[IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Re: CS statement: DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done
Marianne Franklin
m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
Tue Jun 18 07:10:58 EDT 2013
HI Deborah
Whilst I was advocated an open list for the last two petitions, I do
understand the need for a working group set up from here on in. Please
count me in along with Matthias.
Anyone else from IRP interested?
Thanks for moderating this.
best
MF
On 18/06/2013 05:37, Deborah Brown wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Given that there is interest in following up on last week's statement
> at the HRC from people on different lists and, as Anriette pointed
> out, we'll probably want to work with Geneva-based HR orgs that are
> not on these lists, I propose taking this conversation off-list for
> now with everyone who wants to be involved and regularly reporting
> back to all the various lists. This would hopefully help minimize the
> email traffic and cross posting. Additionally, a few people expressed
> a preference for taking this off-list to facilitate strategizing. I
> hope this approach sounds okay to everyone. Please let me know if you
> object.
>
> So far the following people have written saying that they'd like to be
> included in this discussion moving forward are: Allon, Anja, APC
> (Anriette and Joy), Joana, Matthias, and Norbert.
>
> Is there anyone I missed? Anyone I should add?
>
> Since the HRC session ended on Friday, we now have some time to
> regroup, and consider a variety of ways to follow up in-country and in
> Geneva.
>
> All the best,
> Deborah
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:39 AM, Allon Bar <allon at allonbar.com
> <mailto:allon at allonbar.com>> wrote:
>
> Agreed. One idea may be to bring the full force of this wide
> coalition of organizations to the fore by drafting a single letter
> appropriate for all countries that are possibly involved in
> extracting surveillance data obtained through indiscriminate
> means, and submit a localized version (referencing that country)
> to each of the respective governments, still bearing the signature
> of the group of organizations.
> So this would utilize the solidarity of all for the specific
> effect these actions have on citizens in another country, 1)
> asking the government in question about its involvement in a
> program as described above; 2) urging the government to verify by
> what means information they receive from another state has been
> obtained; 3) urging the government to refrain from using
> information obtained by means violating the human rights of its
> citizens; and 4) again underlining that also in its own conduct
> toward its citizens the government is bound by human rights
> principles as well as its own laws, protecting the individual
> against intrusion by its government and operating on a basis of
> presumed innocence.
>
> "Violations supported by you affect us all."
>
>
>
>
> On 6/12/13 2:34 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>> The greatest impact in terms of advocacy in this area, would be
>> within governments as commitments may be made in forums but the
>> real test is within nations, behind closed doors.
>>
>> The minute people get accustomed to minute corrosions in
>> principle, is the inevitable expectation that basic tenets have
>> fallen.
>>
>> Advocacy must be two pronged, with more emphasis on the
>> In-country advocacy. With social media, this should allow for
>> greater awareness of the public, strategic awareness raising and
>> campaigning and utilizing all tools available.
>>
>> Sala
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 6:29 AM, Deborah Brown <deborah at accessnow.org
>> <mailto:deborah at accessnow.org>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> The HRC statement (which is continuing to attract sign on) makes
>>> three requests to the Human Rights Council (pasted below). Is
>>> anyone interested in starting a separate thread (on- or
>>> off-list) about taking these requests forward? In particular it
>>> would be good to have Geneva-based people and those with
>>> experience in advocacy at the HRC involved, but of course all
>>> are welcome. I think it would be good to do coordinated outreach
>>> to governments and to follow up with OHCHR, which already
>>> provided some advice on crafting the recommendations.
>>>
>>> * convening a special session to examine this case
>>> * supporting a multistakeholder process to implement the
>>> recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee
>>> develop a new General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in
>>> light of technological advancements, and,
>>> * requesting the High Commissioner to prepare a report that:
>>> o formally asks states to report on practices and laws in
>>> place on surveillance and what corrective steps will
>>> they will take to meet human rights standards, and,
>>> o examines the implications of this case in in the light
>>> of the Human Rights Council endorsed United Nations
>>> Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the
>>> “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4.
>>>
>>> Warm regards,
>>> Deborah
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 1:03 PM, shaila mistry
>>> <shailam at yahoo.com <mailto:shailam at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> ++1
>>> This is excellent
>>> Shaila
>>> *The journey begins sooner than you anticipate !*
>>> *..................... the renaissance of composure !
