Fwd: Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership

[parminder]

 From the Indian Express, of yesterday..... The author recently retired 
as India's Permanent Representative to the UN.




  Wide asleep on the net

*Hardeep S Puri* Posted online: Thu Jun 27 2013, 05:15 hrs
**/The Snowden revelations point to the urgency to overhaul the current 
architecture of global internet governance/

Disclosures by Edward Snowden of the PRISM project by the National 
Security Agency of the United States government have revived discussions 
about the need for democratisation of the current architecture of global 
internet governance. Notwithstanding the sophistry and grandstanding 
about preserving the multi-stakeholder model, freedom of expression and 
avoiding control of content, the current system is anything but any of 
these. Behind this veneer, the economic, commercial and political 
interests of a powerful group are sought to be entrenched.

The US not only possesses the capacity to keep our citizens under 
surveillance, but in fact tracks telephone calls, emails, chats and 
other communications based on the internet every month, in the name of 
counter-terrorism. Being ranked fifth, bracketed with Jordan and 
Pakistan and ahead of Saudi Arabia, China and Russia, should be a matter 
of concern for India.

Apologists among Indian IT majors and industry associations can be 
expected to rise in defence of the current model of internet governance; 
after all, many of them depend on global internet majors for their 
business, and have always spoken and acted on behalf of the latter. 
Whenever discussions are held on the subject, the former find ways of 
occupying the space and manipulating opinions that echo the interests of 
the latter.

India called for democratisation of global internet governance and 
proposed in October 2011 the setting up of a Committee for 
Internet-Related Policies (CIRP), accountable to the United Nations 
General Assembly, to deal with international public policies relating to 
the internet. Instead of discussing the pros and cons of different 
elements of the proposal, there was an orchestrated cacophony in the 
media designed to drown any reasoned debate. Calls were made to force 
India to withdraw the proposal. India’s proposal was characterised as 
catastrophic, threatening a “UN takeover of the internet”, and doomed to 
bring down Indian IT firms.

India’s policy on this subject of considerable strategic significance 
has been consistent for over a decade. The initial calls for 
democratisation of global internet governance were made by then 
ministers Arun Shourie in December 2003 in Geneva and Dayanidhi Maran in 
Tunis in November 2005, at the World Summit on Information Society 
(WSIS). India pursued the implementation of the report of the Working 
Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) chaired by Nitin Desai on the 
subject during the 2003 -05 period and the Tunis Agenda, which mandated 
that the “International management of the internet should be 
multilateral, transparent and democratic”. The report got implemented 
only in parts, through the setting up of the Internet Governance Forum 
whose ineffectiveness has been increasingly recognised in recent months 
even by Western commentators and academics. The more important 
recommendations on dealing with public policy issues were buried deep, 
without any meaningful discussion of the options presented in the report.

The WGIG had identified significant governance gaps with regard to the 
internet: these included unilateral control of the root zone files and 
systems and lack of accountability of root zone operators; concerns over 
allocation policies for IP addresses and domain names; confusion about 
application of intellectual property rights in cyberspace; substantially 
higher connectivity costs in developing countries located far from 
internet backbones; lack of multilateral mechanisms to ensure network 
stability and security; lack of effective mechanisms to prevent and 
prosecute internet crimes and spam; barriers to multi-stakeholder 
participation; restrictions on freedom of expression; inconsistent 
application of privacy and data-protection rights; absence of global 
standards for consumer rights; insufficient progress towards 
multilingualism; and insufficient capacity-building in developing 
countries. The Indian proposal had only suggested that these very same 
issues, as well as policy issues that have evolved since WSIS, be 
considered by the CIRP; it had not proposed that the UN “take over the 
internet”, or that the current technical arrangements be overturned, as 
argued by the detractors.

