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

Thu Jun 13 11:27:35 EDT 2013

Dear all

Just thinking through the timeline... as Jeremy won't be online for a
while longer. If we want to deliver on Monday afternoon Washington DC
time, we would still want to give people enough time to sign on... so we
would still want to have the final ready by around 12h00 UTC/GMT Friday
so that we can circulate it for signatures on Friday in and Monday
morning. That should allow enough time for people in all time zones to
have a chance to look at the letter, circulate and decide on signing on.

Michael, why don't you try to do a clean version later today (as you
have offered) so that Jeremy has something to work with when he starts
his day tomorrow?

Anriette

On 13/06/2013 17:19, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> Dear all (copying WebWeWant and IRP to keep everyone in the same loop)
>
> I had quick consult with Deborah Brown and while there are pros and cons
> to delaying, it seems that strong sign-on from a large number of
> organisations is very important. So I would also be happy for us go for
> Monday unless there are strong suggestions to the contrary. It also
> seems as if the exact delivery channel has not yet been figured out yet.
> I think it would make sense for someone based in Washington DC to do the
> handing over personally on our behalf. That would be FreePress, CDT,
> HRW... correct?
>
> For those who might not have it handy, the letter is being developed here:
>
> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here
>
> Discussion of the contents is taking place on bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>
> I suggest we let Jeremy Malcolm decide when and how to deal with the
> final tidying up. Jeremy, you have lots of volunteers to help with that.
>
> Best
>
> Anriette
>
>
>
>
> On 13/06/2013 16:16, Carolina Rossini wrote:
>> I like parminder suggestions on non-US citizens.
>>
>> I also agree with suggestion on delivering this on Monday.
>>
>> Who could take a final look for style and grammar? Much of it was lost
>> during the editing process. I can try, but it would be better if a native
>> english speaker take the lead on the final round.
>>
>> Carol
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:08 AM, parminder
> <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:
>>> The statement has turned out well. However, I remain concerned about the
>>> fact that the issue of non citizens related content surveillance has
> not at
>>> all been addressed by the US authorities. They havent bothered to say a
>>> word on it (not that it is easily defensible).  I would like the group to
>>> consider adding the following paragraph somewhere......
>>>
>>>
>>> "We are extremely disappointed that, in all the post 'disclosures'
>>> statements, US authorities have only insisted that there was no access
>>> obtained to content related to *US citizens*, and just their
>>> communication meta-data was collected. There has not been  a word on the
>>> issue of large-scale access to content related to non US citizens,
> which is
>>> a violation of their human rights. The focussing of the US authorities on
>>> the difference between treatment of US citizens and non-citizens on an
>>> issue which essentially relates to violation of human rights is very
>>> problematic. Human rights are universal, and every government must
> refrain
>>> from violating them for all people, and not merely for its citizens. The
>>> current and future US law and practices on this matter should take
> note of
>>> this. "
>>>
>>>
>>> I  still have issues with the role of the involved companies, which I
>>> will address in a separate email. I am fine though to address them
>>> separately, through a possible second statement.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile the second sentence in the following somehow looks not quite
>>> right.
>>>
>>>  "The introduction of untargeted surveillance mechanisms at the heart of
>>> global digital communications severely threatens human rights in the
>>> digital age. *These new forms of decentralized power reflect fundamental
>>> shifts in the structure of information systems in modern
> societies**.*[3] and
>>> aAny step in this direction needs to be scrutinized through ample, deep
>>> and transparent debate. Interference with the human rights of citizens by
>>> any government, their own or foreign, is unacceptable."
>>>
>>> What is being referred to as a 'form of decentralised power'? From the
>>> reference I take it, it is about 'arab spring' kind of people's
> power, but
>>> that doesnt look clear from the way the sentence is wedged between the
>>> other two sentences...
>>>
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  On Thursday 13 June 2013 05:11 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>>>
>>> Also, in response to Parminder's questions: while we had agreed from the
>>> beginning that the focus of this particular statement would be the US
>>> Congress, I feel (and I just reread it to check) that it does foreground
>>> the concerns of non-US citizens/resident (as it was meant to do in my
>>> reading as well). Parminder, do you really feel that doesn't come out at
>>> all? In that case, we do have some more work to do....
>>>
>>>
>>> On 13 June 2013 16:28, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in> wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Anriette, is there a strong reason why you feel we should release this
>>>> tomorrow already? My inclination would be to agree with Nnenna and
> others
>>>> and to wait until Monday, but would be keen to know why you feel
> tomorrow
>>>> is a better idea.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 13 June 2013 14:37, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>  Hi people
>>>>>
>>>>>  I will say  submit on Monday.  When you kick off the week with it, you
>>>>> will have ample time to rave up media attention on it..
>>>>>  I am hoping Mandela does not give up the fight.. because that will
>>>>> overshadow any other Internet news...
>>>>>
>>>>>  I am booked for the very first Africa Internet Summit in Lusaka next
>>>>> week.  I do hope to be able to draw attention to the statement, as
> well as
>>>>> some that have been made by Best Bits.
>>>>>
>>>>>  Best of the day..
>>>>>
>>>>>  Nnenna
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen
> <anriette at apc.org>wrote:
>> Greetings everyone
>>
>> Content is coming along well.
>>
>> Jeremy, in response to your question, what about giving people until
>> 21h00 GMT/UTC today, Thursday. Then you can close the text, finalise it,
>> and release for sign-ons and give people until 16h00 GMT/UTC Friday for
>> sign ons and then we can send it off before the end of the business day
>> in Washington DC (will be 12h00 in DC).
>>
>> That will accommodate Parminder's request, but still enable us to get
>> enough sign ons and get the letter to Washington DC on Friday. Only
>> region that will have a shortish period for sign ons will be the
>> Americas.
>>
>> Will this work?
>>
>> Anriette
>>
>>
>> On 13/06/2013 08:13, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  --
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
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