>>> *
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> *From:* Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org
>>> <mailto:anriette at apc.org>>
>>> *To:* Deborah Brown <deborah at accessnow.org
>>> <mailto:deborah at accessnow.org>>
>>> *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>;
>>> "irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>> <mailto:irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>"
>>> <irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>> <mailto:irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>>
>>> *Sent:* Monday, June 10, 2013 3:56 AM
>>> *Subject:* Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Re: CS statement:
>>> DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done
>>>
>>> Dear all
>>>
>>> Here is the version that will be read. We had to shorten it
>>> so that it
>>> is within the 2 minutes space we have.
>>>
>>> Anriette
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/06/2013 12:36, Deborah Brown wrote:
>>> > Thanks Joana!
>>> > Just a quick note to explain that the statement will be
>>> made on behalf of
>>> > APC because as an ECOSOC accredited org they are able to
>>> make interventions
>>> > and have graciously facilitated and contributed this
>>> intervention. We have
>>> > asked the speaker from HRW to take a look at the the Best
>>> Bits link for the
>>> > current list of signatories before reading it at the
>>> afternoon session 1500
>>> > Geneva time, so she will be able to say that she is making
>>> the statement on
>>> > behalf of xx orgs from around the world. So please make
>>> sure you endorse
>>> > the statement at http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa/
>>> >
>>> > I will begin adding those of you who already endorsed it,
>>> so look for a
>>> > confirmation email and click the link.
>>> >
>>> > Jeremy, can you fix the layout and footnotes when you have
>>> a chance?
>>> >
>>> > Thanks to all of you for helping to make this happen in
>>> less than 24 hours
>>> > across many time zones.
>>> >
>>> > Best,
>>> > Deborah
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Joana Varon
>>> <joana at varonferraz.com <mailto:joana at varonferraz.com>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Dear Anriette and all,
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks a lot for all the work that has been made in such
>>> a short period of
>>> >> time. This was amazing!
>>> >> Here is the link for the next endorsements:
>>> http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa/
>>> >> Please, let's spread it!
>>> >> best
>>> >> joana
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >>
>>> >> Joana Varon Ferraz
>>> >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV)
>>> <http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/>
>>> >> @joana_varon
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen
>>> <anriette at apc.org <mailto:anriette at apc.org>>wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Dear all
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Thanks for all the inputs. We have tried to include
>>> them all.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Here is the final text that will be uploaded to the HRC
>>> site and read
>>> >>> later today by Human Rights Watch on APC's behalf. We
>>> have included
>>> >>> signatories as available now. Deborah will coordinate
>>> adding further
>>> >>> names.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Best
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Anriette
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On 10/06/2013 11:40, Marianne Franklin wrote:
>>> >>>> Dear all
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> +1 from me.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> MF
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On 10/06/2013 10:37, parminder wrote:
>>> >>>>> I support this text by Joy...
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> On Monday 10 June 2013 02:56 PM, joy wrote:
>>> >>>> Hi - sharing some ideas that came also from discussion
>>> with Frank La
>>> >>>> Rue's office and my suggested edits relate to the last
>>> para, the
>>> >>>> recommended action to the Council: - I think we have a
>>> 3 pronged
>>> >>>> approach to the call to action which is looking really
>>> good:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> "We call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to
>>> prevent
>>> >>>> creation of a global Internet based surveillance system by:
>>> >>>> 1) convening a special session to examine this case 2)
>>> supporting the
>>> >>>> recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights
>>> Committee develop of
>>> >>>> a new General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in
>>> light of
>>> >>>> technological advancements and 3) requesting the High
>>> Commissioner to
>>> >>>> prepare a report a) formally asking states to report on
>>> practices and
>>> >>>> laws in place on survellilance and what corrective
>>> steps will they
>>> >>>> willl take to meet human rights standards and b)
>>> examing the
>>> >>>> implications of this case in in the light of the Human
>>> Rights Council
>>> >>>> endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business
>>> and Human
>>> >>>> Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework of
>>> A/HRC/RES/17/4.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Joy
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On 10/06/2013 8:47 p.m.,
>>> >>>> Joana Varon wrote:
>>> >>>>> Sure, Parminder. Lets remove company names.
