[bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement

Gene Kimmelman genekimmelman at gmail.com
Wed Jun 12 14:49:06 EDT 2013 

As people continue to make helpful suggestions on the letter, I want to be
sure we all understand what the purpose of THIS particular communication is:

1.  Are we trying to make the strongest possible statement of our views to
the U.S. government AND have the maximum impact on the U.S. policy debate?
Or

2.  Are we trying to make the strongest possible statement to reflect
global CSO views regardless of how it is received by U.S. policymakers?

(there may be many other goals, i just highlight these two to make a point):

If 1. is the goal, I believe Kevin and Carol have pointed out some helpful
ways to navigate the U.S. environment and minimize a negative reaction from
many policymakers who would generally support our goals; and the statement
to the HRC already covers a very strong presentation with broadbased
support and contribution from our colleagues.

If 2. is the goal, then there is no need to temper individual views....

I believe both approaches have valuable attributes.  I do believe that
there is an opening given some of the shock in the U.S. at the scope of
PRISM and related activity, that a more targeted approached tailored to
U.S. policymakers could have more impact than a broader/stronger
statement.  Having said that, I in no way want any NGO to "give up" strong
beliefs about protection of whistleblowers, or the characterization of the
role the U.S has played in internet policy debates.  I believe there is a
way to frame this that preserves everyone's one prerogatives to express
views on those (and other issues), but also pressures the U.S. to address
hypocrisy and inconsistency in policy statements that are obvious in light
of the recent revelations. It seems to me that a combination of Anriette's,
Kevin's, Joana's, and Anja's suggestions (sorry, I may have missed others!)
would protect everyone's views and make for a very strong statement.


On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Kevin Bankston <kbankston at cdt.org> wrote:

> Hey everyone:
>
> So the current sentence at the end is this:
>
> "We further call on the United States Congress to protect the
> whistleblowers involved in this case and support their efforts to combat identifiable
> mass violations of the fundamental human rights of American and foreign
> citizens."[9]
>
> Would people be comfortable with:
> "We further call on the United States Congress to establish stronger
> protections for whistleblowers in order to better ensure that the public is
> adequately informed about abuses of power that violate the fundamental
> human rights of Americans and foreign citizens."
>
> I think that a call to immunize Snowden is both politically and more to
> the point legally implausible--and also I think is too narrow to serve our
> purpose, since it's just him.
>
> To the extent people would like to say something more expansive about
> whistleblowing, I think perhaps doing a separate letter as Anja suggests
> might be appropriate.
> ____________________________________
> Kevin S. Bankston
> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director
> Center for Democracy & Technology
> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100
> Washington, DC 20006
> 202.407.8834 direct
> 202.637.0968 fax
> kbankston at cdt.org
>
> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech
>
> On Jun 12, 2013, at 1:32 PM, Cynthia Wong <wongc at hrw.org> wrote:
>
> FYI, OSIJ has released their principles on national security and FOI,
> which does discuss protections for whistleblowers:
> http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/briefing-papers/understanding-tshwane-principles
> ****
>
> I’m not an expert on US law in this area, but there are protections for
> government employee whistleblowers in some contexts (fraud, abuse).
> However, there may be broad exemptions to those protections in the
> intelligence/national security context?****
>
> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-
> request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Ginger Paque
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 12, 2013 1:07 PM
> *To:* Anriette Esterhuysen
> *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress
> to follow up from HRC statement****
> ** **
>
> There are some statutes that protect whistleblowers in some cases, but
> this is subject to interpretation and the scope of the particular
> whistleblower statute you are looking at. The lawyer I asked said it is
> further complicated by 'whistleblowing' against the nation (USA) and
> possible allegations of treason and terrorism (e.g. Bradley
> Manning/Wikileaks)****
>
> Most whistleblower protections seem to address employee whistleblowing or
> corporate fraud.****
>
> Do other countries besides the USA offer protections?****
> gp****
>
> ****
> Ginger (Virginia) Paque
> IG Programmes, DiploFoundation
>
> *The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet
> governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance
> specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy
> and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read more
> and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses*****
>
>
> ** **
> On 12 June 2013 11:47, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:****
>
> Replying only to BestBits... the multiple messages are driving me round
> the bend.
>
> I support Joana on this, but understand the strategic considerations to.
>
> Is there any protection for whistleblowers in the US we can make
> reference to in this last paragraph? So that we can say that 'such
> protection should apply to whistleblowers in this case'?
>
> anriette
>
>
> On 12/06/2013 18:22, Joana Varon wrote:
> > I'm ok if we take the paragraph that Kevin and Carol mentioned out and
> > leave the last part of the final paragraph:
> >
> > "We further call on the United States Congress to protect the
> > whistleblowers involved in this case and support their efforts to combat
> > these kinds of mass violations of the fundamental human rights of
> American
> > and foreign citizens.[9]"
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> "So we need others to protect him from US.."
> >>
> >> then, as International community, we need the US to know we support his
> >> protection, isnt it?
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Carolina Rossini <
> >> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Joana, I agree with Kevin on this. We need action of the international
> >>> community to protect whistleblowers when they break a law in a certain
> >>> country when such action in favor of a bigger common good - and
> actually
> >>> public interest.
> >>> So we need others to protect him from US...I do not believe anything
> else
> >>> would work in this case.
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Kevin Bankston <kbankston at cdt.org
> >wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Understood.  But the audience has changed.  There it was the HRC,
> where
> >>>> your point might have purchase.  But if we are here addressing US
> >>>> policymakers, and we are, that's a context where even those who are
> >>>> staunchly on our side on the substance have had to condemn what
> Snowden did
> >>>> as a clear violation of the law.
> >>>>
> >>>>    ____________________________________
> >>>> Kevin S. Bankston
> >>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director
> >>>> Center for Democracy & Technology
> >>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100
> >>>> Washington, DC 20006
> >>>> 202.407.8834 direct
> >>>> 202.637.0968 fax
> >>>> kbankston at cdt.org
> >>>>
> >>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech
> >>>>
> >>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> As I've mentioned in the document:
> >>>>
> >>>> I believe it is very important to express our concerns about the
> future
> >>>> of the whistleblowers in every single statement we make... I mean,
> the guy
> >>>> is in huge trouble.. all the efforts are welcome and protecting him
> is also
> >>>> part of our main points. That was expressed in a paragraph on our
> Statement
> >>>> to HRC and there were a few organizations that signed our statement to
> >>>> HCR particularly because we have mentioned this point.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Carolina Rossini <
> >>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> + 1 on Kevin's comments
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Kevin Bankston <kbankston at cdt.org
> >wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Sorry, used the old best bits list address, now using new one...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Kevin
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Kevin Bankston <kbankston at cdt.org>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm not sure how bestbits fell out of this thread--I thought
> bestbists
> >>>>>> was going to be the main channel for this discussion--so adding
> that list
> >>>>>> back into cc.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In addition to Carolina, I've also made some small tweaks and one