We need to recognise the implications of the current model. On the one 
hand, India is asked to ratify the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, in 
the negotiation of which India played no part, in order for us to be 
eligible to be qualified as a “data-secure” country. On the other, India 
is sought to be excluded from any forum or deliberations where the 
global rules for governance of the internet or management of critical 
internet resources and logical infrastructure are evolved. Another 
aspect that is seldom appreciated here is the discomfort that European 
countries have with the current US-dominated model of global governance 
of the internet, as demonstrated by statements emanating from their 
officials, the number of legal disputes European bodies have launched 
against US internet majors, and attempts by countries like France to 
modify the existing system.

Well before the Snowden disclosures, the security, socio-economic and 
legal implications of the current model of internet governance had 
become quite apparent. Just to take one example, the Julian Assange 
phenomenon and the WikiLeaks disclosures had amply demonstrated some of 
them. Concerns about shell companies and tax avoidance by global 
internet majors provide another instance. The use of Stuxnet was a third 
one.

The US is clearly determined to continue its relentless pursuit of the 
current model of global internet governance, for preserving its economic 
and strategic interests. It is unlikely that there will be any change in 
its policy even after the Snowden disclosures.

Some representatives of Indian industry associations have been warning 
that Indian IT companies are heavily dependent on global internet majors 
and that they will suffer by India’s championing of the cause of 
democratisation of internet governance. This lie needs to be nailed. 
First, there has been no evidence of any such impact. Second, 
independent of India’s proposal, Indian IT companies have been 
demonstrating that they have more or less reached the maximum of the 
current models of their growth. Third, we need to work for the next 
generation of Indian IT companies, which can move up the value chain by 
creating their own branded services and products and leading global 
innovation in IT. In other words, we need to produce the next generation 
of Murthys and Premjis. This requires modifying the eco-system, 
architecture and infrastructure, both nationally and internationally, 
where such ventures can grow. This makes it imperative for India to 
become a lead player and shape the global ICT industry architecture that 
helps Indian ICT companies of the future.

None of this is going to be easy, however. We need a dedicated group of 
people — within the establishment, industry, technical and scientific 
community, academia, civil society and media — who can reflect upon and 
define India’s long-term interests in advancing the cause of 
democratising global internet governance and free ourselves from the 
current model where the space for discussion is arrogated by apologists 
for the current model of unilateral control.

The UN has launched a process for observing the 10th anniversary of WSIS 
in 2015. This provides an opportunity for India to work with other 
leading democratic countries like Brazil and South Africa within the 
IBSA platform and with other like-minded countries in the UN for 
democratising global internet governance to make it truly “multilateral, 
transparent and democratic”, as envisioned in the Tunis Agenda.

