From joana at varonferraz.com  Sat Sep 21 16:40:40 2013
From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon)
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 17:40:40 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] MPP submission still open
Message-ID: <CALTAiTpftg=1Y_Jc1k-ttgLpV-HvsCjwwaN9yftG5Rs1My1XyA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

As soon as I could check, the platform of the MPP is still accepting
submissions. I've just sent mine and it was accepted with an email
confirming it as an Official Submission.

I did so right after Deborah reached me this morning noting that mostly
Governments and Private sector have submitted answers. According to the
list of received submission at the website, there were only two submission
from CS, both from developed countries. Nonetheless, there are not too many
submissions listed at all. I don't know if they are still uploading them.

Well, this is just to let you know that maybe there is still time and that
maybe it would be worth for your respective organizations to submit
something. Particularly on session B.3 which will explicitly feed into the
next physical meeting in Geneva of phase 2.

Some submissions, like ICC's, made comments on the format of the high level
event 2014 and the role of CSTD on post-2015. Maybe you could also bring
inputs on this on your respective submission.

All the best

joana
-- 

-- 

Joana Varon Ferraz
@joana_varon
PGP 0x016B8E73
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130921/be2803ec/attachment.htm>

From deborah at accessnow.org  Sat Sep 21 17:37:40 2013
From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown)
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 17:37:40 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] MPP submission still open
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTpftg=1Y_Jc1k-ttgLpV-HvsCjwwaN9yftG5Rs1My1XyA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTpftg=1Y_Jc1k-ttgLpV-HvsCjwwaN9yftG5Rs1My1XyA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALU7RQa9EEANqdEmS1Wm_u9QDn78+K3R5mBCZRNjDxVvEtW4SA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all, Just to clarify, of the responses that have so far been posted on
the MPP site (http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/mpp/) half are government, and
the responses from civil society and academia (one of each) are both from
European countries. But it's likely that there are a number of other
responses that have not yet been posted. Great to hear that it seems like
the platform is still open. Thanks for letting us know Joana!
Best regards,
Deborah


On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> As soon as I could check, the platform of the MPP is still accepting
> submissions. I've just sent mine and it was accepted with an email
> confirming it as an Official Submission.
>
> I did so right after Deborah reached me this morning noting that mostly
> Governments and Private sector have submitted answers. According to the
> list of received submission at the website, there were only two submission
> from CS, both from developed countries. Nonetheless, there are not too many
> submissions listed at all. I don't know if they are still uploading them.
>
> Well, this is just to let you know that maybe there is still time and that
> maybe it would be worth for your respective organizations to submit
> something. Particularly on session B.3 which will explicitly feed into the
> next physical meeting in Geneva of phase 2.
>
> Some submissions, like ICC's, made comments on the format of the high
> level event 2014 and the role of CSTD on post-2015. Maybe you could also
> bring inputs on this on your respective submission.
>
> All the best
>
> joana
> --
>
> --
>
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> @joana_varon
> PGP 0x016B8E73
>



-- 
Deborah Brown
Senior Policy Analyst
Access | AccessNow.org
E. deborah at accessnow.org
@deblebrown
PGP 0x5EB4727D
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130921/28c11f03/attachment.htm>

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Sat Sep 21 19:26:28 2013
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2013 01:26:28 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] IG on the 24th HRC session
In-Reply-To: <1C3F1313-2938-4CB2-8495-62BF7679E82B@uzh.ch>
References: <38C22055-BF4D-473C-87EB-97ADD54ED06A@apc.org>
 <DC052FD4-989B-45C5-8DCB-E8AD9399D1B7@apc.org>
 <1C3F1313-2938-4CB2-8495-62BF7679E82B@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <mailman.21.1642081796.12520.bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130922/b9265d76/attachment.htm>

From joy at apc.org  Sat Sep 21 19:51:55 2013
From: joy at apc.org (joy)
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2013 11:51:55 +1200
Subject: [bestbits] [call for feedback] visual timeline on IG processes
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTo4V8_460XqvhOx2YDT8iZeORzqeoXJgUTLqa6AJaDL_w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTo4V8_460XqvhOx2YDT8iZeORzqeoXJgUTLqa6AJaDL_w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <523E311B.2010705@apc.org>

Hi Joana
thanks for sharing this - great initiative and very interesting !
Only design related commment is perhaps to consider some design aspects
if you are thinking of  making it interactive, as it might be unusable
as a print out or a copy/paste infographic, depending on how you wish
primarily users to use it
thanks again
Joy.

On 19/09/2013 6:43 a.m., Joana Varon wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
>
> In light of recent discussions about the BB Bali agenda and how to
> frame the session on engagement in internet governance processes, it
> seems timely to share this mapping of global internet governance
> processes for your feedback .
>
>
> In an effort to better focus our advocacy efforts and understand where
> main discussions about global internet governance are taking place
> over the next year, Deborah Brown (Access) and Lea (Global Partners
> Digital), and I have developed this visual timeline of what we saw as
> the most relevant events in global internet governance processes.
>
>
> We were specifically aiming to: 1) identify forums where internet
> governance is being discussed/decided over the next year; and 2)
> identify avenues for participation for civil society to influence
> those processes. We have taken two particular processes and their
> relevant outcomes as our end points – the *ITU Plenipotentiary 2014*
> and the *WSIS+10 review event in 2015* – and weaved other forums
> around them.
>
>
> Here is the visual timeline: http://bestbits.net/wp-uploads/diagram.html
>
>
> A few features to make note of:
>
>  *
>
>     We have divided the landscape into several processes – the broader
>     UN processes, the ITU processes, the WSIS review process, the IGF
>     and ICANN. We did not include OECD as it is not a global process,
>     but it could potentially be added (as could other processes).
>
>  *
>
>     The timeline period runs from the beginning of 2013 to the end of
>     2014, but it shall be gradually developed further at least until
>     2015, as more information becomes available;
>
>  *
>
>     Events contain hyperlinks to relevant documentation (e.g. agendas,
>     draft resolutions, outcome documents). To access the documents,
>     please, click in the respective squares.
>
>
> While we put considerable thought into what to include and how to
> visualize this, these choices were inevitably arbitrary. To make the
> tool useful for the broader BB group, we would be interested to
> receive your feedback. Based on your initial feedback, we are planning
> to work on this tool with a designer who will help us make it more
> user-friendly and, hopefully, interactive. With this in mind, we are
> particularly interested in hearing your thoughts on:
>
>  *
>
>     Content: are there other processes or documents you would like to
>     see included?
>
>  *
>
>     Presentation: any comments on size of boxes, text, colours, etc.
>     (this will be particularly useful in the next stage of the project)
>
>  *
>
>     Interactive: what interactive features would you like to see
>     incorporated into the document? Ideas can include option of hiding
>     or highlighting certain elements of the map, filtering the map by
>     body/process/outcome, etc.
>
> We would appreciate your feedback is *September 30th* (our individual
> emails are below)
>
> We hope this mapping will be a useful tool for civil society to
> strategize and are looking forward to presenting it at Best Bits
> meeting in Bali.
>
>
> Looking forward to receiving your feedback.
>
>
> Best,
>
>
> Joana
>
> Deborah: deborah at accessnow.org <mailto:deborah at accessnow.org>
>
> Lea: lea at gp-digital.org <mailto:lea at gp-digital.org>
>
> -- 
>
> -- 
>
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> @joana_varon
> PGP 0x016B8E73

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130922/ac4ca234/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Sep 22 03:51:59 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2013 13:21:59 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Re: [IRPCoalition] [Call for feedback] Visual
 timeline on internet governance processes
In-Reply-To: <523EA121.3020309@itforchange.net>
References: <523EA121.3020309@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <523EA19F.3010502@itforchange.net>




-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [IRPCoalition] [Call for feedback] Visual timeline on 
internet governance processes
Date: 	Sun, 22 Sep 2013 13:19:53 +0530
From: 	parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
To: 	irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org



Thanks Deborah and Joana for this effort. My few comments which connect 
to the mandate of the BB and other global IG groups....


On Thursday 19 September 2013 12:13 AM, Deborah Brown wrote:
> [......]

> A few features to make note of:
>
>  *
>
>     We have divided the landscape into several processes -- the
>     broader UN processes, the ITU processes, the WSIS review process,
>     the IGF and ICANN. We did not include OECD as it is not a global
>     process, but it could potentially be added (as could other processes);
>

One would like to know on what basis is a IG process called 'global'. 
This has to be judged on the criterion of impact and not on who is 
allowed to participate.  We must do a full and honest inquiry into what 
are the real and most powerful sites where global IG rule making takes 
place (global, as in that impacts the whole globe) and figure out what 
is the best way that civil society can intervene on the side of global 
pulbic interest. That is the principal raison d'etre of global civil 
society. And we can hardly accomplish our job if we are so shy of even 
identifying the most important sites of global IG law/ policy making.

We read recently, how global net neutrality regime seems right now being 
shaped in US courts and some EU policy making spaces.... Same is true of 
privacy, as is of what should be competition, media etc regulation vis a 
vis the Internet.....

That most of the world doesnt (rather, is not allowed to) participate in 
these most significant sites of global IG law/ policy making is not a 
good reason to ignore them; it is in fact a good reason to be even more 
active in participating in them, for a start, bycritiquing their non 
participative-ness. At least to the same extent we are so active in 
critiquing non participativeness in terms of non-gov groups in otherwise 
globally participative IG processes.

In relation to these actual, very active, sites of global IG, places 
like ITU and, especially,  WSIS are more of potential sites of strong 
impact.... which of course we should engage with as well..... But much 
more IG is going on in the mentioned North based sites.... very much more.

And regrettably, even with the sites like ITU and WSIS  there seem to 
be  a plan to engage with, what I see as, largely only a negative 
agenda, of what they shouldnt do, but hardly anything of a positive 
agenda....

This flies in the face of the primary reasons that the BestBits group 
was first constituted for - which in my understanding were (and I can be 
corrected)  (1) to give a greater foothold to the issues, concerns and 
perspectives of the global South, and (2) to construct a positive global 
IG agenda in a background whereby global groups seem struck with largely 
negative agendas. My assessment is that we have largely failed in both 
these objectives, whatever else we may have achieved. It is about a year 
since this group was constituted, and it is perhaps time for it to 
undertake an introspection.

[.......]
>
> There will be a session on global internet governance for civil 
> society at the Best Bits meeting 
> <http://bestbits.net/ai1ec_event/best-bits-2013/?instance_id=>ahead of 
> the IGF in Bali. We hope this mapping will be a useful tool for civil 
> society to strategize and are looking forward to presenting it at the 
> session.
>

I had suggested that, in this session, we do not keep ourselves 
artificially limited to the ITU and WCIT, and instead examine all the 
above suggested important sites of global Internet governance, in the 
priority of their respective extent of impact on the global Internet. It 
is very unfortunate that this suggestion has been shot down.

Also, on a sightly different note, the other session on surveillance 
should have been a session on NSA, simple and direct. That is the big 
thing of this year. As a very renowned techie Bruce Shneier has said, US 
has violated the basic social contract of the Internet 
<http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/05/government-betrayed-internet-nsa-spying>. 
In-country surveillance remains one of the biggest issues of IG, and we 
have always discussed it. However, to a overwhelming majority of the 
global population, Snowden/NSA was not just about surveillance, as 
always known and understood, it was about an completely unacceptable and 
blatant level of US overlordship and control over the global Internet. 
That is the main issue here, and it is big enough to have shaken the 
whole world single-handedly.... But here, one of the key global civil 
society group is hesitant to call the issue by its name, and, what to me 
appears as, beats about the bush. If civil society wont call a spade a 
spade who will. Why are we so cautious about US sensibilities....  These 
remains serious issues for me. Civil society much provide the 
countervailing power - and therefore if the Internet is too US centric, 
and it has to weigh on the other side, if needed, even 
disproportionately...

parminder


>
> Looking forward to receiving your feedback.
>
> Best,
>
> Deborah: deborah at accessnow.org <mailto:deborah at accessnow.org>
>
> Joana: joana at varonferraz.com <mailto:joana at varonferraz.com>
>
> Lea: lea at gp-digital.org <mailto:lea at gp-digital.org>
>
> -- 
> Deborah Brown
> Senior Policy Analyst
> Access | AccessNow.org
> E. deborah at accessnow.org <mailto:deborah at accessnow.org>
> @deblebrown
> PGP 0x5EB4727D
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130922/673c3334/attachment.htm>

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Sun Sep 22 14:14:28 2013
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2013 20:14:28 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Re: [IRPCoalition] [Call for feedback]  Visual
 timeline on internet governance processes
In-Reply-To: <523EA19F.3010502@itforchange.net>
References: <523EA121.3020309@itforchange.net>
 <523EA19F.3010502@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <mailman.22.1642081796.12520.bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130922/02098124/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Mon Sep 23 01:21:56 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 13:21:56 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] [call for feedback] visual timeline on IG processes
In-Reply-To: <523E311B.2010705@apc.org>
References: <CALTAiTo4V8_460XqvhOx2YDT8iZeORzqeoXJgUTLqa6AJaDL_w@mail.gmail.com> <523E311B.2010705@apc.org>
Message-ID: <0ABC6034-07B8-4EB7-8EFD-C60F685146D5@ciroap.org>

On 22/09/2013, at 7:51 AM, joy <joy at apc.org> wrote:

> Hi Joana 
> thanks for sharing this - great initiative and very interesting ! 
> Only design related commment is perhaps to consider some design aspects if you are thinking of  making it interactive, as it might be unusable as a print out or a copy/paste infographic, depending on how you wish primarily users to use it

I got a sneak preview of this and already have given some feedback (I think it's great), but I would love to be able to integrate it into the Best Bits website in an intuitive and simple way.  For example, we have already added the facility to have a wiki-style page of information about any institution, which links to and from its related meetings in the event calendar (I'll be demoing this at the Bali meeting).  So these pages should also link to and from the visual timeline.

-- 
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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130923/040af70f/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Mon Sep 23 02:37:12 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 14:37:12 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] Crowdfunding campaign for Best Bits 2013
Message-ID: <831CF26E-F6C2-467D-AEAF-CEEFCEB02B63@ciroap.org>

One of the items for the agenda of our Best Bits meeting in Bali is an update on the funding of the meeting and the broader network.  Currently we have no funding other then a small grant from Google (through APC) to help us cover the conference package for 40 participants.  But this won't stretch to assisting participants with travel or accommodation expenses.

So we are crowdfunding to raise some more!  In the longer term we will continue to seek institutional funding opportunities, but for the participants themselves to kick in some support through crowdfunding is a great way to demonstrate the value of Best Bits for civil society.  Please visit and share the crowdfunding link here:

http://www.razoo.com/story/Travel-Support-For-Best-Bits-Meeting

A link to the crowdfunding site is given when you register for the meeting, and it is also highlighted at the bottom of every page on the Best Bits website.

Please help us raise some money to support participants who wouldn't otherwise be able to join us in Bali for this important civil society gathering.  If you can't contribute anything, then please share this opportunity with others who may be able to do so.

Access is a participating organization in the Best Bits network and is hosting this fundraiser on the network's behalf. 100% of proceeds will be used to cover travel expenses for members of the Best Bits network that would otherwise be unable to attend the IGF; all funds raised will be managed and distributed by the Best Bits interim steering committee.  Any excess will be retained for future Best Bits meetings.  Thanks, Access!

-- 
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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130923/38e7f771/attachment.htm>

From anriette at apc.org  Mon Sep 23 06:18:21 2013
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 12:18:21 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] [call for feedback] visual timeline on IG processes
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTo4V8_460XqvhOx2YDT8iZeORzqeoXJgUTLqa6AJaDL_w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTo4V8_460XqvhOx2YDT8iZeORzqeoXJgUTLqa6AJaDL_w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5240156D.3080108@apc.org>

Hi all.. I gave a bit of feedback on an early draft of this and would
like to give more.. but just don't have time right now.

I do find it very useful.. so thank you very much to Joana, Lea and
Deborah for your work on this.

What is the cut off point for comments?