>>> >>>>> And thanks for the comprehension.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:38 AM, parminder
>>> >>>> <parminder at itforchange.net
>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>
>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net
>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>> Hi All
>>> >>>>> IT for Change will endorse this .... (There are
>>> some changes I
>>> >>>> would have liked to propose but due to the urgency of
>>> the issue i
>>> >>>> would not do it now. Certainly the names of the
>>> companies involved
>>> >>>> should have not been mentioned in the statement. Can we
>>> still do it?.)
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>> I am sure some of you may already be in contact
>>> with him but if
>>> >>>> not Philippe Dam with Human Rights Watch may be a
>>> useful person to
>>> >>>> talk to on this. i am cc-ing the email to him. He is
>>> attending the HR
>>> >>>> Council meeting. Wonder if Joy is still there?
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>> Best, parminder
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>> On Monday 10 June 2013 10:07 AM, Deborah Brown wrote:
>>> >>>>>> Dear all,
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Here's a quick update on the draft statement to the Human
>>> >>>> Rights Council regarding the impact of state
>>> surveillance on human
>>> >>>> rights. The draft statement is below. We are currently
>>> reaching out to
>>> >>>> Geneva based orgs who might be able to assist with
>>> delivery (thanks
>>> >>>> Joy) and if not we can still publish it and do outreach.
>>> >>>>>> Given the short timeframe, can any further edits be
>>> sent on
>>> >>>> this thread in the next 3.5 hours? Then I will post it
>>> to the Best
>>> >>>> Bits site to facilitate endorsement. In the meantime,
>>> if organizations
>>> >>>> or individuals feel comfortable endorsing this draft,
>>> please reply on
>>> >>>> this thread and we can add your name through the Best
>>> Bits system
>>> >>>> later. As a reminder, this statement would be part of a
>>> debate at the
>>> >>>> HRC that will take place at 15:00 Geneva time on
>>> Monday. Though not
>>> >>>> ideal, this was the best time frame we could come up
>>> with for
>>> >>>> facilitating input and sign on.
>>> >>>>>> Thanks to everyone who worked on this over the last
>>> 12 hours
>>> >>>> and apologies for any shortcoming in the process
>>> because of time
>>> >>>> constraints. Looking forward to more input and to
>>> working together to
>>> >>>> get this finalized.
>>> >>>>>> Best,
>>> >>>>>> Deborah
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Agenda item 8:/General Debate/
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Civil Society Statement to the Human Rights Council
>>> on the
>>> >>>> impact of State Surveillance on Human Rights addressing
>>> the PRISM/NSA
>>> >>> case
>>> >>>>>> Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of ______
>>> >>>> organizations from ___ countries, across ___ regions.
>>> This is a truly
>>> >>>> global issue. We express strong concern over recent
>>> revelations of
>>> >>>> surveillance of internet and telephone communications
>>> of US and non-US
>>> >>>> nationals by the government of the United States of
>>> America. Equally
>>> >>>> concerning is the provision of access to the results of
>>> that
>>> >>>> surveillance to other governments such as the United
>>> Kingdom, and the
>>> >>>> indication of the possible complicity of some of the
>>> globally dominant
>>> >>>> US-based Internet companies whose services and reach
>>> are universally
>>> >>>> distributed. These revelations raise the appearance of,
>>> and may even
>>> >>>> suggest a blatant and systematic disregard for human
>>> rights as
>>> >>>> articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International
>>> Covenant on
>>> >>>> Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as Articles
>>> 12 and 19 of
>>> >>>> the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
>>> >>>>>> Just last year the Council unanimously adopted
>>> Resolution 20/8,
>>> >>>> which "Affirms that the same rights that people have
>>> offline must also
>>> >>>> be protected online, in particular freedom of
>>> expression ..."[1] But
>>> >>>> during this session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom
>>> of Expression
>>> >>>> reported (A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state
>>> surveillance of
>>> >>>> communications with serious implications for the
>>> exercise of the human
>>> >>>> rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and
>>> expression. The
>>> >>>> Special Rapporteur notes that inadequate and
>>> non-existent legal
>>> >>>> frameworks "create a fertile ground for arbitrary and
>>> unlawful
>>> >>>> infringements of the right to privacy in communications
>>> and,
>>> >>>> consequently, also threaten the protection of the right
>>> to freedom of
>>> >>>> opinion and expression". [2]
>>> >>>>>> Affirmation of internet rights and freedoms by
>>> governments in
>>> >>>> the cross regional statement on freedom of expression
>>> and the Internet
>>> >>>> is important. But civil society is extremely concerned that
>>> >>>> governments supporting this statement are not
>>> addressing, and in fact
>>> >>>> are ignoring, the recent serious revelations about mass
>>> surveillance
>>> >>>> in the PRISM/NSA case. Although the personal
>>> information disclosed
>>> >>>> under this programme is subject to the oversight of the
>>> US Foreign
>>> >>>> Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), that court sits
>>> in secret and
>>> >>>> has no responsiblity for ensuring the human rights of
>>> those not
>>> >>>> subject to US jurisdiction.