> big
> >>>>>> comment.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The tweaks:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1) Changed "Some US-based Internet companies with global reach also
> >>>>>> seem to be *complicit* in these practices" to "participating".  I am
> >>>>>> all for calling out "complicity" in cases like, e.g., AT&T's
> cooperation
> >>>>>> with the Bush-era program that operated without court approval (for
> the
> >>>>>> record, I'm one of the attorneys who brought cases against AT&T and
> the NSA
> >>>>>> over that program, while I was at EFF).  But as far as we know now
> the
> >>>>>> companies participating currently are doing so under secret *order*
> of the
> >>>>>> FISA court and even if they had attempted to challenge those orders
> we
> >>>>>> would never know.  So I'm less willing to tar with the "complicity"
> brush.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2) Changed "Involved or affected companies *must* publish
> statistics"
> >>>>>> to "must *be allowed to*" publish statistics.  Right now they are
> forbidden
> >>>>>> by law from doing so.  So we should be asking USG to allow them to
> do so.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The one big comment, seconding Carolina's: I think that the
> paragraph
> >>>>>> focusing on whistleblowing is a politically dangerous distraction
> from the
> >>>>>> main point.  We had the same discussion in the
> stopwathing.uscoalition--many people wanted to focus on Snowden--but after
> a lot of
> >>>>>> debate it was agreed that doing so would actually detract from what
> he is
> >>>>>> trying to accomplish.  I think the same is true here.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>> K
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> PS CDT will have a blog post up shortly praising the HRC statement
> and
> >>>>>> the Larue report and highlighting for a US audience the global
> human rights
> >>>>>> impact of this issue.
> >>>>>>     ____________________________________
> >>>>>> Kevin S. Bankston
> >>>>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director
> >>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology
> >>>>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100
> >>>>>> Washington, DC 20006
> >>>>>> 202.407.8834 direct
> >>>>>> 202.637.0968 fax
> >>>>>> kbankston at cdt.org
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:34 AM, Carolina Rossini <
> >>>>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi all
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I just talked to Gene, and we have some new inputs. Edits on the
> >>>>>> letter.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> C
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Joana Varon <
> joana at varonferraz.com>wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi folks,
> >>>>>>> Great job! I'm adding some brackets.. if I might.
> >>>>>>> Shall we be delivering this in Tunis, next week? During the Freedom
> >>>>>>> Online Coalition meeting.
> >>>>>>> best
> >>>>>>> joana
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Carolina Rossini <
> >>>>>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Kevin,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thank you for your inputs. However, do you think there is space to
> >>>>>>>> say - besides reforming such law - there was a overreaching of
> authority ?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> C
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Kevin Bankston <
> kbankston at cdt.org>wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's
> >>>>>>>>> questions.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I'm not sure how best to answer Andrew's questions; FISA is a
> >>>>>>>>> complex law.  And to be clear, Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act
> was an
> >>>>>>>>> amendment to FISA's provision for court orders for records; not
> a separate
> >>>>>>>>> law.  And the state secrets privilege is common law; there is no
> statute
> >>>>>>>>> for it.  But I'll do my best!
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> To read Andrew's question as narrowly as possible so that I can
> >>>>>>>>> give a quick answer:  In the context of foreign intelligence and
> terrorism
> >>>>>>>>> investigations, FISA regulates surveillance conducted inside the
> United
> >>>>>>>>> States, and acquisition of records from companies inside the
> United
> >>>>>>>>> States, and surveillance outside of the United States to the
> extent it
> >>>>>>>>> implicates United States person (i.e., citizens and naturalized
> permanent
> >>>>>>>>> residents); there is also the National Security Letter authority
> which is
> >>>>>>>>> an authority for the FBI to obtain records without going through
> the FISA
> >>>>>>>>> Court.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> These authorities directly implicate the privacy of non-Americans
> >>>>>>>>> to the extent that 1) non-Americans may reside in the US, 2)
> non-Americans
> >>>>>>>>> communications will transit or be stored in facilities in the
> US, 3)
> >>>>>>>>> records about non-Americans will be stored by companies in the
> US.
> >>>>>>>>>  Finally, it also implicates the privacy of non-Americans to the
> extent
> >>>>>>>>> that it does not at all regulate USG surveillance of
> non-Americans outside
> >>>>>>>>> of America.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> FISA is at 18 USC 1801 et seq, in Chapter 36 of our US Code:
> >>>>>>>>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-36
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> In most relevant part, Subchapter I deals with individual
> wiretaps
> >>>>>>>>> ("electronic surveillance"), II with secret physical searches,
> III with pen
> >>>>>>>>> registers and trap and trace devices (i.e. surveillance of
> metadata), IV
> >>>>>>>>> with records demands (now referred to as PATRIOT 215 orders
> since it was
> >>>>>>>>> significantly amended by that section of PATRIOT).  Meanwhile,
> Subchapter
> >>>>>>>>> VI--added by the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) in 2008--provided the
> new and
> >>>>>>>>> seriously problematic authority to obtain year long orders
> authorizing
> >>>>>>>>> "programs" of non-individualized surveillance of communications
> where at
> >>>>>>>>> least one party to the communication is outside of the country,
> while also
> >>>>>>>>> allowing without any court authorization the interception of any
> >>>>>>>>> foreign-to-foreign communications transiting the US; that is the
> authority
> >>>>>>>>> under which PRISM is being used, as far as we best understand it.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Therefore and to be absolutely clear: amendment to these
> laws--and
> >>>>>>>>> especially a narrowing of the FAA--would SUBSTANTIALLY impact
> the privacy
> >>>>>>>>> of every non-American who uses modern communications networks
> and services,
> >>>>>>>>> especially those with facilities in the US.  And the assistance