The writer, a retired diplomat, was India’s permanent representative to 
the UN

***







On Wednesday 26 June 2013 03:54 PM, parminder wrote:
>
> While building on the past is important, I think, there is also a keen 
> realisation  that we are passing - and mostly, missing - a series of 
> what could be 'constitutional moments' for a new Internet mediated 
> society... And that the global civil society should pause, and 
> retrospect. I see this from emails of Gene, Andrew, Michael, Marianne 
> and others - on diverse issues, ranging from the recently concluded 
> meeting of ITU WG on Internet related public policy issues to PRISM 
> plus disclosures.
>
> Let me try to pick what in my view are some 'big points' of the 
> present moment... and then drill downwards. The biggest I think is 
> that we need to get over that age of innocence, whereby most civil 
> society took the stance that less rather than more global IG is 
> better..... That was a mistake, and continues to be a mistake... 
> Internet is big, it is global, it transforms everything. And the 
> prescription of less rather than more - appropriate - governance of it 
> can only serve dominant interests. We need to accept that - whether it 
> is human rights, or it is distributional issues - we need more global 
> IG. And since Internet itself is new, its global governance too will 
> involve many new elements. It is, to a good measure, up to the civil 
> society to be innovative and brave in this regard..... Something, 
> unfortunately, we have consistently shrunk from doing...
>
> First of all, we urgently need an appropriate focal point - and around 
> it a webbed architecture - of global IG.... And that focal point I 
> think should be body like the OECD's Committee on Computers, 
> Information and Communication Policy, which can be attached to the UN 
> General Assembly, and should be new age in its structure, form, 
> participation avenues etc... And this committee should be fed in by 
> the IGF. Everyone who knows about the OECD's CCICP, knows how 
> intensively it works, and what quality of output it produces, and how 
> how consultative, multi-stakeholder etc it is.....
>
> We simply must create a similar focal point at the global level, right 
> away..... Lets at least discuss it... I have raised this proposal 
> several times, but have have no real response on why such a body at 
> the global level is not appropriate, and why is it appropriate at OECD 
> level.... This single step would go a long way it setting us on the 
> right direction....
>
> And then, this is the second imperative, we need to go down to some 
> real work.... not just the highest level principles that have been 
> around but seem not to really work... For example, Andrew quotes 
> privacy principles from GNI document. Well, its provisions clearly 
> were violated what what Snowden tells us... So?? Nothing happens. 
> Right. We have provisions in the IRP doc as well....
>
> What we need to do now is to move to the next serious level.... Speak 
> about actual due process, guarantees for transit data. how these 
> guarantees operate, and the such. We were informed recently on the IGC 
> list that EU does not subject data that is merely in transit to data 
> retention requirements. How this obligation can be extended to others. 
> ... What disclosures can and should the telecom and application 
> companies share about data hosting and transit, and applicability of 
> different jursidictions over the data they carry and process.... We 
> need to drill down to such real issues. And that kind of thing happens 
> only when there are clear focal points for policy development that 
> exist  (See for instance the real work that is going on right now in 
> Marrakesh for writing out a new treaty guaranteeing access to printed 
> material for the visually impaired).... We have on the other hand seen 
> the kind of joke that the IGF has rendered itself into as a policy 
> dialogue forum.... We need to take preventive action against such 
> motivated obfuscations....
>
> So, as I said, two things - (1) look for a real institutional focal 
> point for global IG, where all can participate, and (2), work on real 
> norms, policy frameworks, in the manner OECD's CCICP does.... I see no 
> other option... but as always wiling, to hear about them, if they 
> exist....
>
> parminder
>
>
>
> On Wednesday 26 June 2013 02:45 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
>>
>> Entirely agree Marianne – this seems  a sensible way of proceeding
>>
>> *Andrew Puddephatt***| *GLOBAL PARTNERS*DIGITAL
>>
>> Executive Director
>>
>> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>>
>> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
>> *gp-digital.org*
>>
>> *From:*Marianne Franklin [mailto:m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk]
>> *Sent:* 26 June 2013 08:30
>> *To:* Andrew Puddephatt
>> *Cc:* 'parminder'; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; 
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial 
>> location of data or its legal ownership
>>
>> Dear Andrew
>>
>> Have been following the conversation with interest. The point 
>> Parminder raises about the responsibilities of companies in ensuring 
>> that human rights in the fullest sense of the term are not 
>> jeopardised at the deepest levels of the internet's architecture is 
>> one that indeed needs attention. However, the conversation so far is 
>> proceeding as if no work at all has been done around human rights 
>> norms and principles for the internet. This is not the case. A lot of 