>>> >>>>>> The introduction of surveillance mechanisms into the
>>> very heart
>>> >>>> of the data streams of the globally central service
>>> providers storing
>>> >>>> and communicating the majority of the world's digital
>>> communications
>>> >>>> is a backward step for human rights in the digital age.
>>> As La Rue
>>> >>>> notes: "This raises serious concern with regard to the
>>> >>>> extra-territorial commission of human rights violations
>>> and the
>>> >>>> inability of individuals to know that they might be
>>> subject to foreign
>>> >>>> surveillance, challenge decisions with respect to foreign
>>> >>>> surveillance, or seek remedies." An immediate response
>>> is needed.
>>> >>>>>> We call on companies that are voluntary and
>>> involuntary parties
>>> >>>> to the violation of the fundamental rights of their
>>> users globally to
>>> >>>> immediately suspend this practice. Such action would
>>> uphold the Human
>>> >>>> Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding
>>> Principles on Business
>>> >>>> and Human Rights, the "Protect, Respect and Remedy"
>>> Framework of
>>> >>>> A/HRC/RES/17/4.
>>> >>>>>> We call for protection of those who have made these
>>> violations
>>> >>>> public. As Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not be used to
>>> target
>>> >>>> whistleblowers ... nor should they hamper the
>>> legitimate oversight of
>>> >>>> government action by citizens." We urge States protect
>>> those
>>> >>>> whistleblowers involved in this case and to support
>>> their efforts to
>>> >>>> combat violations of the fundamental human rights of
>>> all global
>>> >>>> citizens. Whistleblowers play a critical role in promoting
>>> >>>> transparency and upholding the human rights of all.
>>> >>>>>> This recent case is a new kind of human rights violation
>>> >>>> specifically relevant to the Internet and one
>>> foreshadowed in the
>>> >>>> Council's 2012 Expert Panel on Freedom of Expression
>>> and the Internet.
>>> >>>> We therefore call on the Human Rights Council to act
>>> swiftly to
>>> >>>> prevent creation of a global Internet based
>>> surveillance system. One
>>> >>>> action the Council could take would be to follow up the
>>> Expert Panel
>>> >>>> by convening a multistakeholder process to support the
>>> recommendation
>>> >>>> of Mr. La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop a
>>> new General
>>> >>>> Comment on the right to privacy in light of
>>> technological advancements
>>> >>>>>> [1]
>>> >>>
>>> http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/153/25/PDF/G1215325.pdf?OpenElement
>>> >>>>>> [2]
>>> >>>
>>> http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.HRC.23.40_EN.pdf
>>> >>>>>> ENDS
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Gene Kimmelman
>>> >>>> <genekimmelman at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com>
>>> <mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>> I'm glad to see everyone diving in on this. I
>>> have only one
>>> >>>> overarching issue to raise concerning the framing of
>>> whatever groups
>>> >>>> decide to put out: I believe it would be most powerful
>>> to challenge
>>> >>>> both the US Gvt. and companies to explain how what they
>>> have done
>>> >>>> does NOT constitute human rights violations, with
>>> specific details
>>> >>>> to explain their stance. I believe all the language
>>> people are
>>> >>>> suggesting can fit within this framing, and put the
>>> burden on others
>>> >>>> to show how our concerns are not justified. This has
>>> more to do with
>>> >>>> long-term diplomatic impact that anything else; the
>>> debate will
>>> >>>> continue and many of the facts will probably never be
>>> made public --
>>> >>>> but I think it is a strategic advantage for civil
>>> society to always be
>>> >>>> calling for transparency and basing its conclusions on
>>> both what facts
>>> >>>> are presented, and what concerns are not addressed by
>>> the presentation
>>> >>>> of convincing arguments/facts.
