate' speakers for
>>>>> closing
>>>>> ceremony. As I said earlier, the MAG has not seen this document (unless
>>>>> I missed it).
>>>>>
>>>>> But I don't see how this is a new model. Or am I missing something?
>>>> No you are not
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>
>> -- 
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130730/fab30737/attachment.htm>

From roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca  Tue Jul 30 16:55:54 2013
From: roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca (Becky Lentz, Dr.)
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 16:55:54 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Internet Policy Observatory: Call For Proposals
In-Reply-To: <51F7DC6E.7070103@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CE1DA09A.3D2AC%roberta.lentz@mcgill.ca>


*Internet Policy Observatory:
Call For Proposals*

The Center for Global Communication Studies (CGCS) at the Annenberg School
for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, announces a call for
proposals under its Internet Policy Observatory (IPO). One of the goals of
IPO is helping to develop a broad understanding of the conditions,
processes and stakeholders that drive the development
of Internet policies in pivotal countries, and of how those conditions
influence developments at the regional and international levels.

Proposals should address one or both of the two RFPs described below:

* Internet Policy Observatory Regional Hub Grants
* Internet Policy Observatory Thematic Grants

*Internet Policy Observatory - Regional Hub Grant*

The objective of this Call is to add to a global network of Regional Hubs
supporting Internet policy research with specific regional perspectives.
The purpose of these grants is to encourage research from a variety of
disciplines to help further understanding on how
global Internet policies evolve.

This Call is open to persons and organizations who are particularly
interested in Internet policy research, and who are based in countries that
are located within (1) Latin America & Caribbean, (2) Middle-East and North
Africa[1], (3) South & South-East Asia[2] / Pacific (4) Central Asia[3](5)
East Asia[4] (6) Sub-Saharan Africa.

Research groups, universities, and civil society organizations which
already have research programs on Internet policy issues in the relevant
countries and regions are particularly encouraged to apply. Beneficiaries
of related, but different grants awarded under
the Internet Policy Observatory may also apply to this call.

Eligible proposals should address four core deliverables (Please view the
full RFP for complete descriptions of deliverables):

1. Hub Study: The Internet Policy Observatory welcomes proposals that seek
to investigate Internet policy issues within specific countries within a
region, or alternatively the region as a whole. Potential topics to
consider range across the wider field of Internet policy, including, but
are not limited to, issues of Internet governance, Internet filtration and
censorship, implications of military and security services activities and
concerns on policy development, to name but a few examples.
2. Hub Survey: Proposals should speak to the organization's capacity to
carry out qualitative and quantitative research. As part of
the Internet Policy Observatory's effort to create a global Delphi (expert)
survey on Internet policy formation, organizations will be expected to
incorporate a strategy for the creation and implementation of regional
surveys.
3. Hub View: A key task of the Regional Hubs is to regularly provide news
on Internet-policy-relevant developments within their region to the IPO
website.
4. Hub Action: Each Regional Hub should also propose further, regional
specific activity - such as local conferences or workshops - that can be
financed directly from the Grant or might be financed from other sources.

Grants are expected to be USD 20,000-40,000 per application selected.

Applications should be submitted by 5pm EST on September 15, 2013.

Click here<
http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001SA9uLA9EmV9W36sUgWfXhYR46VPR2EXbmDoduwbG7Kwai
bsIU8pHwp2FIvaXHXoC2Po9LXe-JCHLeOgi-LgSU6G-plWbOACZ4v59cWjkJUg73LpJ9MW6OqhlK
oRKGkeGsbcMqyYEsrBNzuQKi6XGiwvWgahDR9RJocXvT0AvI5U=>
for the full RFP, including information about eligibility, deliverables,
submission guidelines, and award criteria.

*Internet Policy Observatory Thematic Grants*

The objective of this Call is to encourage research by individuals and
institutions particularly interested in Internet policy issues.

This Call is open to persons and organizations who are particularly
interested in Internet policy research and who are based in key
countries/regions or led by a consortium that is located within the key
regions.

Research groups and civil society organizations which already have research
programs on Internet policy issues in the relevant countries and regions
are particularly encouraged to apply. Fluency in English is required both
for research and relevant administration tasks.

The thematic focus of the proposals may include, but is not limited to, one
of the general areas (for full descriptions, please view the full RFP.

* Technical developments and Internet policy
* Governance and Internet policy
* Internet policy and Internet/cyberspace ownership
* Social media and Internet policy
* The socio-economic impact of Internet policy
* The language of Internet Policy

Applications should be submitted by 5pm EST on September 15, 2013.

