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

Fri Jun 14 05:01:41 EDT 2013

Dear all

This issue is important, has generated a lot of energy and is moving some important mobilization forward. These discussions are perhaps not for everybody and having them come twice/three times can require a lot of filing and deleting. But this is not difficult. People I am sure can exercise their own delete/file discretion.

No one list owns the discussion, this belongs to us all in one way or another. I move we keep the threads open to all and so accessible to all lists at the same time. Best Bits folk are leading the drafting and IRP folk are contributing and many many others are listening and watching from all corners of all lists. Why on earth would we want to confine this conversation?!

Thanks
MF

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Kevin Bankston
Sent: 13 June 2013 20:04
To: Anne Jellema
Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen; webwewant at googlegroups.com; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; IRP
Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] How to target companies, and other follow-up ideas [WAS: Re: Delivery of international civil society letter to Congress]

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<mailto: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<http://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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:%2B91%209899028053> | @anjakovacs
>>>> www.internetdemocracy.in<http://www.internetdemocracy.in>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs
>>> The Internet Democracy Project
>>>
>>> +91 9899028053<tel:%2B91%209899028053> | @anjakovacs
>>> www.internetdemocracy.in<http://www.internetdemocracy.in>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

--
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org<mailto:anriette at apc.org>
executive director, association for progressive communications
www.apc.org<http://www.apc.org>
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692<tel:%2B27%2011%20726%201692>

--
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<mailto:webwewant%2Bunsubscribe at googlegroups.com>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

_______________________________________________
IRP mailing list
IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org<mailto:IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130614/85b00288/attachment.htm>