Anriette

On 18/09/2013 20:43, Joana Varon wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
>
> In light of recent discussions about the BB Bali agenda and how to
> frame the session on engagement in internet governance processes, it
> seems timely to share this mapping of global internet governance
> processes for your feedback .
>
>
> In an effort to better focus our advocacy efforts and understand where
> main discussions about global internet governance are taking place
> over the next year, Deborah Brown (Access) and Lea (Global Partners
> Digital), and I have developed this visual timeline of what we saw as
> the most relevant events in global internet governance processes.
>
>
> We were specifically aiming to: 1) identify forums where internet
> governance is being discussed/decided over the next year; and 2)
> identify avenues for participation for civil society to influence
> those processes. We have taken two particular processes and their
> relevant outcomes as our end points – the *ITU Plenipotentiary 2014*
> and the *WSIS+10 review event in 2015* – and weaved other forums
> around them.
>
>
> Here is the visual timeline: http://bestbits.net/wp-uploads/diagram.html
>
>
> A few features to make note of:
>
>  *
>
>     We have divided the landscape into several processes – the broader
>     UN processes, the ITU processes, the WSIS review process, the IGF
>     and ICANN. We did not include OECD as it is not a global process,
>     but it could potentially be added (as could other processes).
>
>  *
>
>     The timeline period runs from the beginning of 2013 to the end of
>     2014, but it shall be gradually developed further at least until
>     2015, as more information becomes available;
>
>  *
>
>     Events contain hyperlinks to relevant documentation (e.g. agendas,
>     draft resolutions, outcome documents). To access the documents,
>     please, click in the respective squares.
>
>
> While we put considerable thought into what to include and how to
> visualize this, these choices were inevitably arbitrary. To make the
> tool useful for the broader BB group, we would be interested to
> receive your feedback. Based on your initial feedback, we are planning
> to work on this tool with a designer who will help us make it more
> user-friendly and, hopefully, interactive. With this in mind, we are
> particularly interested in hearing your thoughts on:
>
>  *
>
>     Content: are there other processes or documents you would like to
>     see included?
>
>  *
>
>     Presentation: any comments on size of boxes, text, colours, etc.
>     (this will be particularly useful in the next stage of the project)
>
>  *
>
>     Interactive: what interactive features would you like to see
>     incorporated into the document? Ideas can include option of hiding
>     or highlighting certain elements of the map, filtering the map by
>     body/process/outcome, etc.
>
> We would appreciate your feedback is *September 30th* (our individual
> emails are below)
>
> We hope this mapping will be a useful tool for civil society to
> strategize and are looking forward to presenting it at Best Bits
> meeting in Bali.
>
>
> Looking forward to receiving your feedback.
>
>
> Best,
>
>
> Joana
>
> Deborah: deborah at accessnow.org <mailto:deborah at accessnow.org>
>
> Lea: lea at gp-digital.org <mailto:lea at gp-digital.org>
>
> -- 
>
> -- 
>
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> @joana_varon
> PGP 0x016B8E73

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130923/05699004/attachment.htm>

From anne at webfoundation.org  Mon Sep 23 09:41:50 2013
From: anne at webfoundation.org (Anne Jellema)
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 15:41:50 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] WSIS MPP Submissions deadline extended to 26 September
 2013 (Midnight Geneva time).
Message-ID: <CAFwCmbHEES_c4-4pRar1b1sxXK1A2YFQe3O_6fSWK1xFVO=GbA@mail.gmail.com>

Just found this on the website, http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/mpp/
cheers
A


On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 11:37 PM, Deborah Brown <deborah at accessnow.org>wrote:

> Hi all, Just to clarify, of the responses that have so far been posted on
> the MPP site (http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/mpp/) half are government,
> and the responses from civil society and academia (one of each) are both
> from European countries. But it's likely that there are a number of other
> responses that have not yet been posted. Great to hear that it seems like
> the platform is still open. Thanks for letting us know Joana!
> Best regards,
> Deborah
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com>wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> As soon as I could check, the platform of the MPP is still accepting
>> submissions. I've just sent mine and it was accepted with an email
>> confirming it as an Official Submission.
>>
>> I did so right after Deborah reached me this morning noting that mostly
>> Governments and Private sector have submitted answers. According to the
>> list of received submission at the website, there were only two submission
>> from CS, both from developed countries. Nonetheless, there are not too many
>> submissions listed at all. I don't know if they are still uploading them.
>>
>> Well, this is just to let you know that maybe there is still time and
>> that maybe it would be worth for your respective organizations to submit
>> something. Particularly on session B.3 which will explicitly feed into the
>> next physical meeting in Geneva of phase 2.
>>
>> Some submissions, like ICC's, made comments on the format of the high
>> level event 2014 and the role of CSTD on post-2015. Maybe you could also
>> bring inputs on this on your respective submission.
>>
>> All the best
>>
>> joana
>> --
>>
>> --
>>
>> Joana Varon Ferraz
>> @joana_varon
>> PGP 0x016B8E73
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Deborah Brown
> Senior Policy Analyst
> Access | AccessNow.org
> E. deborah at accessnow.org
> @deblebrown
> PGP 0x5EB4727D
>



-- 
Anne Jellema
Chief Executive Officer
Cape Town, RSA
mob (ZA) +27 61 036 9652
tel (ZA) +27 21 788 4585
tel (US) +1 202 684 6885
Skype anne.jellema
@afjellema

World Wide Web Foundation | 1889 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, USA |
www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130923/dc08616b/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Sep  1 10:25:24 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2013 19:55:24 +0530
Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Position by IT for Change and some
 other NGOs on enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <3CB796A02CAE419EAE5DB5686FE0E3E4@Toshiba>
References: <521E2A9E.7070004@itforchange.net><E96416DB-C48F-4D94-B8E7-FCFCA7D5A2CA@apc.org><CAJqNAHDvLLQcX87p2Kzu+15O=+8LNrNi+zrPyLgDCau4echNvA@mail.gmail.com><030d01cea5b3$2cc32a80$86497f80$@gmail.com><CACAaNxj2TOjeCQWbo0u31Uzpnv6qYT=9fdp0Z4wq-F+3sJQeBA@mail.gmail.com><035f01cea5c3$7a5db390$6f191ab0$@gmail.com><CACAaNxg_2Hu+MTkbxBLEetCPmwunM5GaMRo+6yOaxzGq7Ry27g@mail.gmail.com> <20130831220744.592c8d64@quill> <3CB796A02CAE419EAE5DB5686FE0E3E4@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <52234E54.5000805@itforchange.net>

To add to this very important discussion, when we seek new privacy norms 
and frameworks, we must also first inspect the current regimes. Just 
because vested interests tell us, and some of us are naive to believe 
it, it is of course  not true that there are no existing 'policy' 
regimes around the global Internet.

What are these.

Just yesterday or so, Facebook said that it is updating its privacy 
provisions. This follows a settlement with a US court. Quoting Facebook 
spokesperson, 
<http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/29/facebooks-new-rules-change-how-it-treats-your-data-and-who-can-access-it/> 
" Facebook is proposing this update as part of a settlement in a court 
case relating to advertising."

We can see here that the US state is setting the global privacy norms. 
For others, it is a take it or leave it.

Next, the Trans- Atlantic Trade Agreement to be negotiated between the 
US and the EU will see some serious give and take on what would become 
the global privacy frameworks. The give and take, in the secret and 
narrowly self-interest driven processes of pluri lateral trade 
agreements, would largely be of a non-normative nature. It will be more 
of what do I gain, what can I live with, what people will say when they 
know, kind of stuff..... All this of a kind much worse than what happens 
in multilateral settings.

The above kind of processes will soon set what would be more or less the 
final privacy frameworks for the global Internet.

Do those who so passionately argue for keeping governemnts away from 
'Internet regulation', which includes developing and enforcing global 
privacy frameworks, really not realise that governemnts, as above, are 
already doing it, and solidly so. And the same governments who are 
'doing it' so enthusiastically (including through funds) encourage the 
'multistakeholder constituency' to fight against regulation of the 
Internet, which basically serves the very useful purpose for these 
government of keeping the developjng countires away from the levers of 
global governance. This is turn helps consolidate the North's 
geo-economic and geo-political (and geo-cultural) advantage (more of the 
US than of others). So, in whose hands is the civil society really 
playing, whether they realise it or not.

In all that is happening on the global privacy regulation front, as 
described above, developing countries are simply spectators. They are 
told - when we are done, we will let you know. And then, as was done 
with CoE's cyber-security agreement or is currently being done with the 
OECD's Internet policy making principles, we will ask you to sign on the 
pre-agreed policy framework, which you bloody well will do, if you do 
not want to be knocked off the global Internet's 'best opportunities'.

I heard the term 'politics of justice' mentioned on this list. Global 
justice demands that the bogey of the US and its Northern follower 
governments, and of the big global business (and all their allies), 
stealthy developing Internet regulation and architecture, behind the 
smoke screen of the Internet freedom and multistakeholderism, is called. 
This calls for seeking democratic global governance of the Internet, 
while being very careful as we suggest and develop new institutions.

Above I discuss just how privacy frameworks - regulation and 
architecture - for the global Internet is being developed, and what are 
the stakes for those who seek global justice. Similar process are under 
way in terms of many other social, economic, cultural and political 
issues, of deep importance to the developing countries, and to 
marginalised populations. This is the imperative for democratising 
global governance of the Internet. Bring out in the open which is 
happenning in the background, and have a greater chance of normative 
discussions, and greater civil society influence.

parminder






On Sunday 01 September 2013 02:04 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
> not sure I am as pessimistic about this as both of you. There are 
> plenty of examples in history where international agreements have 
> regulated matters where countries have agreed, for the greater good, 
> to regulate or stop previous actions. The Geneva Convention is one 
> example, outlawing of poison gases after WW1 (worked for a while) is 
> another.
>
> I am sure also that regularly in trade treaties countries give up 
> certain actions in return for other advantages.
>
> In the case of the Internet, it may well be that an open available 
> trusted global network - which can only be achieved if espionage is 
> contained - is the greater good that leads to a decent regulatory regime.
>
>
> Ian Peter
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Norbert Bollow
> Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2013 6:07 AM
> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; IRP
> Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Position by IT for Change and 
> some other NGOs on enhanced cooperation
>
> McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Am I happy
>> that the US snoops on both domestic and foreign voice and data
>> traffic?  No, certainly not.  Do I think that any kind of treaty or
>> int'l framework would stop them?  Again the answer is no, certainly
>> not.
>
> I agree.
>
> The problem cannot be solved without effective encryption.
>
> Some kind of treaty or other international framework or other form of
> international cooperation might however help us get to the point where
> communications via the Internet are routinely encrypted in an
> effective manner.
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130901/0a283b09/attachment.htm>

From antiropy at gmail.com  Mon Sep 23 11:30:42 2013
From: antiropy at gmail.com (Byoung-il Oh)
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 00:30:42 +0900
Subject: [bestbits] Seoul Conference on Cyberspace 2013
Message-ID: <CAOGFQRxzpjcoNxxhzPvagcAGsnywUpYpD=n5ti_1EsszJtY4cg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

As you may know, Seoul Conference on Cyberspace 2013 will be held in Seoul
on Oct. 17-18.
http://www.seoulcyber2013.kr/en/main/main.do

Last May, I had met the chief officer of Preparatory Secretariat of the
conference to inquire to him the progress of the conference. At that time,
the detailed agenda and panelists had not been fixed yet. In the meeting, I
inquired what would the output of the conference and how civil society
could participate in the process. The answer was that they expected to
produce chair's summary plus as the output, but needed more discussion on
what could be the 'plus'.
As a preparatory process, they told several pre-workshop would be held.
http://www.seoulcyber2013.kr/en/event/workshop.html

However, they didn't give definite answer to the question of how the result
of pre-workshop would be linked to the output of the conference, how civil
society could participate in the process and give opinions to draft the
output.

After the meeting, I felt that this conference would not be for making
concrete policy through substantial discussions of multi-stakeholders, but
just cosmetic diplomatic events. Actually, the Preparatory Secretariat is
operated under the Ministry of Foreign Affiars, not Telecommunication
authority.

In the meeting, the chief officer told that he himself thought much of the
value of open and multi-stakeholder process, but they had to consider the
position of the countries (China, Russia etc) which don't like
multistakeholderism.

After that, we, the coaliton of civil society in Korea, invited a staff of
Preparatory Secretariat as a panel in our public forum last June, but we
couldn't hear nothing new from him.

Recently, I checked its homepage and found with surprise that anyone from
civil society could not invited as a panel.
http://www.seoulcyber2013.kr/en/program/speakers_1.html
Moreover, I found that they even restricted the participation of the
public. It was a closed conference! When I tried to register in the
conference, I had to request PIN first in the
http://register.seoulcyber2013.kr/, but I couldn't receive a PIN. So I
called to the secretariat and ask why. They said that PIN would be given to
the invited person. In the case of who were not invited, preparatory
secretariat will examine the person who requested to particiapte and dicide
whether to allow participation or not. I have no idea this was the
conventional practice in the former cyberspace conference.

And, I wonder how do you think about cyberspace conference, the importance
of the conference in the context of global internet governance.

Best Regards,
Oh Byoungil

-- 
<http://www.jinbo.net/support/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130924/4ef2769e/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Sep 24 00:51:19 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 10:21:19 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Seoul Conference on Cyberspace 2013
In-Reply-To: <CAOGFQRxzpjcoNxxhzPvagcAGsnywUpYpD=n5ti_1EsszJtY4cg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOGFQRxzpjcoNxxhzPvagcAGsnywUpYpD=n5ti_1EsszJtY4cg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <52411A47.6030407@itforchange.net>

Hi Byoungil

I may be wrong but I have a somewhat different perspective on this 
Conference on Cyberspace...

This Seoul conference is one of a series that started with London Cyber 
conference and then went to Budapest, now coming to Seoul....

One, it is not inclusive (multistakeholder etc) not at all because of 
any China/ Russia factor, but because that is how it always has been. 
That is how it was designed, and I can assure you that China and Russia 
were not among the chief designers.

Secondly, it is not an unimportant conference or site of global IG; it 
is a very important one.

This is how it is.... OECD, UN Security Council and such spaces are 
where big boys play and decide things; IGF et all are for the show, a 
largely managed show for kids, for all those who would otherwise make 
noises - yes, you got it, a large pat of it, civil society.....

Now, having developed the basic frameworks/ principles. this series of 
cyber conferences is where part co-optation is sought from the outside - 
from some more powerful countries outside the 'inner club' , may be one 
or two very power non-gov actor too.... But still a strictly controlled 
space (as you found out) , of selective co-optation. In these spaces, 
the wannabes, euphemistically called emerging economies, are allowed a 
peek in, only if they behave they could be included into bilateral and 
pluri-lateral arrangements. Here, the policy frameworks and principles 
developed in deep secret closed spaces are sought to be aired a bit, 
with an attempt to expand their legitimacy. (You will find out as you 
see the conference outcome documents.)

Of course, there is no business here of the pesky civil society kinds . 
They are too powerless, and perhaps naive, to even be offered an 
co-optation.... They have their agreed play space at the IGF where, in 
less than 2 weeks after this key global IG meeting, multistakeholderism 
will again be celebrated by the same parties holding this conference as 
strictly for 'adults only'.

