[IRPCoalition] [bestbits] How to target companies, and other follow-up ideas [WAS: Re: Delivery of international civil society letter to Congress]
Graciela Selaimen
graciela at nupef.org.br
Fri Jun 14 07:29:29 EDT 2013
Totally agree.
best,
Graciela
Em 6/14/13 7:37 AM, Ginger Paque escreveu:
> 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
> <mailto: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>
> [mailto: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
> <mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com>; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> <mailto: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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp
--
Graciela Selaimen
Instituto Nupef
www.nupef.org.br
www.politics.org.br
www.rets.org.br
www.tiwa.org.br
****************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130614/19399797/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list