> of
> >>>>>>>>> international civil society will be critical in any effort to
> accomplish
> >>>>>>>>> such amendments.  So--thank you all for what you've been doing!
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>>>>> Kevin
> >>>>>>>>>    ____________________________________
> >>>>>>>>> Kevin S. Bankston
> >>>>>>>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director
> >>>>>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology
> >>>>>>>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100
> >>>>>>>>> Washington, DC 20006
> >>>>>>>>> 202.407.8834 direct
> >>>>>>>>> 202.637.0968 fax
> >>>>>>>>> kbankston at cdt.org
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <
> >>>>>>>>> anriette at apc.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>  We need a clean copy.. but I am afraid I can't work on it today.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> But thanks MIke and others who have given input.  I would be
> happy
> >>>>>>>>> to let Joy and Jeremy clean up and give us a version to send
> tomorrow or
> >>>>>>>>> Friday.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's
> >>>>>>>>> questions.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Anriette
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 12/06/2013 15:03, michael gurstein wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> I`ve commented as well and also around all day...
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> M
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>>>> From: webwewant at googlegroups.com [
> >>>>>>>>> mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com <webwewant at googlegroups.com>]
> On
> >>>>>>>>>> Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen
> >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 4:28 AM
> >>>>>>>>>> Cc: webwewant at googlegroups.com;
> >>>>>>>>> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] International civil society letter to
> >>>>>>>>> Congress to
> >>>>>>>>>> follow up from HRC statement
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Great work. Thanks Joy and Jeremy . I have made some comments.
> Will
> >>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>> around all day if needed.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Anriette
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 12/06/2013 06:01, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> This follows on from a telephone call organised by the Web
> >>>>>>>>> Foundation
> >>>>>>>>>> yesterday, in which APC was asked to coordinate a civil society
> >>>>>>>>> letter
> >>>>>>>>>> to the US government from international organisations.  That
> >>>>>>>>> letter
> >>>>>>>>>> would follow on from our joint statement to the Human Rights
> >>>>>>>>> Council,
> >>>>>>>>>> and we would invite Human Rights Watch and Privacy International
> >>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>> participate in drafting.  APC agreed to do this and suggested
> >>>>>>>>>> continuing to use Best Bits as the coordinating coalition.
> >>>>>>>>>> Here is the first rough draft of the text that Joy from APC and
> I
> >>>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>>>> begun to put together, which awaits your comments and
> >>>>>>>>> improvements:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here (sorry for the dumb
> >>>>>>>>> URL)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Although I'm cc'ing the IRP and Web We Want lists, to avoid
> >>>>>>>>>> fragmentation of discussions on the text like happened
> >>>>>>>>> inadvertently
> >>>>>>>>>> last time, can I suggest, if nobody objects, that we centralise
> on
> >>>>>>>>>> this list, and that if you are not a member you can join at
> >>>>>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits.  To bring in
> >>>>>>>>> others, you
> >>>>>>>>>> can point them towards this list too.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>  >
> >>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> >>>>>>>>> Google Groups
> >>>>>>>>>> "Web We Want working group" group.
> >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
> it,
> >>>>>>>>> send an
> >>>>>>>>>> email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> >>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit
> https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>>> 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 because you are subscribed to the
> Google
> >>>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group.
> >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> >>>>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> >>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out
> .
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> Google
> >>>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group.
> >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> >>>>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> >>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out
> .
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> *Carolina Rossini*
> >>>>>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/
> >>>>>>>> + 1 6176979389
> >>>>>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
> >>>>>>>> skype: carolrossini
> >>>>>>>> @carolinarossini
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group.
> >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> >>>>>>>> send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> >>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz
> >>>>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV)<
> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/>
> >>>>>>> @joana_varon
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> *Carolina Rossini*
> >>>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/
> >>>>>> + 1 6176979389
> >>>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
> >>>>>> skype: carolrossini
> >>>>>> @carolinarossini
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> *Carolina Rossini*
> >>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/
> >>>>> + 1 6176979389
> >>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
> >>>>> skype: carolrossini
> >>>>> @carolinarossini
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>> Joana Varon Ferraz
> >>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV)<
> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/>
> >>>> @joana_varon
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> *Carolina Rossini*
> >>> http://carolinarossini.net/
> >>> + 1 6176979389
> >>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
> >>> skype: carolrossini
> >>> @carolinarossini
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Joana Varon Ferraz
> >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) <
> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/>
> >> @joana_varon
> >>
> >
> >
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------
> 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/20130612/04c161ce/attachment.htm>

More information about the Bestbits mailing list