Do excuse my ironic tone, but I have been earlier trying to say in plain 
words that we should focus on real sites of global IG, at least as much 
as we do on our few favourite ones. Incidentally, these latter sites 
seem to be also the ones that the most dominant global IG powers would 
want civil society to be stay bogged down with.

parminder


On Monday 23 September 2013 09:00 PM, Byoung-il Oh wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As you may know, Seoul Conference on Cyberspace 2013 will be held in 
> Seoul on Oct. 17-18.
> http://www.seoulcyber2013.kr/en/main/main.do
>
> Last May, I had met the chief officer of Preparatory Secretariat of 
> the conference to inquire to him the progress of the conference. At 
> that time, the detailed agenda and panelists had not been fixed yet. 
> In the meeting, I inquired what would the output of the conference and 
> how civil society could participate in the process. The answer was 
> that they expected to produce chair's summary plus as the output, but 
> needed more discussion on what could be the 'plus'.
> As a preparatory process, they told several pre-workshop would be 
> held. http://www.seoulcyber2013.kr/en/event/workshop.html
>
> However, they didn't give definite answer to the question of how the 
> result of pre-workshop would be linked to the output of the 
> conference, how civil society could participate in the process and 
> give opinions to draft the output.
>
> After the meeting, I felt that this conference would not be for making 
> concrete policy through substantial discussions of multi-stakeholders, 
> but just cosmetic diplomatic events. Actually, the Preparatory 
> Secretariat is operated under the Ministry of Foreign Affiars, not 
> Telecommunication authority.
>
> In the meeting, the chief officer told that he himself thought much of 
> the value of open and multi-stakeholder process, but they had to 
> consider the position of the countries (China, Russia etc) which don't 
> like multistakeholderism.
>
> After that, we, the coaliton of civil society in Korea, invited a 
> staff of Preparatory Secretariat as a panel in our public forum last 
> June, but we couldn't hear nothing new from him.
>
> Recently, I checked its homepage and found with surprise that anyone 
> from civil society could not invited as a panel. 
> http://www.seoulcyber2013.kr/en/program/speakers_1.html
> Moreover, I found that they even restricted the participation of the 
> public. It was a closed conference! When I tried to register in the 
> conference, I had to request PIN first in the 
> http://register.seoulcyber2013.kr/, but I couldn't receive a PIN. So I 
> called to the secretariat and ask why. They said that PIN would be 
> given to the invited person. In the case of who were not invited, 
> preparatory secretariat will examine the person who requested to 
> particiapte and dicide whether to allow participation or not. I have 
> no idea this was the conventional practice in the former cyberspace 
> conference.
>
> And, I wonder how do you think about cyberspace conference, the 
> importance of the conference in the context of global internet 
> governance.
>
> Best Regards,
> Oh Byoungil
>
> -- 
> <http://www.jinbo.net/support/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130924/9e870bbc/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Sep 24 01:08:04 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 10:38:04 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Californian law putting some restrictions on Internet
 ads
Message-ID: <52411E34.1080904@itforchange.net>

See

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB568

It is about putting restrictions on some kinds of ads on Internet 
services, applications etc that aimed at minors. It also allows minors 
to remove content about themselves.

Whatever agreement or disagreement people may have with this particular 
law, one important issue here is that California can make such law, but 
not states in other countries, not even national governments. I mean it 
is so so difficult for them to enforce it, that it may not be worth 
attempting it. At other places, big companies may simply blackmail them 
by threats of withdrawal as Google did with governemnt of Taipei a few 
years back. (which they wont do with Gov of California).... This is how 
policy space for non US gov entities is shrinking fast, and what it 
means is that political and democratic space of our world is 
shrinking... A key global IG issue if there ever was one.

parminder
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130924/25444ed3/attachment.htm>

From antiropy at gmail.com  Tue Sep 24 01:43:53 2013
From: antiropy at gmail.com (Byoung-il Oh)
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 14:43:53 +0900
Subject: Fwd: [bestbits] Seoul Conference on Cyberspace 2013
Message-ID: <CAOGFQRxUaiqrNELVEjRFFGUQq40q4Vn_tUw0RLby94u0LYaJxA@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks parminder for your opinion.

2013/9/24 parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>

>  Hi Byoungil
>
> I may be wrong but I have a somewhat different perspective on this
> Conference on Cyberspace...
>
> This Seoul conference is one of a series that started with London Cyber
> conference and then went to Budapest, now coming to Seoul....
>
> One, it is not inclusive (multistakeholder etc) not at all because of any
> China/ Russia factor, but because that is how it always has been. That is
> how it was designed, and I can assure you that China and Russia were not
> among the chief designers.
>
>
I know. The mention of China/Russia was not my word, but the excuse of
Participatory Secretariat for not so inclusive of civil society. The chief
office of Preparatory Secretariat told that they were cooperating with UK,
US and Hungary for designing the conference, though there were not any
official organizing committee.


> Secondly, it is not an unimportant conference or site of global IG; it is
> a very important one.
>
>
I see. I'd like to hear more about their thoughts from Best Bits members.
And if we think it is very important, I wonder why Best Bits has no action
about it, at least publishing statement.

Best ,
Oh Byoungil


This is how it is.... OECD, UN Security Council and such spaces are where
> big boys play and decide things; IGF et all are for the show, a largely
> managed show for kids, for all those who would otherwise make noises - yes,
> you got it, a large pat of it, civil society.....
>
> Now, having developed the basic frameworks/ principles. this series of
> cyber conferences is where part co-optation is sought from the outside -
> from some more powerful countries outside the 'inner club' , may be one or
> two very power non-gov actor too.... But still a strictly controlled space
> (as you found out) , of selective co-optation. In these spaces, the
> wannabes, euphemistically called emerging economies, are allowed a peek in,
> only if they behave they could be included into bilateral and pluri-lateral
> arrangements. Here, the policy frameworks and principles developed in deep
> secret closed spaces are sought to be aired a bit, with an attempt to
> expand their legitimacy. (You will find out as you see the conference
> outcome documents.)
>
> Of course, there is no business here of the pesky civil society kinds .
> They are too powerless, and perhaps naive, to even be offered an
> co-optation.... They have their agreed play space at the IGF where, in
> less than 2 weeks after this key global IG meeting, multistakeholderism
> will again be celebrated by the same parties holding this conference as
> strictly for 'adults only'.
>
> Do excuse my ironic tone, but I have been earlier trying to say in plain
> words that we should focus on real sites of global IG, at least as much as
> we do on our few favourite ones. Incidentally, these latter sites seem to
> be also the ones that the most dominant global IG powers would want civil
> society to be stay bogged down with.
>
> parminder
>
>
>  On Monday 23 September 2013 09:00 PM, Byoung-il Oh wrote:
>
>  Hi,
>
>  As you may know, Seoul Conference on Cyberspace 2013 will be held in
> Seoul on Oct. 17-18.
> http://www.seoulcyber2013.kr/en/main/main.do
>
>  Last May, I had met the chief officer of Preparatory Secretariat of the
> conference to inquire to him the progress of the conference. At that time,
> the detailed agenda and panelists had not been fixed yet. In the meeting, I
> inquired what would the output of the conference and how civil society
> could participate in the process. The answer was that they expected to
> produce chair's summary plus as the output, but needed more discussion on
> what could be the 'plus'.
> As a preparatory process, they told several pre-workshop would be held.
> http://www.seoulcyber2013.kr/en/event/workshop.html
>
>  However, they didn't give definite answer to the question of how the
> result of pre-workshop would be linked to the output of the conference, how
> civil society could participate in the process and give opinions to draft
> the output.
>
>  After the meeting, I felt that this conference would not be for making
> concrete policy through substantial discussions of multi-stakeholders, but
> just cosmetic diplomatic events. Actually, the Preparatory Secretariat is
> operated under the Ministry of Foreign Affiars, not Telecommunication
> authority.
>
>  In the meeting, the chief officer told that he himself thought much of
> the value of open and multi-stakeholder process, but they had to consider
> the position of the countries (China, Russia etc) which don't like
> multistakeholderism.
>
>  After that, we, the coaliton of civil society in Korea, invited a staff
> of Preparatory Secretariat as a panel in our public forum last June, but we
> couldn't hear nothing new from him.
>
>  Recently, I checked its homepage and found with surprise that anyone
> from civil society could not invited as a panel.
> http://www.seoulcyber2013.kr/en/program/speakers_1.html
> Moreover, I found that they even restricted the participation of the
> public. It was a closed conference! When I tried to register in the
> conference, I had to request PIN first in the
> http://register.seoulcyber2013.kr/, but I couldn't receive a PIN. So I
> called to the secretariat and ask why. They said that PIN would be given to
> the invited person. In the case of who were not invited, preparatory
> secretariat will examine the person who requested to particiapte and dicide
> whether to allow participation or not. I have no idea this was the
> conventional practice in the former cyberspace conference.
>
>  And, I wonder how do you think about cyberspace conference, the
> importance of the conference in the context of global internet governance.
>
>  Best Regards,
> Oh Byoungil
>
>  --
>  <http://www.jinbo.net/support/>
>
>
>


-- 
<http://www.jinbo.net/support/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130924/f225e4f6/attachment.htm>

From shahzad at bytesforall.pk  Tue Sep 24 02:46:23 2013
From: shahzad at bytesforall.pk (Shahzad Ahmad)
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 11:46:23 +0500
Subject: [bestbits] Seoul Conference on Cyberspace 2013
In-Reply-To: <52411A47.6030407@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CE671EB4.479D3%shahzad@bytesforall.pk>

Dear Parminder,

At least Budapest conference was not that closed. I know there was an effort
to bring range of stakeholders (including CSOs) to that event and in some
instances even funded by the Hungarian Government. Though, we could not
attend being committed elsewhere but we had at least two sessions with the
embassy to inform them of local issues. Some of the diplomats also went to
Budapest to attend.

We believe that undermining CSOs strengths and efforts (even among
ourselves) wont't help the cause at all. We believe IGF is important so are
many other spread out forums. Not necessarily all of us would have the
capacity and time to engage with each one of them but we appreciate the
efforts by all the colleagues especially CSOs and academia to keep the
struggle up. 

So can we all please pay some urgent attention to the appeal by Byoungil?
Byoungil, please count us in for any response based on your observations
that you plan to put forward on the openness, access and objectives of this
conference. It is all the more important to engage with this given its
importance.

Best wishes and regards

Shahzad



From:  parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
Date:  Tuesday, September 24, 2013 9:51 AM
To:  "&lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt
<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt> ," <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject:  Re: [bestbits] Seoul Conference on Cyberspace 2013

    
 Hi Byoungil
 
 I may be wrong but I have a somewhat different perspective on this
Conference on Cyberspace...
 
 This Seoul conference is one of a series that started with London Cyber
conference and then went to Budapest, now coming to Seoul....
 
 One, it is not inclusive (multistakeholder etc) not at all because of any
China/ Russia factor, but because that is how it always has been. That is
how it was designed, and I can assure you that China and Russia were not
among the chief designers.
 
 Secondly, it is not an unimportant conference or site of global IG; it is a
very important one.
 
 This is how it is.... OECD, UN Security Council and such spaces are where
big boys play and decide things; IGF et all are for the show, a largely
managed show for kids, for all those who would otherwise make noises - yes,
you got it, a large pat of it, civil society.....
 
 Now, having developed the basic frameworks/ principles. this series of
cyber conferences is where part co-optation is sought from the outside -
from some more powerful countries outside the 'inner club' , may be one or
two very power non-gov actor too.... But still a strictly controlled space
(as you found out) , of selective co-optation. In these spaces, the
wannabes, euphemistically called emerging economies, are allowed a peek in,
only if they behave they could be included into bilateral and pluri-lateral
arrangements. Here, the policy frameworks and principles developed in deep
secret closed spaces are sought to be aired a bit, with an attempt to expand
their legitimacy. (You will find out as you see the conference outcome
documents.) 
 
 Of course, there is no business here of the pesky civil society kinds .
They are too powerless, and perhaps naive, to even be offered an
co-optation.... They have their agreed play space at the IGF where, in less
than 2 weeks after this key global IG meeting, multistakeholderism will
again be celebrated by the same parties holding this conference as strictly
for 'adults only'. 
 
 Do excuse my ironic tone, but I have been earlier trying to say in plain
words that we should focus on real sites of global IG, at least as much as
we do on our few favourite ones. Incidentally, these latter sites seem to be
also the ones that the most dominant global IG powers would want civil
society to be stay bogged down with.
 
 parminder 
 
 
  
On Monday 23 September 2013 09:00 PM, Byoung-il Oh wrote:
 
 
>  
>  
> Hi, 
>  
>  
> 
>  
>  
> As you may know, Seoul Conference on Cyberspace 2013 will be held in Seoul on
> Oct. 17-18. 
>  
> http://www.seoulcyber2013.kr/en/main/main.do
>  
> 
>  
>  
> Last May, I had met the chief officer of Preparatory Secretariat of the
> conference to inquire to him the progress of the conference. At that time, the
> detailed agenda and panelists had not been fixed yet. In the meeting, I
> inquired what would the output of the conference and how civil society could
> participate in the process. The answer was that they expected to produce
> chair's summary plus as the output, but needed more discussion on what could
> be the 'plus'. 
>  
> As a preparatory process, they told several pre-workshop would be held.
> http://www.seoulcyber2013.kr/en/event/workshop.html
>  
> 
>  
>  
> However, they didn't give definite answer to the question of how the result of
> pre-workshop would be linked to the output of the conference, how civil
> society could participate in the process and give opinions to draft the
> output. 
>  
> 
>  
>  
> After the meeting, I felt that this conference would not be for making
> concrete policy through substantial discussions of multi-stakeholders, but
> just cosmetic diplomatic events. Actually, the Preparatory Secretariat is
> operated under the Ministry of Foreign Affiars, not Telecommunication
> authority. 
>  
> 
>  
>  
> In the meeting, the chief officer told that he himself thought much of the
> value of open and multi-stakeholder process, but they had to consider the
> position of the countries (China, Russia etc) which don't like
> multistakeholderism.
>  
> 
>  
>  
> After that, we, the coaliton of civil society in Korea, invited a staff of
> Preparatory Secretariat as a panel in our public forum last June, but we
> couldn't hear nothing new from him.
>  
> 
>  
>  
> Recently, I checked its homepage and found with surprise that anyone from
> civil society could not invited as a panel.
> http://www.seoulcyber2013.kr/en/program/speakers_1.html
>  
> Moreover, I found that they even restricted the participation of the public.
> It was a closed conference! When I tried to register in the conference, I had
> to request PIN first in the http://register.seoulcyber2013.kr/, but I couldn't
> receive a PIN. So I called to the secretariat and ask why. They said that PIN
> would be given to the invited person. In the case of who were not invited,
> preparatory secretariat will examine the person who requested to particiapte
> and dicide whether to allow participation or not. I have no idea this was the
> conventional practice in the former cyberspace conference.
>  
> 
>  
>  
> And, I wonder how do you think about cyberspace conference, the importance of
> the conference in the context of global internet governance.
>  
> 
>  
>  
> Best Regards,
>  
> Oh Byoungil 
>  
> 
>  
>  -- 
>   <http://www.jinbo.net/support/>
>  
>  
 
 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130924/401be233/attachment.htm>

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Tue Sep 24 03:55:14 2013
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 13:25:14 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Seoul Conference on Cyberspace 2013
In-Reply-To: <CE671EB4.479D3%shahzad@bytesforall.pk>
References: <52411A47.6030407@itforchange.net>
	<CE671EB4.479D3%shahzad@bytesforall.pk>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHA55ZYSWz_mvVj30skDh7AqNd=fjSdjFX3NDvpFeaLGcw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

I'm unfortunately not able to respond at length right now, but thought I
should at least mention that I've been invited as a speaker (and accepted),
and I know at least three other people from CS will be attending as well. I
don't have any info on other CS speakers.

