[IRPCoalition] [bestbits] How to target companies, and other follow-up ideas [WAS: Re: Delivery of international civil society letter to Congress]

Thu Jun 13 15:54:05 EDT 2013

Maybe this is the opportunity to have a separated private list, different
to the wide open BB as suggested.

On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Kevin Bankston <kbankston at cdt.org> wrote:

> The alternative is consolidating discussion on one of the three lists (as
> Jeremy had suggested re: best bits, which I think is also a fine
> suggestion).  But I am concerned that trying to discuss this on or with all
> of the lists is not sustainable in the long term.  I understand the concern
> about "yet another list"--I concern I typically share--but I think that
> focusing discussion on one list would actually substantially reduce
> traffic, and duplication, and confusion, and missed connections and
> misunderstandings.
>
> On Jun 13, 2013, at 3:31 PM, Carolina Rossini <carolina.rossini at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> another list? oh my....
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Claudio Ruiz <
> claudio at derechosdigitales.org> wrote:
>
>> Totally agree. I'm already lost. Like a thousand miles away. ;-)
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Kevin Bankston <kbankston at cdt.org>wrote:
>>
>>> In the interest of moving forward in a concerted but not confused way, I
>>> think it might be worthwhile starting a separate list focused on solely
>>> this issue such that relevant and interested people from the three
>>> coalitions  can participate and then report back to their respective
>>> coalitions as necessary. The crossposting is getting very difficult and
>>> confusing and somewhat unnecessary especially considering how many of us
>>> are in all three groups.  What do people think?
>>>
>>> Sent via mobile
>>>
>>> On Jun 13, 2013, at 1:21 PM, Anne Jellema <anne at webfoundation.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Picking up on the earlier comments from Parminder et al re corporate
>>> culpability: I support these points. I think that beyond this letter, we
>>> should consider a separate consumer-driven action that directly targets one
>>> or more of the companies that have given into the NSA. Such an action could
>>> be hugely successful, especially if we can keep the ask simple so that
>>> ordinary facebook, skype (microsoft) or google users can easily understand
>>> it.
>>>
>>> In general, seems to me that with both the HRC statement and this letter
>>> under our belts (and huge congrats and thanks to everyone for getting that
>>> done so fast], we need to start mapping a slightly longer term game plan
>>> for the next few months. There is lobby work to be done on getting the HRC
>>> to act on our demands to them; we should continue to offer global
>>> solidarity to the stopwatching.us campaign where it can be effective in
>>> increasing that campaign's chances of success domestically; there may be
>>> other domestic campaigns emerging in other countries affected by govt
>>> complicity with US surveillance that we should support; and as mentioned
>>> above we might want to plan a consumer-facing action at some point in the
>>> near future, or work together to take on other targets that seem strategic.
>>>
>>> Who will be in Tunis to strategise this weekend?
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Anne
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> IRP mailing list
>>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *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/20130613/3de8d4f8/attachment.htm>