>>> >>>>>> On Jun 9, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> On 10/06/2013, at 12:47 AM, Deborah Brown
>>> >>>> <deborah at accessnow.org <mailto:deborah at accessnow.org>
>>> <mailto:deborah at accessnow.org
>>> <mailto:deborah at accessnow.org>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> In any case, we could still work on a
>>> statement to be
>>> >>>> released around this discussion, or later in the HRC
>>> session, which
>>> >>>> ends this week. Jeremy, have you had the chance to work
>>> on an outline?
>>> >>>> If not, I'm happy to help start the drafting process.
>>> My main concern
>>> >>>> is whether we have enough time for significant
>>> participation from a
>>> >>>> diversity of groups so that this is coming from a
>>> global coalition.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>>>> Would it be OK if we copy it from the pad to a
>>> sign-on
>>> >>>> statement on bestbits.net <http://bestbits.net>
>>> <http://bestbits.net/> 5 hours before the
>>> >>>> hearing? Those who are working on the pad can
>>> pre-endorse it there.
>>> >>>> If 5 hours ahead is not enough, then I'll need to
>>> instruct someone
>>> >>>> else on how to do it earlier, because I'll be in the
>>> air until then.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>>>> --
>>> >>>>>>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm
>>> >>>>>>> Senior Policy Officer
>>> >>>>>>> Consumers International | the global
>>> campaigning voice for
>>> >>>> consumers*
>>> >>>>>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
>>> >>>>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg,
>>> TTDI, 60000
>>> >>>> Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
>>> >>>>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>>> <tel:%2B60%203%207726%201599> <tel:%2B60%203%207726%201599>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>>>> WCRD 2013 -- Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer
>>> Protection
>>> >>>> Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>>>> @Consumers_Int |
>>> www.consumersinternational.org
>>> <http://www.consumersinternational.org>
>>> >>>> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/> |
>>> >>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>>> <http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>
>>> >>>> <http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice
>>> >>>>
>>> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
>>> Don't
>>> >>>> print this email unless necessary.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>>>> --
>>> >>>>>>> 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:unsubscribe at googlegroups.com>
>>> >>>> <mailto:webwewant+
>>> <mailto:webwewant%2B>unsubscribe at googlegroups.com
>>> <mailto:unsubscribe at googlegroups.com>>.
>>> >>>>>>> For more options, visit
>>> >>>> https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> --
>>> >>>>>> Deborah Brown
>>> >>>>>> Policy Analyst
>>> >>>>>> Access | AccessNow.org <http://AccessNow.org>
>>> >>>>>> E. deborah at accessnow.org
>>> <mailto:deborah at accessnow.org> <mailto:deborah at accessnow.org
>>> <mailto:deborah at accessnow.org>>
>>> >>>>>> @deblebrown
>>> >>>>>> PGP 0x5EB4727D
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>> --
>>> >>>>> --
>>> >>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz
>>> >>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV)
>>> >>>>> @joana_varon
>>> >>> --
>>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>> >>> 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>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>> IRP mailing list
>>> >>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>> <mailto:IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
>>> >>>
>>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>
>>> --
>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> IRP mailing list
>>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>> <mailto:IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
>>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Deborah Brown
>>> Policy Analyst
>>> Access | AccessNow.org <http://AccessNow.org>
>>> E. deborah at accessnow.org <mailto:deborah at accessnow.org>
>>> @deblebrown
>>> PGP 0x5EB4727D
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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 <mailto:IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp
>
>
>
>
> --
> Deborah Brown
> Policy Analyst
> Access | AccessNow.org
> E. deborah at accessnow.org <mailto:deborah at accessnow.org>
> @deblebrown
> PGP 0x5EB4727D
--
Dr Marianne Franklin
Reader
Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program
Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF)
Goldsmiths, University of London
Dept. of Media & Communications
New Cross, London SE14 6NW
Tel: +44 20 7919 7072
<m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk>
@GloComm
https://twitter.com/GloComm
http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/
https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/
www.internetrightsandprinciples.org
@netrights
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130618/5a6efccf/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list