Best,
Anja
On Sep 24, 2013 12:16 PM, "Shahzad Ahmad" <shahzad at bytesforall.pk> wrote:

> Dear Parminder,
>
> At least Budapest conference was not that closed. I know there was an
> effort to bring range of stakeholders (including CSOs) to that event and in
> some instances even funded by the Hungarian Government. Though, we could
> not attend being committed elsewhere but we had at least two sessions with
> the embassy to inform them of local issues. Some of the diplomats also went
> to Budapest to attend.
>
> We believe that undermining CSOs strengths and efforts (even among
> ourselves) wont't help the cause at all. We believe IGF is important so are
> many other spread out forums. Not necessarily all of us would have the
> capacity and time to engage with each one of them but we appreciate the
> efforts by all the colleagues especially CSOs and academia to keep the
> struggle up.
>
> So can we all please pay some urgent attention to the appeal by
> Byoungil? Byoungil, please count us in for any response based on your
> observations that you plan to put forward on the openness, access and
> objectives of this conference. It is all the more important to engage with
> this given its importance.
>
> Best wishes and regards
>
> Shahzad
>
>
>
> From: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> Date: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 9:51 AM
> To: "&lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt," <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Seoul Conference on Cyberspace 2013
>
>  Hi Byoungil
>
> I may be wrong but I have a somewhat different perspective on this
> Conference on Cyberspace...
>
> This Seoul conference is one of a series that started with London Cyber
> conference and then went to Budapest, now coming to Seoul....
>
> One, it is not inclusive (multistakeholder etc) not at all because of any
> China/ Russia factor, but because that is how it always has been. That is
> how it was designed, and I can assure you that China and Russia were not
> among the chief designers.
>
> Secondly, it is not an unimportant conference or site of global IG; it is
> a very important one.
>
> This is how it is.... OECD, UN Security Council and such spaces are where
> big boys play and decide things; IGF et all are for the show, a largely
> managed show for kids, for all those who would otherwise make noises - yes,
> you got it, a large pat of it, civil society.....
>
> Now, having developed the basic frameworks/ principles. this series of
> cyber conferences is where part co-optation is sought from the outside -
> from some more powerful countries outside the 'inner club' , may be one or
> two very power non-gov actor too.... But still a strictly controlled space
> (as you found out) , of selective co-optation. In these spaces, the
> wannabes, euphemistically called emerging economies, are allowed a peek in,
> only if they behave they could be included into bilateral and pluri-lateral
> arrangements. Here, the policy frameworks and principles developed in deep
> secret closed spaces are sought to be aired a bit, with an attempt to
> expand their legitimacy. (You will find out as you see the conference
> outcome documents.)
>
> Of course, there is no business here of the pesky civil society kinds .
> They are too powerless, and perhaps naive, to even be offered an
> co-optation.... They have their agreed play space at the IGF where, in
> less than 2 weeks after this key global IG meeting, multistakeholderism
> will again be celebrated by the same parties holding this conference as
> strictly for 'adults only'.
>
> Do excuse my ironic tone, but I have been earlier trying to say in plain
> words that we should focus on real sites of global IG, at least as much as
> we do on our few favourite ones. Incidentally, these latter sites seem to
> be also the ones that the most dominant global IG powers would want civil
> society to be stay bogged down with.
>
> parminder
>
>
>  On Monday 23 September 2013 09:00 PM, Byoung-il Oh wrote:
>
>  Hi,
>
>  As you may know, Seoul Conference on Cyberspace 2013 will be held in
> Seoul on Oct. 17-18.
> http://www.seoulcyber2013.kr/en/main/main.do
>
>  Last May, I had met the chief officer of Preparatory Secretariat of the
> conference to inquire to him the progress of the conference. At that time,
> the detailed agenda and panelists had not been fixed yet. In the meeting, I
> inquired what would the output of the conference and how civil society
> could participate in the process. The answer was that they expected to
> produce chair's summary plus as the output, but needed more discussion on
> what could be the 'plus'.
> As a preparatory process, they told several pre-workshop would be held.
> http://www.seoulcyber2013.kr/en/event/workshop.html
>
>  However, they didn't give definite answer to the question of how the
> result of pre-workshop would be linked to the output of the conference, how
> civil society could participate in the process and give opinions to draft
> the output.
>
>  After the meeting, I felt that this conference would not be for making
> concrete policy through substantial discussions of multi-stakeholders, but
> just cosmetic diplomatic events. Actually, the Preparatory Secretariat is
> operated under the Ministry of Foreign Affiars, not Telecommunication
> authority.
>
>  In the meeting, the chief officer told that he himself thought much of
> the value of open and multi-stakeholder process, but they had to consider
> the position of the countries (China, Russia etc) which don't like
> multistakeholderism.
>
>  After that, we, the coaliton of civil society in Korea, invited a staff
> of Preparatory Secretariat as a panel in our public forum last June, but we
> couldn't hear nothing new from him.
>
>  Recently, I checked its homepage and found with surprise that anyone
> from civil society could not invited as a panel.
> http://www.seoulcyber2013.kr/en/program/speakers_1.html
> Moreover, I found that they even restricted the participation of the
> public. It was a closed conference! When I tried to register in the
> conference, I had to request PIN first in the
> http://register.seoulcyber2013.kr/, but I couldn't receive a PIN. So I
> called to the secretariat and ask why. They said that PIN would be given to
> the invited person. In the case of who were not invited, preparatory
> secretariat will examine the person who requested to particiapte and dicide
> whether to allow participation or not. I have no idea this was the
> conventional practice in the former cyberspace conference.
>
>  And, I wonder how do you think about cyberspace conference, the
> importance of the conference in the context of global internet governance.
>
>  Best Regards,
> Oh Byoungil
>
>  --
>  <http://www.jinbo.net/support/>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130924/2dc0c579/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Tue Sep 24 04:40:04 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 16:40:04 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] Encyclopedia entry on "social media surveillance"
References: <CE6009C5.63D2A%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
Message-ID: <4088A7E9-D14A-4EEA-BC39-541B674DC62B@ciroap.org>

I have been asked to contribute an entry for an encyclopedia titled Digital Communication and Society, to be published by Blackwell-Wiley, on "social media surveillance" (oriented towards the social dynamics, not so much the legal issues), and/or on "privacy" (from more of a legal perspective). A balanced, neutral and non-ideological summary is required of the state of knowledge in the area and some pointers to future research. There is a word-limit of 6,000 words and a maximum of 15 references.

Now the catch, and the reason why I couldn't accept: the deadline is one month, and there is no payment.  But if anyone else is in a position to contribute, please let me know and I'll pass on your details to the editor.

-- 
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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130924/b732aeb6/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Sep 24 05:21:28 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 14:51:28 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Seoul Conference on Cyberspace 2013
In-Reply-To: <CE671EB4.479D3%shahzad@bytesforall.pk>
References: <CE671EB4.479D3%shahzad@bytesforall.pk>
Message-ID: <52415998.4000302@itforchange.net>


On Tuesday 24 September 2013 12:16 PM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote:
> Dear Parminder,
>
> At least Budapest conference was not that closed.

Dear Shahzad,

If you are happy with the level and processes of openness of this cyber 
conference series, I am happy for your happiness. In fact, I would not 
bother critiquing mere conferences. People have the a right to hold 
whatever conference they wish to hold and call whomever they wish to 
call.... the human right to free association...

My critique, as I mentioned, was in a specific context, whereby this 
particular series of cyber conferences, purport to have much more 
political weight than any normal conference, and are held with somewhat 
clear basic political objectives. One that I harped upon is; to expose 
and tout policy frameworks and principles that were earlier developed by 
rich countries, in rather inter-gov manners, for limited co-optation 
among other countries.... I simply do not like this model of global 
governance, and 
this_is_the_principal_model_of_global_governance_of_the_Internet_today. 
Is it only to the extent that this particular series of cyber 
conferences are emerging as an important link in this problematic model 
of global governance that I have some issues about the forthcoming Seoul 
Conference.

Again, it is in this specific background alone that I  find it non 
participative, non inclusive etc. If I remember right, when the Budapest 
conference happened, Wolfgang had similarly criticised the attempt of 
some countries to take some of the most important and impactful Internet 
governance discussions to such closed spaces, instead of other spaces 
where participation is so much more open, like the IGF.

Now if you have no problem with this particular model of global 
governance of the Internet, which is today the dominant one, that it is 
fine with me. In that case you would obviously not find my critique 
appealing. For just a conference I dont care how they arrange it, 
neither I am entitled to do so,


> I know there was an effort to bring range of stakeholders (including 
> CSOs) to that event and in some instances even funded by the Hungarian 
> Government. Though, we could not attend being committed elsewhere but 
> we had at least two sessions with the embassy to inform them of local 
> issues. Some of the diplomats also went to Budapest to attend.

That is the problem. Why should developing country have to go to discuss 
global IG issues in meetings that are designed and tightly controlled by 
a few Northern countires... Why should such discussions, and the outcome 
documents (as these cyber conferences do produce), not happen at neutral 
publicly funded venues, like that if the UN.... That is the question. 
The countries that promote this series of conferences actually say in UN 
venues that there indeed aren;t enough coherent set of policy issues 
that require specific treatment under names like that of cyberspace, 
global IG and so on.... And they oppose any proposal to do similar 
convening in UN kind of neutral venues...

parminder

>
> We believe that undermining CSOs strengths and efforts (even among 
> ourselves) wont't help the cause at all. We believe IGF is important 
> so are many other spread out forums. Not necessarily all of us would 
> have the capacity and time to engage with each one of them but we 
> appreciate the efforts by all the colleagues especially CSOs and 
> academia to keep the struggle up.
>
> So can we all please pay some urgent attention to the appeal by 
> Byoungil? Byoungil, please count us in for any response based on your 
> observations that you plan to put forward on the openness, access and 
> objectives of this conference. It is all the more important to engage 
> with this given its importance.
>
> Best wishes and regards
>
> Shahzad
>
>
>
> From: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
> Date: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 9:51 AM
> To: "&lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt 
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt>," <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Seoul Conference on Cyberspace 2013
>
> Hi Byoungil
>
> I may be wrong but I have a somewhat different perspective on this 
> Conference on Cyberspace...
>
> This Seoul conference is one of a series that started with London 
> Cyber conference and then went to Budapest, now coming to Seoul....
>
> One, it is not inclusive (multistakeholder etc) not at all because of 
> any China/ Russia factor, but because that is how it always has been. 
> That is how it was designed, and I can assure you that China and 
> Russia were not among the chief designers.
>
> Secondly, it is not an unimportant conference or site of global IG; it 
> is a very important one.
>
> This is how it is.... OECD, UN Security Council and such spaces are 
> where big boys play and decide things; IGF et all are for the show, a 
> largely managed show for kids, for all those who would otherwise make 
> noises - yes, you got it, a large pat of it, civil society.....
>
> Now, having developed the basic frameworks/ principles. this series of 
> cyber conferences is where part co-optation is sought from the outside 
> - from some more powerful countries outside the 'inner club' , may be 
> one or two very power non-gov actor too.... But still a strictly 
> controlled space (as you found out) , of selective co-optation. In 
> these spaces, the wannabes, euphemistically called emerging economies, 
> are allowed a peek in, only if they behave they could be included into 
> bilateral and pluri-lateral arrangements. Here, the policy frameworks 
> and principles developed in deep secret closed spaces are sought to be 
> aired a bit, with an attempt to expand their legitimacy. (You will 
> find out as you see the conference outcome documents.)
>
> Of course, there is no business here of the pesky civil society kinds 
> . They are too powerless, and perhaps naive, to even be offered an 
> co-optation.... They have their agreed play space at the IGF where, in 
> less than 2 weeks after this key global IG meeting, 
> multistakeholderism will again be celebrated by the same parties 
> holding this conference as strictly for 'adults only'.
>
> Do excuse my ironic tone, but I have been earlier trying to say in 
> plain words that we should focus on real sites of global IG, at least 
> as much as we do on our few favourite ones. Incidentally, these latter 
> sites seem to be also the ones that the most dominant global IG powers 
> would want civil society to be stay bogged down with.
>
> parminder
>
>
> On Monday 23 September 2013 09:00 PM, Byoung-il Oh wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> As you may know, Seoul Conference on Cyberspace 2013 will be held in 
>> Seoul on Oct. 17-18.
>> http://www.seoulcyber2013.kr/en/main/main.do
>>
>> Last May, I had met the chief officer of Preparatory Secretariat of 
>> the conference to inquire to him the progress of the conference. At 
>> that time, the detailed agenda and panelists had not been fixed yet. 
>> In the meeting, I inquired what would the output of the conference 
>> and how civil society could participate in the process. The answer 
>> was that they expected to produce chair's summary plus as the output, 
>> but needed more discussion on what could be the 'plus'.
>> As a preparatory process, they told several pre-workshop would be 
>> held. http://www.seoulcyber2013.kr/en/event/workshop.html
>>
>> However, they didn't give definite answer to the question of how the 
>> result of pre-workshop would be linked to the output of the 
>> conference, how civil society could participate in the process and 
>> give opinions to draft the output.
>>
>> After the meeting, I felt that this conference would not be for 
>> making concrete policy through substantial discussions of 
>> multi-stakeholders, but just cosmetic diplomatic events. Actually, 
>> the Preparatory Secretariat is operated under the Ministry of Foreign 
>> Affiars, not Telecommunication authority.
>>
>> In the meeting, the chief officer told that he himself thought much 
>> of the value of open and multi-stakeholder process, but they had to 
>> consider the position of the countries (China, Russia etc) which 
>> don't like multistakeholderism.
>>
>> After that, we, the coaliton of civil society in Korea, invited a 
>> staff of Preparatory Secretariat as a panel in our public forum last 
>> June, but we couldn't hear nothing new from him.
>>
>> Recently, I checked its homepage and found with surprise that anyone 
>> from civil society could not invited as a panel. 
>> http://www.seoulcyber2013.kr/en/program/speakers_1.html
>> Moreover, I found that they even restricted the participation of the 
>> public. It was a closed conference! When I tried to register in the 
>> conference, I had to request PIN first in the 
>> http://register.seoulcyber2013.kr/, but I couldn't receive a PIN. So 
>> I called to the secretariat and ask why. They said that PIN would be 
>> given to the invited person. In the case of who were not invited, 
>> preparatory secretariat will examine the person who requested to 
>> particiapte and dicide whether to allow participation or not. I have 
>> no idea this was the conventional practice in the former cyberspace 
>> conference.
>>
>> And, I wonder how do you think about cyberspace conference, the 
>> importance of the conference in the context of global internet 
>> governance.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Oh Byoungil
>>
>> -- 
>> <http://www.jinbo.net/support/>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130924/1d9b647e/attachment.htm>

From antiropy at gmail.com  Tue Sep 24 05:45:47 2013
From: antiropy at gmail.com (Byoung-il Oh)
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 18:45:47 +0900
Subject: [bestbits] Seoul Conference on Cyberspace 2013
Message-ID: <CAOGFQRyV90+o6HYXSip2V4KaA5D69emGqsUeo5m40=ga=a821w@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Anja Kovacs,

I checked it to the secretariat. As Anja said, at least 3 people from civil
society would be invited, Anja Kovacs, someone from CDT and ISOC.

The speaker list of the homepage has not been updated yet. They will update
it as soon as they got the personal information from speakers.

I'm sorry for causing misunderstanding about CS panels.