>> work has been done, indeed stretching back many year into the WSIS 
>> period. If we choose to forget or ignore what came before we are all 
>> doomed to repeat past mistakes (as a great sage once remarked)!
>>
>> With the Bali IGF as a venue for meeting and moving forward I do 
>> think it is important to note that the Charter of Human Rights and 
>> Principles already goes a *long* way in defining these 'global' (I 
>> use the term advisedly) norms and principles carefully. The reason 
>> for the cautious approach in 2010-2011 when the IRP Coalition was 
>> drafting this current version was precisely in order to be precise 
>> and coherent. Many people on all these lists were involved in this 
>> process and can share the credit for what has been achieved. The 
>> cautiousness then, criticised at the time, has paid off in retrospect.
>>
>> As a wide-ranging Charter of human rights and principles focusing on 
>> the online environment, then picked up by Frank La Rue thanks to the 
>> work of the then IRP Coalition Chairs, Lisa Horner and Dixie Hawtin 
>> in turn, based on the UDHR and its successors it was, and is not 
>> intended to be a prescriptive, or one-size-fits-all document. What 
>> was intended and to my mind has been achieved is rather a baseline, 
>> inspirational framing for the work that is now emerging around 
>> specific cases and situations such as privacy, freedom of expression 
>> and so on that have been thrown into relief by the events around 
>> PRISM. The IRP Charter is also careful to include the responsibility 
>> of companies as integral to these emerging norms. Events have 
>> underscored that the IRP Charter was a project worth engaging in and 
>> for that the 'we' on these lists did achieve something quite remarkable.
>>
>> Moving the IRP Charter up a level is a focus for two workshops at 
>> least in Bali, and the IRP Meeting there I would like to propose that 
>> these are very suitable places to continue these discussions, online 
>> and of course in person. The Best Bits meeting prior to the IGF is in 
>> this respect a great way to get started as the next stage of the IRP 
>> Charter in substantive terms gets underway i.e. addressing the weaker 
>> parts of the current Beta version 
>> (http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/site/charter/) and widen 
>> awareness amongst the human rights community and inter-govn 
>> organizations. A huge step in the latter has already been achieved in 
>> recent weeks and I would like to add these moves to the work being 
>> done through Best Bits.
>>
>> Finally, on principles seeing as this focus is also on the IGF 
>> agenda, here too the IRP Charter developed precursor models (such as 
>> the APC Bill of Rights, the Marco Civil principles too) the IRP Ten 
>> Principles are intended as an educational, outreach version of the 
>> actual Charter. So here the work being initiated around Internet 
>> Goverance Principles (however defined) is something the IRP coalition 
>> supports implicitly.
>>
>> The only question I am getting from members is about how better to 
>> work together, which is why the current Charter goes quite some way 
>> in establishing the sort of framework that is being advocated here. 
>> No need to reinvent the wheel in other words!
>>
>> best
>> MF
>>
>> On 25/06/2013 17:59, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
>>
>>     Just welcoming Parminder’s focus on companies here.  I feel that
>>     the current situation is an opportunity to push the companies a
>>     lot more rigorously than we have been able to do so far.   I like
>>     the idea of global norms and principles and I wonder if anyone
>>     has done any detailed work on this in relation to
>>     security/surveillance and jurisdictional questions – specifically
>>     the role of global companies rooted in one jurisdiction
>>     (principally the US I would guess?).    I note that some German
>>     MPs are calling for US companies to establish a German cloud
>>     distinct and separate from US jurisdiction..
>>
>>     I think we can strategically link the two issues that Parminder
>>     has flagged up – we can reinforce the push for norms and
>>     principles pointing out this is a way for country’s to escape the
>>     US orbit – as long as we can avoid the danger of breaking the
>>     internet into separate national infrastructures – which is where
>>     the norms and principles need to be carefully defined.   Is this
>>     something we can discuss online and then discuss in person at Bali?
>>
>>     Looking at the GNI principle on privacy it says:
>>
>>     Privacy is a human right and guarantor of human dignity. Privacy
>>     is important to maintaining personal security, protecting
>>     identity and promoting freedom of expression in the digital age.
>>
>>     Everyone should be free from illegal or arbitrary interference
>>     with the right to privacy and should have the right to the
>>     protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
>>
>>     The right to privacy should not be restricted by governments,
>>     except in narrowly defined circumstances based on internationally
>>     recognized laws and standards. These restrictions should be
>>     consistent with international human rights laws and standards,
>>     the rule of law and be necessary and proportionate for the
>>     relevant purpose.
>>
>>     Participating companies will employ protections with respect to
>>     personal information in all countries where they operate in order
>>     to protect the privacy rights of users.
