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

Thu Jun 13 16:36:47 EDT 2013

Why don't we use the webwewant list then instead of creating another new
one? It is a closed list.
cheers
Anne

On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Carolina <carolina.rossini at gmail.com>wrote:

> One thing I support.... Private list may work better for some issues...
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jun 13, 2013, at 3:54 PM, Claudio Ruiz <claudio at derechosdigitales.org>
> wrote:
>
> 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/20130613/9d397642/attachment.htm>