Best,

Oh byoungil

2013/9/24 Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in>

> Dear all,
>
> I'm unfortunately not able to respond at length right now, but thought I
> should at least mention that I've been invited as a speaker (and accepted),
> and I know at least three other people from CS will be attending as well. I
> don't have any info on other CS speakers.
>
> Best,
> Anja
> On Sep 24, 2013 12:16 PM, "Shahzad Ahmad" <shahzad at bytesforall.pk> wrote:
>
>> Dear Parminder,
>>
>> At least Budapest conference was not that closed. I know there was an
>> effort to bring range of stakeholders (including CSOs) to that event and in
>> some instances even funded by the Hungarian Government. Though, we could
>> not attend being committed elsewhere but we had at least two sessions with
>> the embassy to inform them of local issues. Some of the diplomats also went
>> to Budapest to attend.
>>
>> We believe that undermining CSOs strengths and efforts (even among
>> ourselves) wont't help the cause at all. We believe IGF is important so are
>> many other spread out forums. Not necessarily all of us would have the
>> capacity and time to engage with each one of them but we appreciate the
>> efforts by all the colleagues especially CSOs and academia to keep the
>> struggle up.
>>
>> So can we all please pay some urgent attention to the appeal by
>> Byoungil? Byoungil, please count us in for any response based on your
>> observations that you plan to put forward on the openness, access and
>> objectives of this conference. It is all the more important to engage with
>> this given its importance.
>>
>> Best wishes and regards
>>
>> Shahzad
>>
>>
>>
>> From: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>> Date: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 9:51 AM
>> To: "&lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt," <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Seoul Conference on Cyberspace 2013
>>
>>  Hi Byoungil
>>
>> I may be wrong but I have a somewhat different perspective on this
>> Conference on Cyberspace...
>>
>> This Seoul conference is one of a series that started with London Cyber
>> conference and then went to Budapest, now coming to Seoul....
>>
>> One, it is not inclusive (multistakeholder etc) not at all because of any
>> China/ Russia factor, but because that is how it always has been. That is
>> how it was designed, and I can assure you that China and Russia were not
>> among the chief designers.
>>
>> Secondly, it is not an unimportant conference or site of global IG; it is
>> a very important one.
>>
>> This is how it is.... OECD, UN Security Council and such spaces are where
>> big boys play and decide things; IGF et all are for the show, a largely
>> managed show for kids, for all those who would otherwise make noises - yes,
>> you got it, a large pat of it, civil society.....
>>
>> Now, having developed the basic frameworks/ principles. this series of
>> cyber conferences is where part co-optation is sought from the outside -
>> from some more powerful countries outside the 'inner club' , may be one or
>> two very power non-gov actor too.... But still a strictly controlled space
>> (as you found out) , of selective co-optation. In these spaces, the
>> wannabes, euphemistically called emerging economies, are allowed a peek in,
>> only if they behave they could be included into bilateral and pluri-lateral
>> arrangements. Here, the policy frameworks and principles developed in deep
>> secret closed spaces are sought to be aired a bit, with an attempt to
>> expand their legitimacy. (You will find out as you see the conference
>> outcome documents.)
>>
>> Of course, there is no business here of the pesky civil society kinds .
>> They are too powerless, and perhaps naive, to even be offered an
>> co-optation.... They have their agreed play space at the IGF where, in
>> less than 2 weeks after this key global IG meeting, multistakeholderism
>> will again be celebrated by the same parties holding this conference as
>> strictly for 'adults only'.
>>
>> Do excuse my ironic tone, but I have been earlier trying to say in plain
>> words that we should focus on real sites of global IG, at least as much as
>> we do on our few favourite ones. Incidentally, these latter sites seem to
>> be also the ones that the most dominant global IG powers would want civil
>> society to be stay bogged down with.
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>  On Monday 23 September 2013 09:00 PM, Byoung-il Oh wrote:
>>
>>  Hi,
>>
>>  As you may know, Seoul Conference on Cyberspace 2013 will be held in
>> Seoul on Oct. 17-18.
>> http://www.seoulcyber2013.kr/en/main/main.do
>>
>>  Last May, I had met the chief officer of Preparatory Secretariat of the
>> conference to inquire to him the progress of the conference. At that time,
>> the detailed agenda and panelists had not been fixed yet. In the meeting, I
>> inquired what would the output of the conference and how civil society
>> could participate in the process. The answer was that they expected to
>> produce chair's summary plus as the output, but needed more discussion on
>> what could be the 'plus'.
>> As a preparatory process, they told several pre-workshop would be held.
>> http://www.seoulcyber2013.kr/en/event/workshop.html
>>
>>  However, they didn't give definite answer to the question of how the
>> result of pre-workshop would be linked to the output of the conference, how
>> civil society could participate in the process and give opinions to draft
>> the output.
>>
>>  After the meeting, I felt that this conference would not be for making
>> concrete policy through substantial discussions of multi-stakeholders, but
>> just cosmetic diplomatic events. Actually, the Preparatory Secretariat is
>> operated under the Ministry of Foreign Affiars, not Telecommunication
>> authority.
>>
>>  In the meeting, the chief officer told that he himself thought much of
>> the value of open and multi-stakeholder process, but they had to consider
>> the position of the countries (China, Russia etc) which don't like
>> multistakeholderism.
>>
>>  After that, we, the coaliton of civil society in Korea, invited a staff
>> of Preparatory Secretariat as a panel in our public forum last June, but we
>> couldn't hear nothing new from him.
>>
>>  Recently, I checked its homepage and found with surprise that anyone
>> from civil society could not invited as a panel.
>> http://www.seoulcyber2013.kr/en/program/speakers_1.html
>> Moreover, I found that they even restricted the participation of the
>> public. It was a closed conference! When I tried to register in the
>> conference, I had to request PIN first in the
>> http://register.seoulcyber2013.kr/, but I couldn't receive a PIN. So I
>> called to the secretariat and ask why. They said that PIN would be given to
>> the invited person. In the case of who were not invited, preparatory
>> secretariat will examine the person who requested to particiapte and dicide
>> whether to allow participation or not. I have no idea this was the
>> conventional practice in the former cyberspace conference.
>>
>>  And, I wonder how do you think about cyberspace conference, the
>> importance of the conference in the context of global internet governance.
>>
>>  Best Regards,
>> Oh Byoungil
>>
>>  --
>>  <http://www.jinbo.net/support/>
>>
>>
>>


-- 
<http://www.jinbo.net/support/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130924/14f829c7/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Tue Sep 24 10:34:31 2013
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 10:34:31 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAf8PwDCDDj=rWTvyKcXuryceMHwzqUT=X+fd=vqSHC0iw@mail.gmail.com>

Via Renata Avila, segue discurso da Dilma na UN.
Coming from Renata Avila, see attached Dilma draft speech at UN.
C

-- 
*Carolina Rossini*
*Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
Open Technology Institute
*New America Foundation*
//
http://carolinarossini.net/
+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130924/1994ce51/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: BR_en.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 384434 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130924/1994ce51/attachment.pdf>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Sep  1 10:47:10 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2013 20:17:10 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] How to end human rights violating
 communcations surveillance (was Re: Position by IT for Change...)
In-Reply-To: <20130901040132.65217d8a@quill>
References: <521E2A9E.7070004@itforchange.net> <E96416DB-C48F-4D94-B8E7-FCFCA7D5A2CA@apc.org> <CAJqNAHDvLLQcX87p2Kzu+15O=+8LNrNi+zrPyLgDCau4echNvA@mail.gmail.com> <030d01cea5b3$2cc32a80$86497f80$@gmail.com> <CACAaNxj2TOjeCQWbo0u31Uzpnv6qYT=9fdp0Z4wq-F+3sJQeBA@mail.gmail.com> <035f01cea5c3$7a5db390$6f191ab0$@gmail.com> <CACAaNxg_2Hu+MTkbxBLEetCPmwunM5GaMRo+6yOaxzGq7Ry27g@mail.gmail.com> <20130831220744.592c8d64@quill> <3CB796A02CAE419EAE5DB5686FE0E3E4@Toshiba> <20130901040132.65217d8a@quill>
Message-ID: <5223536E.8000601@itforchange.net>


I agree with Norbert that the cost of doing surveillance has to be 
increased through appropriate technological means, to bring it closer to 
costs that existing before ICTs made it a kid's game as Snowden would 
say, to see anyone's communication with a few strokes of the key pad....

This is a course that should be systematically pursued...

However, I am in agreement with Ian that treaties are useful and needed, 
and that countries to give in to get something else in return, and all 
of it could result in greater global public good.

To respond to Norbert's specific doubt, about what has US to benefit 
from conceding on its global surveillance activities, I think they have 
a great lot to achieve. Like in no other business before, US has a 
preponderant dominance in global Internet business. It has a lot to gain 
if international agreements help develop some level of global norms, 
frameworks and rules of at least /some level/ /of/ cross-national 
harmony if not homogeneity on how the global Internet basically works, 
and what can be expected by and granted to all global  players. No other 
country has more to gain through such 'global agreements' as the US's 
economic interests have.

Earlier, the US thought that they will bring about such 'uniformity' 
through steam-rolling what it framed as a global Internet freedom 
agenda, which was always clearly a trade and political agenda, and was 
always dubious... The limitations of that strategy is increasingly 
clear. They would soon realise that they have to get into global 
agreements if they have to keep ruling the global Internet. That is what 
the US has to gain.

In a write up last year or so, I made a distinction between regime 
development phase and regime enforcement phase. Regime development phase 
is when the basic rules of the game are being developed. This is the 
phase currently with global Internet governance, In this phase, US wants 
others, especially developing countries to be kept away, and seeks to 
avoid discussions about global agreements. (MUltistakeholderism is  a 
very useful device for this purpose.) In areas like trade and 
intellectual property, as Norbert rightly points out, the regime is 
already formed. US and its allies have defined the rules of the game. 
They now want these rules to be globally enforced, of course to US's 
advantage. That is the game. This is what I call as the second stage, 
the regime enforcement stage.

In global Internet governance, at some time, after the regime is well 
developed as per the dominant countries' interest, we will see the 
regime enforcement stage. UIS and others will suddenly say, well we must 
get serious now, twe really need some global rules and the such....

The question is, should civil society play the game of the dominant 
forces, or, as they say in economics, try counter-cyclical measures...


parminder


On Sunday 01 September 2013 07:31 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
>> not sure I am as pessimistic about this as both of you. There are
>> plenty of examples in history where international agreements have
>> regulated matters where countries have agreed, for the greater good,
>> to regulate or stop previous actions. The Geneva Convention is one
>> example, outlawing of poison gases after WW1 (worked for a while) is
>> another.
>>
>> I am sure also that regularly in trade treaties countries give up
>> certain actions in return for other advantages.
>>
>> In the case of the Internet, it may well be that an open available
>> trusted global network - which can only be achieved if espionage is
>> contained - is the greater good that leads to a decent regulatory
>> regime.
> I see two major problems with this optimistic scenario:
>
> On one hand the world trade system is already largely designed around
> the vision of the US and like-minded countries on how the world trade
> system should work, and the US is already a very central node in this
> world trade system. The US already has pretty much all of the advantages
> that a country could possibly have. I don't see what “other advantages”
> the US could possibly be offered in exchange for the US agreeing to
> give up the NSA's foreign surveillance activities which are obviously
> very important from the perspective of the US government.
>
> On the other hand, a lot of whatever trust that people used to have for
> the US as a “democratic country” that claims to be strongly committed to
> human rights has been permanently destroyed. This loss of credibility
> affects not only US government representatives and by extension
> government representatives from other Western countries. After all the
> crap with for example Microsoft claiming “Your Privacy Is Our Priority”
> while at the same time secretly cooperating with the NSA's efforts to
> undermine our privacy, every reasonable and well-informed person will
> similarly distrust technology vendors.
>
> Add to this that the US concerns about terrorist threats etc are not
> just a matter of mere paranoia. It would not be reasonable for the US to
> agree a simple and straightforward principle like never again wanting
> to know the contents of conversations of people outside the US. The US
> will have to insist that in situations of legitimate suspicion of plans
> for terrorist activities, surveillance activities will have to be
> conducted. Regardless of how the rules for handling that kind of
> exceptional situations would be designed precisely, if those rules meet
> both the requirements of international human rights law and the
> requirement of providing effective means of surveillance for suspected
> terrorists, those rules are not going to be totally simple and
> straightforward. Consequently, although certainly necessary, such rules
> are not going to help much in regard to rebuilding the trust that has
> been destroyed.
>
> I conclude that without trustworthy efforts to create effective
> technical protections of communications privacy, a “trusted global
> network” cannot be achieved in the post-Snowden world.
>
> Nota bene, I'm not advocating for trying to make surveillance totally
> impossible.
>
> What we IMO need in the post-Snowden world is
>
> 1) trustworthy end-to-end encryption of all non-public Internet
> communication content,
>
> 2) trustworthy protection of the software on the computers and other
> communication devices against remote compromise,
>
> 3) redesigned communication protocols which ensure that at no point in
> the communication channel between the endpoints, information about both
> communication endpoints is visible in unencrypted form, and
>
> 4) trustworthy anti-surveillance monitoring which would likely detect
> the problem in the case of a system compromise that results in
> significant quantities of communication channel endpoint information
> leaking out.
>
> When all of that has been achieved, surveillance of the communications
> content and communications metadata of specific persons will still be
> possible, but it'll be expensive enough that cost economics will force
> it to be limited to specific persons where there is significant reason
> to consider them a major threat.
>
> It is the human rights violating automated mass surveillance which must
> be brought to an end.
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130901/8ef77b58/attachment.htm>

From ebarabas at cdt.org  Tue Sep 24 12:50:28 2013
From: ebarabas at cdt.org (Emily Barabas)
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 09:50:28 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] Seoul Conference on Cyberspace 2013
In-Reply-To: <CAOGFQRyV90+o6HYXSip2V4KaA5D69emGqsUeo5m40=ga=a821w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOGFQRyV90+o6HYXSip2V4KaA5D69emGqsUeo5m40=ga=a821w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E19F7681-966D-4171-84ED-522EBDBBC979@cdt.org>

Dear all,

My colleague from CDT, Greg Nojeim, spoke on panels at the last two events. I will be participating in one of the panels in Seoul. 

Best,
Emily

Emily Barabas
Center for Democracy & Technology
(415) 882-1714


On Sep 24, 2013, at 2:45 AM, Byoung-il Oh <antiropy at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Anja Kovacs, 
> 
> I checked it to the secretariat. As Anja said, at least 3 people from civil society would be invited, Anja Kovacs, someone from CDT and ISOC. 
> 
> The speaker list of the homepage has not been updated yet. They will update it as soon as they got the personal information from speakers. 
> 
> I'm sorry for causing misunderstanding about CS panels. 
> 
> Best, 
> 
> Oh byoungil 
> 
> 2013/9/24 Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in>
> Dear all,
> 
> I'm unfortunately not able to respond at length right now, but thought I should at least mention that I've been invited as a speaker (and accepted), and I know at least three other people from CS will be attending as well. I don't have any info on other CS speakers.
> 
> Best,
> Anja
> 
> On Sep 24, 2013 12:16 PM, "Shahzad Ahmad" <shahzad at bytesforall.pk> wrote:
> Dear Parminder,
> 
> At least Budapest conference was not that closed. I know there was an effort to bring range of stakeholders (including CSOs) to that event and in some instances even funded by the Hungarian Government. Though, we could not attend being committed elsewhere but we had at least two sessions with the embassy to inform them of local issues. Some of the diplomats also went to Budapest to attend.  
> 
> We believe that undermining CSOs strengths and efforts (even among ourselves) wont't help the cause at all. We believe IGF is important so are many other spread out forums. Not necessarily all of us would have the capacity and time to engage with each one of them but we appreciate the efforts by all the colleagues especially CSOs and academia to keep the struggle up. 
> 
> So can we all please pay some urgent attention to the appeal by Byoungil? Byoungil, please count us in for any response based on your observations that you plan to put forward on the openness, access and objectives of this conference. It is all the more important to engage with this given its importance.
> 
> Best wishes and regards
> 
> Shahzad
> 
> 
> 
> From: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> Date: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 9:51 AM
> To: "&lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt," <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Seoul Conference on Cyberspace 2013
> 
> Hi Byoungil
> 
> I may be wrong but I have a somewhat different perspective on this Conference on Cyberspace...
> 
> This Seoul conference is one of a series that started with London Cyber conference and then went to Budapest, now coming to Seoul....
> 
> One, it is not inclusive (multistakeholder etc) not at all because of any China/ Russia factor, but because that is how it always has been. That is how it was designed, and I can assure you that China and Russia were not among the chief designers.  
> 
> Secondly, it is not an unimportant conference or site of global IG; it is a very important one.
> 
> This is how it is.... OECD, UN Security Council and such spaces are where big boys play and decide things; IGF et all are for the show, a largely managed show for kids, for all those who would otherwise make noises - yes, you got it, a large pat of it, civil society.....
> 
> Now, having developed the basic frameworks/ principles. this series of cyber conferences is where part co-optation is sought from the outside - from some more powerful countries outside the 'inner club' , may be one or two very power non-gov actor too.... But still a strictly controlled space (as you found out) , of selective co-optation. In these spaces, the wannabes, euphemistically called emerging economies, are allowed a peek in, only if they behave they could be included into bilateral and pluri-lateral arrangements. Here, the policy frameworks and principles developed in deep secret closed spaces are sought to be aired a bit, with an attempt to expand their legitimacy. (You will find out as you see the conference outcome documents.) 
> 
> Of course, there is no business here of the pesky civil society kinds . They are too powerless, and perhaps naive, to even be offered an co-optation.... They have their agreed play space at the IGF where, in less than 2 weeks after this key global IG meeting, multistakeholderism will again be celebrated by the same parties holding this conference as strictly for 'adults only'. 
> 
> Do excuse my ironic tone, but I have been earlier trying to say in plain words that we should focus on real sites of global IG, at least as much as we do on our few favourite ones. Incidentally, these latter sites seem to be also the ones that the most dominant global IG powers would want civil society to be stay bogged down with.
> 
> parminder 
> 
> 
> On Monday 23 September 2013 09:00 PM, Byoung-il Oh wrote:
>> Hi, 
>> 
>> As you may know, Seoul Conference on Cyberspace 2013 will be held in Seoul on Oct. 17-18. 
>> http://www.seoulcyber2013.kr/en/main/main.do
>> 
>> Last May, I had met the chief officer of Preparatory Secretariat of the conference to inquire to him the progress of the conference. At that time, the detailed agenda and panelists had not been fixed yet. In the meeting, I inquired what would the output of the conference and how civil society could participate in the process. The answer was that they expected to produce chair's summary plus as the output, but needed more discussion on what could be the 'plus'. 
>> As a preparatory process, they told several pre-workshop would be held. http://www.seoulcyber2013.kr/en/event/workshop.html
>> 
>> However, they didn't give definite answer to the question of how the result of pre-workshop would be linked to the output of the conference, how civil society could participate in the process and give opinions to draft the output. 
>> 
>> After the meeting, I felt that this conference would not be for making concrete policy through substantial discussions of multi-stakeholders, but just cosmetic diplomatic events. Actually, the Preparatory Secretariat is operated under the Ministry of Foreign Affiars, not Telecommunication authority. 
>> 
>> In the meeting, the chief officer told that he himself thought much of the value of open and multi-stakeholder process, but they had to consider the position of the countries (China, Russia etc) which don't like multistakeholderism. 
>> 
>> After that, we, the coaliton of civil society in Korea, invited a staff of Preparatory Secretariat as a panel in our public forum last June, but we couldn't hear nothing new from him. 
>> 
>> Recently, I checked its homepage and found with surprise that anyone from civil society could not invited as a panel. http://www.seoulcyber2013.kr/en/program/speakers_1.html
>> Moreover, I found that they even restricted the participation of the public. It was a closed conference! When I tried to register in the conference, I had to request PIN first in the http://register.seoulcyber2013.kr/, but I couldn't receive a PIN. So I called to the secretariat and ask why. They said that PIN would be given to the invited person. In the case of who were not invited, preparatory secretariat will examine the person who requested to particiapte and dicide whether to allow participation or not. I have no idea this was the conventional practice in the former cyberspace conference. 
>> 
>> And, I wonder how do you think about cyberspace conference, the importance of the conference in the context of global internet governance. 
>> 
>> Best Regards,
>> Oh Byoungil 
>> 
>> -- 
>>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130924/5450faa6/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Tue Sep 24 14:37:50 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 11:37:50 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] Seoul Conference on Cyberspace 2013n
Message-ID: <02f301ceb955$32f0e590$98d2b0b0$@gmail.com>

Interesting that they/you have included ISOC as "civil society". Could you
explain why?