>>
>>     Participating companies will respect and protect the privacy
>>     rights of users when confronted with government demands, laws or
>>     regulations that compromise privacy in a manner inconsistent with
>>     internationally recognized laws and standards.
>>
>>     Is this something to build upon?   The final clause is
>>     interesting – it implies that signatory companies will respect
>>     privacy even when asked to comply with laws that breach
>>     internationally recognized laws and standards which I assume
>>     everyone thinks that FISA does?
>>
>>     *Andrew Puddephatt***| *GLOBAL PARTNERS*DIGITAL
>>
>>     Executive Director
>>
>>     Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>>
>>     T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype:
>>     andrewpuddephatt
>>     *gp-digital.org*
>>
>>     *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
>>     <mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>
>>     [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *parminder
>>     *Sent:* 25 June 2013 09:25
>>     *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>;
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>     *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial
>>     location of data or its legal ownership
>>
>>
>>     This is how I think it works overall - the digital imperialist
>>     system..... Global Internet companies - mostly US based -  know
>>     that much of their operations worldwide legally are on slippery
>>     grounds.... They find it safest to hang on to the apron strings
>>     of the one superpower in the world today, the US... They know
>>     that the US establishement is their best political and legal
>>     cover.  The US of course finds so much military, political,
>>     economic, social and cultural capital in being the team leader...
>>     It is an absolutely win win... That is what PRISM plus has been
>>     about. And this is what most global (non) Internet governance has
>>     been about - with the due role of the civil society often spoken
>>     of here.
>>
>>     Incidentally, it was only a few days before these disclosures
>>     that Julian Assange spoke of "technocratic imperialism
>>     <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/opinion/sunday/the-banality-of-googles-dont-be-evil.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0>"
>>     led by the US-Google combine... How quite to the point he was...
>>     Although so many of us are so eager to let the big companies off
>>     the hook with respect to the recent episodes.
>>
>>     What got to be done now? If we indeed are eager to do something,
>>     two things (1) do everything to decentralise the global
>>     Internet's architecture, and (2) get on with putting in place
>>     global norms, principles, rules and where needed treaties that
>>     will govern our collective Internet behaviour, and provide us
>>     with our rights and responsibilities vis a vis the global Internet.
>>
>>     But if there are other possible prescriptions, one is all ears.
>>
>>     parminder
>>
>>
>>     On Tuesday 25 June 2013 01:04 PM, parminder wrote:
>>
>>         On Monday 24 June 2013 08:18 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>>
>>             Only answering one of the questions on jurisdictional
>>             issues: The answer is somewhat complex
>>
>>             if data is hosted in the US by US companies (or hosted in
>>             the US by companies based overseas), the government has
>>             taken the position that it is subject to U.S. legal
>>             processes, including National Security Letters, 2703(d)
>>             Orders, Orders under section 215 of the Patriot Act and
>>             regular warrants and subpoenas, regardless of where the
>>             user is located.
>>
>>             The legal standard for production of information by a
>>             third party, including cloud computing services under US
>>             civil (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45) and
>>             criminal (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_16) law
>>             is whether the information is under the "possession,
>>             custody or control" of a party that is subject to US
>>             jurisdiction. It doesn’t matter where the information is
>>             physically stored, where the company is headquartered or,
>>             importantly, where the person whose information is sought
>>             is located. The issue for users is whether the US has
>>             jurisdiction over the cloud computing service they use,
>>             and whether the cloud computing service has “possession,
>>             custody or control” of their data, wherever it rests
>>             physically. For example, one could imagine a situation in
>>             which a large US-based company was loosely related to a
>>             subsidiary overseas, but did not have “possession,
>>             custody, or control” of the data held by the subsidiary
>>             and thus the data wasn’t subject to US jurisdiction.
>>
>>
>>         Interesting, although maybe somewhat obvious! So, even if an
>>         European sends a email (gmail) to another European, and the
>>         transit and storage of the content never in fact reaches US
>>         borders, Google would still be obliged to hand over the
>>         contents to US officials under PRISM...... Can a country
>>         claim that Google broke its law in the process, a law perhaps
