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

[Joana Varon]

Dear all,

Thanks a lot for all the efforts to reach a balance on all this.

+1 about the points on the terminology raised by Anja, Anriette, Avri and
Jeremy

+1 for Kevin suggestions on whistleblower

+1 for the additions made by Cynthia on the requests to be made to US
Congress

+1 about thinking in a more specific way to identify our organizations
(Will something like this be enough? "civil society organizations focused
on the implications of internet policies in the exercise of fundamental
human rights" ... dont know if "internet policies" is enough though)

Thanks Joy for the clarifications on NZ whistleblower.. looking forward
from APC news on what to do in a broader sense regarding this complicated
issue.

all the best

joana

On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> On 13/06/2013, at 3:47 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
>
> On 12 Jun 2013, at 15:25, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>
> I can see that in this particular statement, we would want to think
> carefully about which concerns to highlight and how to frame them, so as to
> provide as much support as possible to the current momentum. But I do think
> there are certain non-negotiables if a wide sign up to this statement is
> desired. For example, at last year's Best Bits meeting, we already had a
> discussion on how few of us in the Global South use the term "Internet
> freedom" to describe the work we do for a whole range of highly political
> reasons and so I would think not using that term is one such
> non-negotiable. As long as we take such issues into account, I am sure a
> sound compromise can be reached that will make for a strong statement
> acceptable to all.
>
>
> i think the term has become somewhat tainted by its use as a US-referent
>  political meme.
> so finding another way to describe Freedoms of/on/via/by the Internet
> might be a good idea.
>
>
> +1.  I have been saying the same thing for a while (
> https://twitter.com/qirtaiba/status/303409261923405824), but the PRISM
> scandal has cemented this.  The Best Bits website says "Internet governance
> and Internet rights".  Neither of those are perfect either.  The
> disadvantage of "Internet governance" is that a lot of people think it
> means naming and numbering.  The disadvantage of "Internet rights" is that
> (with a nod to APC) Internet rights are human rights.
>
>     --
>
> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Policy Officer
> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map:
> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013
>
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
>


-- 

-- 

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/20130613/f26a5434/attachment.htm>