 

M

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Byoung-il Oh
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 2:46 AM
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Seoul Conference on Cyberspace 2013

 

Thanks Anja Kovacs, 

 

I checked it to the secretariat. As Anja said, at least 3 people from civil
society would be invited, Anja Kovacs, someone from CDT and ISOC. 

 

The speaker list of the homepage has not been updated yet. They will update
it as soon as they got the personal information from speakers. 

 

I'm sorry for causing misunderstanding about CS panels. 

 

Best, 

 

Oh byoungil 

2013/9/24 Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in>

Dear all,

I'm unfortunately not able to respond at length right now, but thought I
should at least mention that I've been invited as a speaker (and accepted),
and I know at least three other people from CS will be attending as well. I
don't have any info on other CS speakers.

Best,
Anja

On Sep 24, 2013 12:16 PM, "Shahzad Ahmad" <shahzad at bytesforall.pk> wrote:

Dear Parminder,

 

At least Budapest conference was not that closed. I know there was an effort
to bring range of stakeholders (including CSOs) to that event and in some
instances even funded by the Hungarian Government. Though, we could not
attend being committed elsewhere but we had at least two sessions with the
embassy to inform them of local issues. Some of the diplomats also went to
Budapest to attend.  

 

We believe that undermining CSOs strengths and efforts (even among
ourselves) wont't help the cause at all. We believe IGF is important so are
many other spread out forums. Not necessarily all of us would have the
capacity and time to engage with each one of them but we appreciate the
efforts by all the colleagues especially CSOs and academia to keep the
struggle up. 

 

So can we all please pay some urgent attention to the appeal by Byoungil?
Byoungil, please count us in for any response based on your observations
that you plan to put forward on the openness, access and objectives of this
conference. It is all the more important to engage with this given its
importance.

 

Best wishes and regards

 

Shahzad

 

 

 

From: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
Date: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 9:51 AM
To: "&lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt>
&gt," <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Seoul Conference on Cyberspace 2013

 

Hi Byoungil

I may be wrong but I have a somewhat different perspective on this
Conference on Cyberspace...

This Seoul conference is one of a series that started with London Cyber
conference and then went to Budapest, now coming to Seoul....

One, it is not inclusive (multistakeholder etc) not at all because of any
China/ Russia factor, but because that is how it always has been. That is
how it was designed, and I can assure you that China and Russia were not
among the chief designers.  

Secondly, it is not an unimportant conference or site of global IG; it is a
very important one.

This is how it is.... OECD, UN Security Council and such spaces are where
big boys play and decide things; IGF et all are for the show, a largely
managed show for kids, for all those who would otherwise make noises - yes,
you got it, a large pat of it, civil society.....

Now, having developed the basic frameworks/ principles. this series of cyber
conferences is where part co-optation is sought from the outside - from some
more powerful countries outside the 'inner club' , may be one or two very
power non-gov actor too.... But still a strictly controlled space (as you
found out) , of selective co-optation. In these spaces, the wannabes,
euphemistically called emerging economies, are allowed a peek in, only if
they behave they could be included into bilateral and pluri-lateral
arrangements. Here, the policy frameworks and principles developed in deep
secret closed spaces are sought to be aired a bit, with an attempt to expand
their legitimacy. (You will find out as you see the conference outcome
documents.) 

Of course, there is no business here of the pesky civil society kinds . They
are too powerless, and perhaps naive, to even be offered an co-optation....
They have their agreed play space at the IGF where, in less than 2 weeks
after this key global IG meeting, multistakeholderism will again be
celebrated by the same parties holding this conference as strictly for
'adults only'. 

Do excuse my ironic tone, but I have been earlier trying to say in plain
words that we should focus on real sites of global IG, at least as much as
we do on our few favourite ones. Incidentally, these latter sites seem to be
also the ones that the most dominant global IG powers would want civil
society to be stay bogged down with.

parminder 



On Monday 23 September 2013 09:00 PM, Byoung-il Oh wrote:

Hi, 

 

As you may know, Seoul Conference on Cyberspace 2013 will be held in Seoul
on Oct. 17-18. 

http://www.seoulcyber2013.kr/en/main/main.do

 

Last May, I had met the chief officer of Preparatory Secretariat of the
conference to inquire to him the progress of the conference. At that time,
the detailed agenda and panelists had not been fixed yet. In the meeting, I
inquired what would the output of the conference and how civil society could
participate in the process. The answer was that they expected to produce
chair's summary plus as the output, but needed more discussion on what could
be the 'plus'. 

As a preparatory process, they told several pre-workshop would be held.
http://www.seoulcyber2013.kr/en/event/workshop.html

 

However, they didn't give definite answer to the question of how the result
of pre-workshop would be linked to the output of the conference, how civil
society could participate in the process and give opinions to draft the
output. 

 

After the meeting, I felt that this conference would not be for making
concrete policy through substantial discussions of multi-stakeholders, but
just cosmetic diplomatic events. Actually, the Preparatory Secretariat is
operated under the Ministry of Foreign Affiars, not Telecommunication
authority. 

 

In the meeting, the chief officer told that he himself thought much of the
value of open and multi-stakeholder process, but they had to consider the
position of the countries (China, Russia etc) which don't like
multistakeholderism. 

 

After that, we, the coaliton of civil society in Korea, invited a staff of
Preparatory Secretariat as a panel in our public forum last June, but we
couldn't hear nothing new from him. 

 

Recently, I checked its homepage and found with surprise that anyone from
civil society could not invited as a panel.
http://www.seoulcyber2013.kr/en/program/speakers_1.html

Moreover, I found that they even restricted the participation of the public.
It was a closed conference! When I tried to register in the conference, I
had to request PIN first in the http://register.seoulcyber2013.kr/, but I
couldn't receive a PIN. So I called to the secretariat and ask why. They
said that PIN would be given to the invited person. In the case of who were
not invited, preparatory secretariat will examine the person who requested
to particiapte and dicide whether to allow participation or not. I have no
idea this was the conventional practice in the former cyberspace conference.


 

And, I wonder how do you think about cyberspace conference, the importance
of the conference in the context of global internet governance. 

 

Best Regards,

Oh Byoungil 

 

-- 
 <http://www.jinbo.net/support/> 

 <http://www.jinbo.net/support/>  

 <http://www.jinbo.net/support/> 



 <http://www.jinbo.net/support/>  

 <http://www.jinbo.net/support/> -- 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130924/9cd41fb0/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Tue Sep 24 18:35:06 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 15:35:06 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] New Blogpost: "Internet Freedom" and Post-Snowden Global
 Internet Governance
Message-ID: <044801ceb976$5218a770$f649f650$@gmail.com>

http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/internet-freedom-and-post-snowden-g
lobal-internet-governance/

http://tinyurl.com/n3onw87



From antiropy at gmail.com  Tue Sep 24 20:04:42 2013
From: antiropy at gmail.com (Byoung-il Oh)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 09:04:42 +0900
Subject: [bestbits] Seoul Conference on Cyberspace 2013n
In-Reply-To: <02f301ceb955$32f0e590$98d2b0b0$@gmail.com>
References: <02f301ceb955$32f0e590$98d2b0b0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOGFQRzThz8i5NP57wEX=UMkDo_1Ngj2+EFUcY_sxZjKcdCyCg@mail.gmail.com>

I have no idea why....maybe in that it's not government and private sector?


2013/9/25 michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>

> Interesting that they/you have included ISOC as "civil society"… Could you
> explain why?****
>
> ** **
>
> M****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:
> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Byoung-il Oh
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 24, 2013 2:46 AM
> *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Seoul Conference on Cyberspace 2013****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks Anja Kovacs, ****
>
> ** **
>
> I checked it to the secretariat. As Anja said, at least 3 people from
> civil society would be invited, Anja Kovacs, someone from CDT and ISOC. **
> **
>
> ** **
>
> The speaker list of the homepage has not been updated yet. They will
> update it as soon as they got the personal information from speakers. ****
>
> ** **
>
> I'm sorry for causing misunderstanding about CS panels. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Best, ****
>
> ** **
>
> Oh byoungil ****
>
> 2013/9/24 Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in>****
>
> Dear all,****
>
> I'm unfortunately not able to respond at length right now, but thought I
> should at least mention that I've been invited as a speaker (and accepted),
> and I know at least three other people from CS will be attending as well. I
> don't have any info on other CS speakers.****
>
> Best,
> Anja****
>
> On Sep 24, 2013 12:16 PM, "Shahzad Ahmad" <shahzad at bytesforall.pk> wrote:*
> ***
>
> Dear Parminder,****
>
> ** **
>
> At least Budapest conference was not that closed. I know there was an
> effort to bring range of stakeholders (including CSOs) to that event and in
> some instances even funded by the Hungarian Government. Though, we could
> not attend being committed elsewhere but we had at least two sessions with
> the embassy to inform them of local issues. Some of the diplomats also went
> to Budapest to attend.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> We believe that undermining CSOs strengths and efforts (even among
> ourselves) wont't help the cause at all. We believe IGF is important so are
> many other spread out forums. Not necessarily all of us would have the
> capacity and time to engage with each one of them but we appreciate the
> efforts by all the colleagues especially CSOs and academia to keep the
> struggle up. ****
>
> ** **
>
> So can we all please pay some urgent attention to the appeal by
> Byoungil? Byoungil, please count us in for any response based on your
> observations that you plan to put forward on the openness, access and
> objectives of this conference. It is all the more important to engage with
> this given its importance.****
>
> ** **
>
> Best wishes and regards****
>
> ** **
>
> Shahzad****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From: *parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> *Date: *Tuesday, September 24, 2013 9:51 AM
> *To: *"&lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt," <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> *Subject: *Re: [bestbits] Seoul Conference on Cyberspace 2013****
>
> ** **
>
> Hi Byoungil
>
> I may be wrong but I have a somewhat different perspective on this
> Conference on Cyberspace...
>
> This Seoul conference is one of a series that started with London Cyber
> conference and then went to Budapest, now coming to Seoul....
>
> One, it is not inclusive (multistakeholder etc) not at all because of any
> China/ Russia factor, but because that is how it always has been. That is
> how it was designed, and I can assure you that China and Russia were not
> among the chief designers.
>
> Secondly, it is not an unimportant conference or site of global IG; it is
> a very important one.
>
> This is how it is.... OECD, UN Security Council and such spaces are where
> big boys play and decide things; IGF et all are for the show, a largely
> managed show for kids, for all those who would otherwise make noises - yes,
> you got it, a large pat of it, civil society.....
>
> Now, having developed the basic frameworks/ principles. this series of
> cyber conferences is where part co-optation is sought from the outside -
> from some more powerful countries outside the 'inner club' , may be one or
> two very power non-gov actor too.... But still a strictly controlled space
> (as you found out) , of selective co-optation. In these spaces, the
> wannabes, euphemistically called emerging economies, are allowed a peek in,
> only if they behave they could be included into bilateral and pluri-lateral
> arrangements. Here, the policy frameworks and principles developed in deep
> secret closed spaces are sought to be aired a bit, with an attempt to
> expand their legitimacy. (You will find out as you see the conference
> outcome documents.)
>
> Of course, there is no business here of the pesky civil society kinds .
> They are too powerless, and perhaps naive, to even be offered an
> co-optation.... They have their agreed play space at the IGF where, in less
> than 2 weeks after this key global IG meeting, multistakeholderism will
> again be celebrated by the same parties holding this conference as strictly
> for 'adults only'.
>
> Do excuse my ironic tone, but I have been earlier trying to say in plain
> words that we should focus on real sites of global IG, at least as much as
> we do on our few favourite ones. Incidentally, these latter sites seem to
> be also the ones that the most dominant global IG powers would want civil
> society to be stay bogged down with.
>
> parminder
>
> ****
>
> On Monday 23 September 2013 09:00 PM, Byoung-il Oh wrote:****
>
> Hi, ****
>
> ** **
>
> As you may know, Seoul Conference on Cyberspace 2013 will be held in Seoul
> on Oct. 17-18. ****
>
> http://www.seoulcyber2013.kr/en/main/main.do****
>
> ** **
>
> Last May, I had met the chief officer of Preparatory Secretariat of the
> conference to inquire to him the progress of the conference. At that time,
> the detailed agenda and panelists had not been fixed yet. In the meeting, I
> inquired what would the output of the conference and how civil society
> could participate in the process. The answer was that they expected to
> produce chair's summary plus as the output, but needed more discussion on
> what could be the 'plus'. ****
>
> As a preparatory process, they told several pre-workshop would be held.
> http://www.seoulcyber2013.kr/en/event/workshop.html****
>
> ** **
>
> However, they didn't give definite answer to the question of how the
> result of pre-workshop would be linked to the output of the conference, how
> civil society could participate in the process and give opinions to draft
> the output. ****
>
> ** **
>
> After the meeting, I felt that this conference would not be for making
> concrete policy through substantial discussions of multi-stakeholders, but
> just cosmetic diplomatic events. Actually, the Preparatory Secretariat is
> operated under the Ministry of Foreign Affiars, not Telecommunication
> authority. ****
>
> ** **
>
> In the meeting, the chief officer told that he himself thought much of the
> value of open and multi-stakeholder process, but they had to consider the
> position of the countries (China, Russia etc) which don't like
> multistakeholderism. ****
>
> ** **
>
> After that, we, the coaliton of civil society in Korea, invited a staff of
> Preparatory Secretariat as a panel in our public forum last June, but we
> couldn't hear nothing new from him. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Recently, I checked its homepage and found with surprise that anyone from
> civil society could not invited as a panel.
> http://www.seoulcyber2013.kr/en/program/speakers_1.html****
>
> Moreover, I found that they even restricted the participation of the
> public. It was a closed conference! When I tried to register in the
> conference, I had to request PIN first in the
> http://register.seoulcyber2013.kr/, but I couldn't receive a PIN. So I
> called to the secretariat and ask why. They said that PIN would be given to
> the invited person. In the case of who were not invited, preparatory
> secretariat will examine the person who requested to particiapte and dicide
> whether to allow participation or not. I have no idea this was the
> conventional practice in the former cyberspace conference. ****
>
> ** **
>
> And, I wonder how do you think about cyberspace conference, the importance
> of the conference in the context of global internet governance. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Best Regards,****
>
> Oh Byoungil ****
>
> ** **
>
> --
> **** <http://www.jinbo.net/support/>
>
> ** ** <http://www.jinbo.net/support/>
>
>
>
> **** <http://www.jinbo.net/support/>
>
> ** ** <http://www.jinbo.net/support/>
>
> --
> **** <http://www.jinbo.net/support/>
>



