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

[Carolina Rossini]

Hi all

I just saw that the version I cleaned around 4:40pmEST already has a bunch
of new edits.

Should we set a time limit to close editions? How would you all like to
proceed?

http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here

Carol

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:

> 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
>



-- 
*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/20130612/beab5ad1/attachment.htm>