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

Fri Jun 14 06:37:33 EDT 2013

I agree strongly with Marianne here. Yes, some of us receive multiple
copies: that is our choice. I would rather see the discussion on several
lists and reach a wider group, than have it closed off because we might
choose not to subscribe to yet another list. If anyone does not know how to
create filters and folders, I know there are people on the lists who are
willing to help.

Hmm. Maybe the welcome email to discussion lists could include tips on
filtering messages? Does a message or tips sheet already exist? If not, I
may work on one this weekend. Any thoughts on that?

Thanks to everyone for their work on this important discussion. I am sure I
am not the only one who reads with avid interest but does not often
intervene. Please do not underestimate the importance these discussions
have for 'readers'.

Have a great weekend, Ginger

Ginger (Virginia) Paque
IG Programmes, DiploFoundation

*The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet governance:
Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance specialisation,
Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy and Strategic
Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read more and apply at
http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses*
 **
**

On 14 June 2013 04:01, Marianne Franklin <m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk> wrote:

>  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> 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*
> ***
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130614/e3843d60/attachment.htm>