-- 
<http://www.jinbo.net/support/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130925/633b6e92/attachment.htm>

From nnenna75 at gmail.com  Wed Sep 25 03:31:59 2013
From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 07:31:59 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Remote participation and livestream link to the Africa
 IGF, Nairobi.
Message-ID: <CADFgh12rBuC5wo2tsQ9FsDH0yBux1FOUVxCaf5=oB5ADCiPwwg@mail.gmail.com>

Join us!

http://new.livestream.com/accounts/1106653/events/2426137/images/30807337

Nnenna
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130925/5a0acd3e/attachment.htm>

From nnenna75 at gmail.com  Wed Sep 25 03:47:56 2013
From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 07:47:56 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [FOSSFA Members] Remote participation and livestream
 link to the Africa IGF, Nairobi.
In-Reply-To: <CAD_dc6iRuGdENNMxoU+bc0qdMYZF=tJ_gEJ9UYGAXcxsuxRyjg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12rBuC5wo2tsQ9FsDH0yBux1FOUVxCaf5=oB5ADCiPwwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD_dc6iRuGdENNMxoU+bc0qdMYZF=tJ_gEJ9UYGAXcxsuxRyjg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADFgh13kG0bVAy7Di=HY2HZqof4j9i5h7SVv=+BD_ybq=U-rpw@mail.gmail.com>

The alternative link is ccc.com.ng/AfIGF  <http://t.co/BcGHcN4ID5>

Nnenna


On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hmm....don't like the fact that i have to create an account before i can
> view the stream. The organisers may want to consider removing that option.
>
> Cheers!
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Join us!
>>
>> http://new.livestream.com/accounts/1106653/events/2426137/images/30807337
>>
>> Nnenna
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> FOSSFA Members mailing list
>> Members at mail.fossfa.net
>> Manage your subscription
>> http://mail.fossfa.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/members
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *Seun Ojedeji,
> Federal University Oye-Ekiti
> web:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
> Mobile: +2348035233535
> **alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng*
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> FOSSFA Members mailing list
> Members at mail.fossfa.net
> Manage your subscription
> http://mail.fossfa.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/members
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130925/734021f0/attachment.htm>

From anriette at apc.org  Wed Sep 25 10:11:10 2013
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 16:11:10 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Letter to Pres. Rousseff, was, Re: [governance] Dilma
 Rousseff's speech at UN
In-Reply-To: <CA+4KnA8ZtuGySHkf6s+Zsiwo=qs61T2TgUWo=h9qauwvJj8Qaw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK-FJAf8PwDCDDj=rWTvyKcXuryceMHwzqUT=X+fd=vqSHC0iw@mail.gmail.com>	<CA+MV=uGv=DLLSEr0rHe3N4jdwNUvs0t+uTGtaaz-pKiX6x1Tvw@mail.gmail.com>	<5242D6EB.4060609@cafonso.ca>	<CALTAiTpbeo=CZKXZzVKGOjk7ubjoQjPF16auCgQ6K4vgZ=wOUg@mail.gmail.com> <CA+4KnA8ZtuGySHkf6s+Zsiwo=qs61T2TgUWo=h9qauwvJj8Qaw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5242EEFE.5030806@apc.org>

Dear all

I would like to propose that we do a letter from civil society
commending her on her speech. We could mention our support and wishes
for the Marco Civil, and, if we want, the multi-lateral vs.
multi-stakeholder question.

Anriette

On 25/09/2013 15:41, Gene Kimmelman wrote:
> Having been in these situations in the U.S., I fully understand the
> need to accept and fully embrace progress; I do not want to interfere
> in what our Brazilian friends are fully capable of handling, other
> than to say I fully support the sentiment expressed by Joana and Carlos!
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com
> <mailto:joana at varonferraz.com>> wrote:
>
>     Dear all,
>
>     I totally support Carlos Afonso's view.
>
>     One step at the time.
>
>     What matters now is that Dilma has clearly mentioned the CGI.br
>     principles, including the support for net neutrality. It means a
>     LOT for our national scenario and for years of fight to try to
>     pass Marco Civil. Meaning it wont be easy for telcos to take down
>     net neutrality provisions from the draft bill.
>
>     Even better, this all has happened right after she opened a
>     channel of communication/consulation with CGI.br. That's THE
>     dynamics for internet public policies we dreamed about in Brazil.
>     The issue on using the word "multilateral" shall NOT be used to
>     loose the focus on this major achievement.
>
>     It is indeed an issue of concern. But it's not actually something
>     new. It has been highlighted in several opportunities in the
>     Brazilian positions at ITU, held by Anatel, our regulatory
>     agency.  For instance, in our previous opinion on the role of
>     States. Nevertheless, positions from our Ministry of Foreign
>     Affairs towards multistakeholderism are very clear and positive.
>     And now CGI.br has the door open with the president to correct
>     explain all the important debate of multistakeholder approach on
>     IG. So we have opportunities to correct this schizophrenic aspect
>     and there is hope.
>
>     So, please, people, let's be positive and understand that having
>     the President referring to these principles - an to Internet
>     Policies - in the UNGA is not a minor thing. I had the lucky to be
>     in a panel at the Council of Europe a few minutes after she
>     delivered the speech and managed to incorporate some of her quotes
>     in my presentation. The public got really impressed.
>
>     all the best
>
>     joana
>
>
>     -- 
>     -- 
>
>     Joana Varon Ferraz
>     @joana_varon
>     PGP 0x016B8E73
>
>
>
>     On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca
>     <mailto:ca at cafonso.ca>> wrote:
>
>         Dear people,
>
>         I am not sure we will go too far (although philosophers can
>         really be
>         far-fetched in this exercise) in doing an exegesis of her
>         discourse. Let
>         us see how the practice goes. The signs are good: she entered
>         the room
>         to talk to us CGI.br folk with our 10 Principles in hand and
>         the first
>         thing she told us was she agreed with them.
>
>         She also mentioned the Marco Civil as proposed by the
>         rapporteur (result
>         of a 4-year public dialogue) is the one she agrees with (which
>         is the
>         one CGI.br formally supported), and was going to fight for it,
>         although
>         recognizing that as bill of law transiting through Congress it
>         might
>         suffer modifications which she might veto but Congress could
>         reverse and
>         so on -- in summary, normal practice in a democratic State.
>         The big
>         challenge now is the process in Congress, where the
>         transnational telcos
>         and big media have enormous power.
>
>         frt rgds
>
>         --c.a.
>
>         On 09/24/2013 09:58 PM, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote:
>         > the Steering Committee principle reads as "Internet
>         governance must be
>         > exercised in a transparent, multilateral and democratic
>         manner, with the
>         > participation of the various sectors of society, thereby
>         preserving and
>         > encouraging its character as a collective creation."
>         >
>         > Her wording for the UNGA says: "Open, multilateral and
>         democratic
>         > governance, carried out with transparency by stimulating
>         collective
>         > creativity and the participation of society, Governments and
>         the private
>         > sector."
>         >
>         > My reading of that is that: (1) it does not repeat the idea
>         that Internet
>         > governance as a collective creation and (2) the first one
>         defines Internet
>         > governance as something "with the participation of the
>         various sectors of
>         > society", and the second only mentions it should be carried
>         out with
>         > stimuli for "the participation of society, governments and
>         the private
>         > sector."
>         >
>         > Can you see my point?
>         > Em português o trem funciona do mesmo jeito.
>         >
>         >
>         > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Carolina Rossini <
>         > carolina.rossini at gmail.com
>         <mailto:carolina.rossini at gmail.com>> wrote:
>         >
>         >>
>         >> Via Renata Avila, segue discurso da Dilma na UN.
>         >> Coming from Renata Avila, see attached Dilma draft speech
>         at UN.
>         >> C
>         >>
>         >> --
>         >> *Carolina Rossini*
>         >> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
>         >> Open Technology Institute
>         >> *New America Foundation*
>         >> //
>         >> http://carolinarossini.net/
>         >> + 1 6176979389 <tel:%2B%201%206176979389>
>         >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com
>         <mailto:carolina.rossini at gmail.com>*
>         >> skype: carolrossini
>         >> @carolinarossini
>         >>
>         >>
>         >> ____________________________________________________________
>         >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>         >>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>         <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>         >> To be removed from the list, visit:
>         >>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>         >>
>         >> For all other list information and functions, see:
>         >>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>         >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>         >>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>         >>
>         >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>         >>
>         >>
>         >
>         >
>
>
>         ____________________________________________________________
>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>              governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>         <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>         To be removed from the list, visit:
>              http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>         For all other list information and functions, see:
>              http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>         To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>              http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>         Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>          governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>     <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>     To be removed from the list, visit:
>          http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>     For all other list information and functions, see:
>          http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>     To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>          http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130925/324e7245/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Sep 25 10:19:01 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 19:49:01 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Letter to Pres. Rousseff, was, Re: [governance]
 Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
In-Reply-To: <5242EEFE.5030806@apc.org>
References: <CAK-FJAf8PwDCDDj=rWTvyKcXuryceMHwzqUT=X+fd=vqSHC0iw@mail.gmail.com>	<CA+MV=uGv=DLLSEr0rHe3N4jdwNUvs0t+uTGtaaz-pKiX6x1Tvw@mail.gmail.com>	<5242D6EB.4060609@cafonso.ca>	<CALTAiTpbeo=CZKXZzVKGOjk7ubjoQjPF16auCgQ6K4vgZ=wOUg@mail.gmail.com> <CA+4KnA8ZtuGySHkf6s+Zsiwo=qs61T2TgUWo=h9qauwvJj8Qaw@mail.gmail.com> <5242EEFE.5030806@apc.org>
Message-ID: <5242F0D5.2000405@itforchange.net>

I very much support this proposal... Was about to suggest this myself on 
the IGC list.

we should do it..... parminder

On Wednesday 25 September 2013 07:41 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> Dear all
>
> I would like to propose that we do a letter from civil society 
> commending her on her speech. We could mention our support and wishes 
> for the Marco Civil, and, if we want, the multi-lateral vs. 
> multi-stakeholder question.
>
> Anriette
>
> On 25/09/2013 15:41, Gene Kimmelman wrote:
>> Having been in these situations in the U.S., I fully understand the 
>> need to accept and fully embrace progress; I do not want to interfere 
>> in what our Brazilian friends are fully capable of handling, other 
>> than to say I fully support the sentiment expressed by Joana and Carlos!
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com 
>> <mailto:joana at varonferraz.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Dear all,
>>
>>     I totally support Carlos Afonso's view.
>>
>>     One step at the time.
>>
>>     What matters now is that Dilma has clearly mentioned the CGI.br
>>     principles, including the support for net neutrality. It means a
>>     LOT for our national scenario and for years of fight to try to
>>     pass Marco Civil. Meaning it wont be easy for telcos to take down
>>     net neutrality provisions from the draft bill.
>>
>>     Even better, this all has happened right after she opened a
>>     channel of communication/consulation with CGI.br. That's THE
>>     dynamics for internet public policies we dreamed about in Brazil.
>>     The issue on using the word "multilateral" shall NOT be used to
>>     loose the focus on this major achievement.
>>
>>     It is indeed an issue of concern. But it's not actually something
>>     new. It has been highlighted in several opportunities in the
>>     Brazilian positions at ITU, held by Anatel, our regulatory
>>     agency.  For instance, in our previous opinion on the role of
>>     States. Nevertheless, positions from our Ministry of Foreign
>>     Affairs towards multistakeholderism are very clear and positive.
>>     And now CGI.br has the door open with the president to correct
>>     explain all the important debate of multistakeholder approach on
>>     IG. So we have opportunities to correct this schizophrenic aspect
>>     and there is hope.
>>
>>     So, please, people, let's be positive and understand that having
>>     the President referring to these principles - an to Internet
>>     Policies - in the UNGA is not a minor thing. I had the lucky to
>>     be in a panel at the Council of Europe a few minutes after she
>>     delivered the speech and managed to incorporate some of her
>>     quotes in my presentation. The public got really impressed.
>>
>>     all the best
>>
>>     joana
>>
>>
>>     -- 
>>     -- 
>>
>>     Joana Varon Ferraz
>>     @joana_varon
>>     PGP 0x016B8E73
>>
>>
>>
>>     On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca
>>     <mailto:ca at cafonso.ca>> wrote:
>>
>>         Dear people,
>>
>>         I am not sure we will go too far (although philosophers can
>>         really be
>>         far-fetched in this exercise) in doing an exegesis of her
>>         discourse. Let
>>         us see how the practice goes. The signs are good: she entered
>>         the room
>>         to talk to us CGI.br folk with our 10 Principles in hand and
>>         the first
>>         thing she told us was she agreed with them.
>>
>>         She also mentioned the Marco Civil as proposed by the
>>         rapporteur (result
>>         of a 4-year public dialogue) is the one she agrees with
>>         (which is the
>>         one CGI.br formally supported), and was going to fight for
>>         it, although
>>         recognizing that as bill of law transiting through Congress
>>         it might
>>         suffer modifications which she might veto but Congress could
>>         reverse and
>>         so on -- in summary, normal practice in a democratic State.
>>         The big
>>         challenge now is the process in Congress, where the
>>         transnational telcos
>>         and big media have enormous power.
>>
>>         frt rgds
>>
>>         --c.a.
>>
>>         On 09/24/2013 09:58 PM, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote:
>>         > the Steering Committee principle reads as "Internet
>>         governance must be
>>         > exercised in a transparent, multilateral and democratic
>>         manner, with the
>>         > participation of the various sectors of society, thereby
>>         preserving and
>>         > encouraging its character as a collective creation."
>>         >
>>         > Her wording for the UNGA says: "Open, multilateral and
>>         democratic
>>         > governance, carried out with transparency by stimulating
>>         collective
>>         > creativity and the participation of society, Governments
>>         and the private
>>         > sector."
>>         >
>>         > My reading of that is that: (1) it does not repeat the idea
>>         that Internet
>>         > governance as a collective creation and (2) the first one
>>         defines Internet
>>         > governance as something "with the participation of the
>>         various sectors of
>>         > society", and the second only mentions it should be carried
>>         out with
>>         > stimuli for "the participation of society, governments and
>>         the private
>>         > sector."
>>         >
>>         > Can you see my point?
>>         > Em português o trem funciona do mesmo jeito.
>>         >
>>         >
>>         > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Carolina Rossini <
>>         > carolina.rossini at gmail.com
>>         <mailto:carolina.rossini at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>         >
>>         >>
>>         >> Via Renata Avila, segue discurso da Dilma na UN.
>>         >> Coming from Renata Avila, see attached Dilma draft speech
>>         at UN.
>>         >> C
>>         >>
>>         >> --
>>         >> *Carolina Rossini*
>>         >> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
>>         >> Open Technology Institute
>>         >> *New America Foundation*
>>         >> //
>>         >> http://carolinarossini.net/
>>         >> + 1 6176979389 <tel:%2B%201%206176979389>
>>         >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com
>>         <mailto:carolina.rossini at gmail.com>*
>>         >> skype: carolrossini
>>         >> @carolinarossini
>>         >>
>>         >>
>>         >> ____________________________________________________________
>>         >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>         >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>         <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>         >> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>         >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>         >>
>>         >> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>         >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>         >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>         >> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>         >>
>>         >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>         >>
>>         >>
>>         >
>>         >
>>
>>
>>         ____________________________________________________________
>>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>         governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>         <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>         To be removed from the list, visit:
>>         http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>>         For all other list information and functions, see:
>>         http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>         To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>         http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>>         Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>     To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>>     For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>     To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysenanriette 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130925/27f9fba4/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed Sep 25 10:46:26 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 07:46:26 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] Letter to Pres. Rousseff, was, Re: [governance]
 Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
In-Reply-To: <5242EEFE.5030806@apc.org>
References: <CAK-FJAf8PwDCDDj=rWTvyKcXuryceMHwzqUT=X+fd=vqSHC0iw@mail.gmail.com>	<CA+MV=uGv=DLLSEr0rHe3N4jdwNUvs0t+uTGtaaz-pKiX6x1Tvw@mail.gmail.com>	<5242D6EB.4060609@cafonso.ca>	<CALTAiTpbeo=CZKXZzVKGOjk7ubjoQjPF16auCgQ6K4vgZ=wOUg@mail.gmail.com> <CA+4KnA8ZtuGySHkf6s+Zsiwo=qs61T2TgUWo=h9qauwvJj8Qaw@mail.gmail.com> <5242EEFE.5030806@apc.org>
Message-ID: <003901ceb9fe$0b2c7de0$218579a0$@gmail.com>

+1

 

M

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 7:11 AM
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: [bestbits] Letter to Pres. Rousseff, was, Re: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN

 

Dear all

I would like to propose that we do a letter from civil society commending her on her speech. We could mention our support and wishes for the Marco Civil, and, if we want, the multi-lateral vs. multi-stakeholder question.