>>         as serious as espionage, whereby the hypothesized European to
>>         European email could have carried classified information!
>>         Here, Google, on instructions of US authorities would have
>>         actually transported a piece of classified - or otherwise
>>         illegal to access - information from beyond US borders into
>>         US borders.
>>
>>         What about US telcos working in other countries, say in
>>         India. AT&T (through a majority held JV) claims to be the
>>         largest enterprise service provider in India. And we know AT
>>         & T has been a somewhat over enthusiastic partner in US's
>>         global espionage (for instance see here
>>         <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100121/1418107862.shtml>
>>         )... Would all the information that AT & T has the
>>         "possession. custody and control" of in India in this matter
>>         not be considered fair game to access by the US...... All
>>         this looks like a sliding progression to me.  Where are the
>>         limits, who lays the rules in this global space....
>>
>>         parminder
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>         On 6/24/13 5:28 AM, parminder wrote:
>>
>>             Hi All
>>
>>             There was some demand on the bestbits list that we still
>>             need to ask a lot of questions from the involved
>>             companies in terms of the recent PRISM plus disclosures.
>>             We are being too soft on them. I refuse to believe that
>>             everything they did was forced upon on them. Apart from
>>             the fact that there are news reports
>>             <http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-14/u-s-agencies-said-to-swap-data-with-thousands-of-firms.html>
>>             that US based tech companies regularly share data with US
>>             gov for different kinds of favours in return, or even
>>             simply motivated by nationalistic feeling, we should not
>>             forget that many of these companies have strong political
>>             agenda which are closely associated with that of the US
>>             gov.   You must all know about 'Google Ideas
>>             <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Ideas>', its
>>             revolving doors with US gov's security apparatus, and its
>>             own aggressive regime change ideas
>>             <http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article34535.htm>.
>>             Facebook also is known to 'like' some things, say in MENA
>>             region, and not other things in the same region.....
>>
>>             Firstly, one would want to know whether the obligations
>>             to share data with US government extended only to such
>>             data that is actually located in, or flows, through, the
>>             US. Or, does it extend to all data within the legal
>>             control/ ownership of these companies wherever it may
>>             reside.  (I think, certainly hope, it must be the former,
>>             but still I want to be absolutely sure, and hear directly
>>             from these companies.)
>>
>>             Now, if the obligation was to share only such data that
>>             actually resided in servers inside the US, why did these
>>             companies, in face of what was obviously very broad and
>>             intrusive demands for sharing data about non US citizens,
>>             not simply locate much of such data outside the US. For
>>             instance, it could pick up the top 10 countries, the data
>>             of whose citizens was repeatedly sought by US
>>             authorities, and shift all their data to servers in other
>>             countries that made no such demand? Now, we know that
>>             many of the involved companies have set up near
>>             fictitious companies headquartered in strange places for
>>             the purpose of tax avoidance/ evasion. Why could they not
>>             do for the sake of protecting human rights, well, lets
>>             only say, the trust, of non US citizens/ consumers, what
>>             they so very efficiently did for enhancing their
>>             bottom-lines?
>>
>>             Are there any such plan even now? While I can understand
>>             that there can be some laws to force a company to hold
>>             the data of citizens of a country within its border,
>>             there isnt any law which can force these companies to
>>             hold foreign data within a country's borders... Or would
>>             any such act perceived to be too unfriendly an act by the
>>             US gov?
>>
>>
>>             I am sure others may have other questions to ask these
>>             companies.....
>>
>>             parminder
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>         -- 
>>
>>         Katitza Rodriguez
>>
>>         International Rights Director
>>
>>         Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>
>>         katitza at eff.org  <mailto:katitza at eff.org>
>>
>>         katitza at datos-personales.org  <mailto:katitza at datos-personales.org>  (personal email)
>>
>>           
>>
>>         Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> 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>  <mailto: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  <http://www.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
>> @netrights
>



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130627/7a96c6d9/attachment.htm>