Click here<
http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001SA9uLA9EmV8284J14FxIJOTNU0B6B6n_8n4YH3EXlhyZh
NTgI6cwd_dd_SIP18qOcMKHGXGWv_3O1iq1R85Jns0ipun9XoGQ225Adea3Zi2TdwRa52yBiCO05
fnjTjB0e2Ro_WvRngPUPioN4ELy1UEtGsgPVEExdxrl051o9WP9m-_wfO6w9w==>
for the full RFP, including information about eligibility, deliverables,
submission guidelines, and award criteria.

For more information, please direct comments and questions to
internetpolicy at asc.upenn.edu.

Laura Schwartz-Henderson
Research Project Manager
Center For Global Communication Studies
Annenberg School for Communication
University of Pennsylvania
215-898-9727
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130730/51325cbb/attachment.htm>

From dsullivan at globalnetworkinitiative.org  Tue Jul 30 17:27:25 2013
From: dsullivan at globalnetworkinitiative.org (David Sullivan)
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 17:27:25 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Facebook's secret censorship deal with the Pakistan
 government
In-Reply-To: <CE0D9325.4365B%shahzad@bytesforall.pk>
References: <CE0D8374.43613%shahzad@bytesforall.pk> <CE0D9325.4365B%shahzad@bytesforall.pk>
Message-ID: <CA+hSVSognSqkppTZQQN_b1YgFF24NhVaw5j0X22fOvQbAuj3eg@mail.gmail.com>

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 <http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/>
Office: +1 202 741 5048
Mobile: +1 646 595 5373
PGP: 0x60D244AA
@David_MSullivan <https://twitter.com/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 <shahzad at bytesforall.pk>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<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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130730/285b2c50/attachment.htm>

From Lea at gp-digital.org  Wed Jul 31 11:36:06 2013
From: Lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar)
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 16:36:06 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] CWG Internet - Online Consultation: deadline for
 submissions extended to Oct 10
Message-ID: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CBD5727E0EB@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>

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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130731/cb0b8659/attachment.htm>

From katitza at eff.org  Wed Jul 31 12:02:05 2013
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 09:02:05 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] Huge Global Coalition Stands Against Unchecked
 Surveillance
Message-ID: <51F934FD.4020202@eff.org>

TO SIGN, please go to https://en.necessaryandproportionate.org/about

Huge Global Coalition Stands Against Unchecked Surveillance

100+ Organizations Sign Thirteen Principles to Protect Human Rights
San Francisco - More than 100 organizations from across the globe –
including Privacy International, Access, and the Electronic Frontier
Foundation (EFF) – are taking a stand against unchecked communications
surveillance, calling for the governments around the world to follow
international human rights law and curtail pervasive spying.

The coalition of groups have all signed the International Principles on
the Application of Human Rights to Communication Surveillance – 13 basic
principles that spell out how existing human rights law applies to
modern digital surveillance. Written in response to the increasing
number of government surveillance standards that focus on law
enforcement and "national security" priorities instead of citizens'
rights, the principles include advice on how surveillance laws should
respect the law, due process, and include public oversight and
transparency. Current debates over government surveillance are often
limited by outmoded definitions of content versus metadata, or stored
data versus data in transit. The principles released today concentrate
on the core issue: how human rights protect all information that reveals
private information about an individual's communications.

"It's time to restore human rights to their place at the very heart of
the surveillance debate," said EFF International Director Danny O'Brien.
"Widespread government spying on communications interferes with
citizens' ability to enjoy a private life, and to freely express
themselves – basic rights we all have. But the mass metadata collected
in the U.S. surveillance program, for example, makes it extraordinarily
easy for the government to track what groups we associate with and why
we might contact them. These principles announced today represent a
global consensus that modern surveillance has gone too far and must be
restrained."

The organizations signing the principles come from more than 40
different countries. The principles will be used to advocate for a
change in how present laws are interpreted, and new laws are crafted.

"International human rights law binds every country across the globe to
a basic respect for freedom of expression and personal privacy," said
EFF International Rights Director Katitza Rodriguez. "The pervasiveness
of surveillance makes standing up for our digital rights more important
than ever. And we need those rights to survive in a digital world, where
any state can spy on us all, in more detail than ever before. We know
that surveillance laws need to be transparent and proportionate, with
judicial oversight, and that surveillance should only be used when
absolutely necessary. Everything we've heard about the NSA programs
indicate that they fall far outside these international human rights
principles."

For the International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to
Communications Surveillance:
https://necessaryandproportionate.org/

For more on how the principles were developed:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/thirteen-principles-for-human-rights

Contacts:

Danny O'Brien
   International Outreach Coordinator
   Electronic Frontier Foundation
   danny at eff.org

For Spanish-language interviews:
   Katitza Rodriguez
   International Rights Director
   Electronic Frontier Foundation
   katitza at eff.org

-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom
of speech since 1990
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0x9425A914.asc
Type: application/pgp-keys
Size: 2175 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130731/4a027aaa/attachment.key>