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

Fri Jun 14 07:50:32 EDT 2013

I also feel that there is a danger in isolating a particular discussion,
although I too find myself VERY bewildered from time to time. Having a
single space, known to everyone, for any document under discussion relieves
some of the confusion.
Deirdre
\

On 14 June 2013 06:37, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>> ****
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp
>
>

-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130614/0a96f592/attachment.htm>