Anriette

On 25/09/2013 15:41, Gene Kimmelman wrote:

Having been in these situations in the U.S., I fully understand the need to accept and fully embrace progress; I do not want to interfere in what our Brazilian friends are fully capable of handling, other than to say I fully support the sentiment expressed by Joana and Carlos!

 

On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:

Dear all, 

I totally support Carlos Afonso's view. 

One step at the time. 

What matters now is that Dilma has clearly mentioned the CGI.br principles, including the support for net neutrality. It means a LOT for our national scenario and for years of fight to try to pass Marco Civil. Meaning it wont be easy for telcos to take down net neutrality provisions from the draft bill.

Even better, this all has happened right after she opened a channel of communication/consulation with CGI.br. That's THE dynamics for internet public policies we dreamed about in Brazil. The issue on using the word "multilateral" shall NOT be used to loose the focus on this major achievement. 

It is indeed an issue of concern. But it's not actually something new. It has been highlighted in several opportunities in the Brazilian positions at ITU, held by Anatel, our regulatory agency.  For instance, in our previous opinion on the role of States. Nevertheless, positions from our Ministry of Foreign Affairs towards multistakeholderism are very clear and positive. And now CGI.br has the door open with the president to correct explain all the important debate of multistakeholder approach on IG. So we have opportunities to correct this schizophrenic aspect and there is hope. 

So, please, people, let's be positive and understand that having the President referring to these principles - an to Internet Policies - in the UNGA is not a minor thing. I had the lucky to be in a panel at the Council of Europe a few minutes after she delivered the speech and managed to incorporate some of her quotes in my presentation. The public got really impressed. 

all the best

joana



-- 
-- 

Joana Varon Ferraz
@joana_varon
PGP 0x016B8E73

 

On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:

Dear people,

I am not sure we will go too far (although philosophers can really be
far-fetched in this exercise) in doing an exegesis of her discourse. Let
us see how the practice goes. The signs are good: she entered the room
to talk to us CGI.br folk with our 10 Principles in hand and the first
thing she told us was she agreed with them.

She also mentioned the Marco Civil as proposed by the rapporteur (result
of a 4-year public dialogue) is the one she agrees with (which is the
one CGI.br formally supported), and was going to fight for it, although
recognizing that as bill of law transiting through Congress it might
suffer modifications which she might veto but Congress could reverse and
so on -- in summary, normal practice in a democratic State. The big
challenge now is the process in Congress, where the transnational telcos
and big media have enormous power.

frt rgds

--c.a.


On 09/24/2013 09:58 PM, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote:
> the Steering Committee principle reads as "Internet governance must be
> exercised in a transparent, multilateral and democratic manner, with the
> participation of the various sectors of society, thereby preserving and
> encouraging its character as a collective creation."
>
> Her wording for the UNGA says: "Open, multilateral and democratic
> governance, carried out with transparency by stimulating collective
> creativity and the participation of society, Governments and the private
> sector."
>
> My reading of that is that: (1) it does not repeat the idea that Internet
> governance as a collective creation and (2) the first one defines Internet
> governance as something "with the participation of the various sectors of
> society", and the second only mentions it should be carried out with
> stimuli for "the participation of society, governments and the private
> sector."
>
> Can you see my point?
> Em português o trem funciona do mesmo jeito.
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Carolina Rossini <
> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Via Renata Avila, segue discurso da Dilma na UN.
>> Coming from Renata Avila, see attached Dilma draft speech at UN.
>> C
>>
>> --

>> *Carolina Rossini*
>> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*

>> Open Technology Institute
>> *New America Foundation*

>> //
>> http://carolinarossini.net/
>> + 1 6176979389 <tel:%2B%201%206176979389> 
>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
>> skype: carolrossini
>> @carolinarossini
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t








____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

 





-- 
------------------------------------------------------
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130925/906d7a46/attachment.htm>

From anne at webfoundation.org  Wed Sep 25 11:03:20 2013
From: anne at webfoundation.org (Anne Jellema)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 17:03:20 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Letter to Pres. Rousseff, was, Re: [governance]
 Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
In-Reply-To: <5242EEFE.5030806@apc.org>
References: <CAK-FJAf8PwDCDDj=rWTvyKcXuryceMHwzqUT=X+fd=vqSHC0iw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+MV=uGv=DLLSEr0rHe3N4jdwNUvs0t+uTGtaaz-pKiX6x1Tvw@mail.gmail.com>
	<5242D6EB.4060609@cafonso.ca>
	<CALTAiTpbeo=CZKXZzVKGOjk7ubjoQjPF16auCgQ6K4vgZ=wOUg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+4KnA8ZtuGySHkf6s+Zsiwo=qs61T2TgUWo=h9qauwvJj8Qaw@mail.gmail.com>
	<5242EEFE.5030806@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CAFwCmbED+WWmHrBLv4KxOUSz5aFWCFtgajbmtv76PwvweYNMKg@mail.gmail.com>

I support Anriette's suggestion and I hope the international letter could
help Brazilian colleagues to secure a meeting with Rousseff's advisors in
the near future to better understand her position and lobby on the best
ways for Brazil to show international leadership in this area.

As I read Joana and Carlos's remarks, I was remembering that on other
global issues (such as trade justice and climate change), Brazil has often
managed to punch well above its weight diplomatically by positioning itself
very strategically as a bridge-builder between "South" and "North" blocs
(to caricature them very crudely).  Reading her speech, and the clever way
it managed to pick up on key demands and buzzwords from both sides of the
internet governance divide, I did wonder whether Brazil is once again
angling to set itself up as the player that can broker pragmatic
compromises between competing ideologies. If so, I think that's probably
good news, especially given that the PT in power has usually been
relatively open to working with civil society.

Cheers
Anne



On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>wrote:

>  Dear all
>
> I would like to propose that we do a letter from civil society commending
> her on her speech. We could mention our support and wishes for the Marco
> Civil, and, if we want, the multi-lateral vs. multi-stakeholder question.
>
> Anriette
>
> On 25/09/2013 15:41, Gene Kimmelman wrote:
>
> Having been in these situations in the U.S., I fully understand the need
> to accept and fully embrace progress; I do not want to interfere in what
> our Brazilian friends are fully capable of handling, other than to say I
> fully support the sentiment expressed by Joana and Carlos!
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com>wrote:
>
>>   Dear all,
>>
>> I totally support Carlos Afonso's view.
>>
>>  One step at the time.
>>
>> What matters now is that Dilma has clearly mentioned the CGI.br
>> principles, including the support for net neutrality. It means a LOT for
>> our national scenario and for years of fight to try to pass Marco Civil.
>> Meaning it wont be easy for telcos to take down net neutrality provisions
>> from the draft bill.
>>
>> Even better, this all has happened right after she opened a channel of
>> communication/consulation with CGI.br. That's THE dynamics for internet
>> public policies we dreamed about in Brazil. The issue on using the word
>> "multilateral" shall NOT be used to loose the focus on this major
>> achievement.
>>
>>  It is indeed an issue of concern. But it's not actually something new.
>> It has been highlighted in several opportunities in the Brazilian positions
>> at ITU, held by Anatel, our regulatory agency.  For instance, in our
>> previous opinion on the role of States. Nevertheless, positions from our
>> Ministry of Foreign Affairs towards multistakeholderism are very clear and
>> positive. And now CGI.br has the door open with the president to correct
>> explain all the important debate of multistakeholder approach on IG. So we
>> have opportunities to correct this schizophrenic aspect and there is hope.
>>
>>  So, please, people, let's be positive and understand that having the
>> President referring to these principles - an to Internet Policies - in the
>> UNGA is not a minor thing. I had the lucky to be in a panel at the Council
>> of Europe a few minutes after she delivered the speech and managed to
>> incorporate some of her quotes in my presentation. The public got really
>> impressed.
>>
>>  all the best
>>
>> joana
>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>>
>> Joana Varon Ferraz
>> @joana_varon
>> PGP 0x016B8E73
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear people,
>>>
>>> I am not sure we will go too far (although philosophers can really be
>>> far-fetched in this exercise) in doing an exegesis of her discourse. Let
>>> us see how the practice goes. The signs are good: she entered the room
>>> to talk to us CGI.br folk with our 10 Principles in hand and the first
>>> thing she told us was she agreed with them.
>>>
>>> She also mentioned the Marco Civil as proposed by the rapporteur (result
>>> of a 4-year public dialogue) is the one she agrees with (which is the
>>> one CGI.br formally supported), and was going to fight for it, although
>>> recognizing that as bill of law transiting through Congress it might
>>> suffer modifications which she might veto but Congress could reverse and
>>> so on -- in summary, normal practice in a democratic State. The big
>>> challenge now is the process in Congress, where the transnational telcos
>>> and big media have enormous power.
>>>
>>> frt rgds
>>>
>>> --c.a.
>>>
>>> On 09/24/2013 09:58 PM, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote:
>>> > the Steering Committee principle reads as "Internet governance must be
>>> > exercised in a transparent, multilateral and democratic manner, with
>>> the
>>> > participation of the various sectors of society, thereby preserving and
>>> > encouraging its character as a collective creation."
>>> >
>>> > Her wording for the UNGA says: "Open, multilateral and democratic
>>> > governance, carried out with transparency by stimulating collective
>>> > creativity and the participation of society, Governments and the
>>> private
>>> > sector."
>>> >
>>> > My reading of that is that: (1) it does not repeat the idea that
>>> Internet
>>> > governance as a collective creation and (2) the first one defines
>>> Internet
>>> > governance as something "with the participation of the various sectors
>>> of
>>> > society", and the second only mentions it should be carried out with
>>> > stimuli for "the participation of society, governments and the private
>>> > sector."
>>> >
>>> > Can you see my point?
>>> > Em português o trem funciona do mesmo jeito.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Carolina Rossini <
>>> > carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> Via Renata Avila, segue discurso da Dilma na UN.
>>> >> Coming from Renata Avila, see attached Dilma draft speech at UN.
>>> >> C
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>>  >> *Carolina Rossini*
>>> >> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
>>> >> Open Technology Institute
>>> >> *New America Foundation*
>>>  >> //
>>> >> http://carolinarossini.net/
>>> >> + 1 6176979389 <%2B%201%206176979389>
>>> >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
>>> >> skype: carolrossini
>>> >> @carolinarossini
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> ____________________________________________________________
>>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> >>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> >> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>> >>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> >>
>>> >> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>> >>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>> >>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> >>
>>> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
> executive director, association for progressive communicationswww.apc.org
> po box 29755, melville 2109
> south africa
> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>
>


-- 
Anne Jellema
Chief Executive Officer
Cape Town, RSA
mob (ZA) +27 61 036 9652
tel (ZA) +27 21 788 4585
tel (US) +1 202 684 6885
Skype anne.jellema
@afjellema

World Wide Web Foundation | 1889 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, USA |
www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130925/13d4a7b7/attachment.htm>

From jam at globalilluminators.org  Mon Sep  2 02:35:48 2013
From: jam at globalilluminators.org (jam at globalilluminators.org)
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2013 01:35:48 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] How to end human rights violating
 communcations surveillance (was Re: Position by IT for Change...)
In-Reply-To: <5223536E.8000601@itforchange.net>
References: <521E2A9E.7070004@itforchange.net>
	<E96416DB-C48F-4D94-B8E7-FCFCA7D5A2CA@apc.org>
	<CAJqNAHDvLLQcX87p2Kzu+15O=+8LNrNi+zrPyLgDCau4echNvA@mail.gmail.com>
	<030d01cea5b3$2cc32a80$86497f80$@gmail.com>
	<CACAaNxj2TOjeCQWbo0u31Uzpnv6qYT=9fdp0Z4wq-F+3sJQeBA@mail.gmail.com>
	<035f01cea5c3$7a5db390$6f191ab0$@gmail.com>
	<CACAaNxg_2Hu+MTkbxBLEetCPmwunM5GaMRo+6yOaxzGq7Ry27g@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130831220744.592c8d64@quill> <3CB796A02CAE419EAE5DB5686FE0E3E4@Toshiba>
	<20130901040132.65217d8a@quill> <5223536E.8000601@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <20130902013548.p845p3zri8kwoww8@webmail.opentransfer.com>

   I agree with the important contribution by Norbert and Parminder.  
But as for as global agreements are concerned there is always a  
bargain between US interests and rest of the world. Specially those  
countries with reservations and lack of trust on US based internet  
governing institutions. We the civil society folks should pay  
attention to these conflicting areas including surveillance  and  
should play a role to push US towards acceptance of better and global  
privacy laws implementation with in US. Because in post Snowden era US  
has lost the credibility to convince rest of the world. Its now only  
and only US which can play a role to build confidence among  
stakeholders to ensure the protection of basic human rights under US  
based internet governance bodies. Otherwise all the efforts by us  
(civil society) will not be effective as desired.

regards
-- 
Farooq Ahmed Jam
Executive Director
Global Illuminators
Contact: +60102546571
E-mail:jam at globalilluminators.org
Weblink: www.globalilluminators.org


Quoting parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>:

>
> I agree with Norbert that the cost of doing surveillance has to be
> increased through appropriate technological means, to bring it closer
> to costs that existing before ICTs made it a kid's game as Snowden
> would say, to see anyone's communication with a few strokes of the key
> pad....
>
> This is a course that should be systematically pursued...
>
> However, I am in agreement with Ian that treaties are useful and
> needed, and that countries to give in to get something else in return,
> and all of it could result in greater global public good.
>
> To respond to Norbert's specific doubt, about what has US to benefit
> from conceding on its global surveillance activities, I think they have
> a great lot to achieve. Like in no other business before, US has a
> preponderant dominance in global Internet business. It has a lot to
> gain if international agreements help develop some level of global
> norms, frameworks and rules of at least /some level/ /of/
> cross-national harmony if not homogeneity on how the global Internet
> basically works, and what can be expected by and granted to all global
> players. No other country has more to gain through such 'global
> agreements' as the US's economic interests have.
>
> Earlier, the US thought that they will bring about such 'uniformity'
> through steam-rolling what it framed as a global Internet freedom
> agenda, which was always clearly a trade and political agenda, and was
> always dubious... The limitations of that strategy is increasingly
> clear. They would soon realise that they have to get into global
> agreements if they have to keep ruling the global Internet. That is
> what the US has to gain.
>
> In a write up last year or so, I made a distinction between regime
> development phase and regime enforcement phase. Regime development
> phase is when the basic rules of the game are being developed. This is
> the phase currently with global Internet governance, In this phase, US
> wants others, especially developing countries to be kept away, and
> seeks to avoid discussions about global agreements.
> (MUltistakeholderism is  a very useful device for this purpose.) In
> areas like trade and intellectual property, as Norbert rightly points
> out, the regime is already formed. US and its allies have defined the
> rules of the game. They now want these rules to be globally enforced,
> of course to US's advantage. That is the game. This is what I call as
> the second stage, the regime enforcement stage.
>
> In global Internet governance, at some time, after the regime is well
> developed as per the dominant countries' interest, we will see the
> regime enforcement stage. UIS and others will suddenly say, well we
> must get serious now, twe really need some global rules and the such....
>
> The question is, should civil society play the game of the dominant
> forces, or, as they say in economics, try counter-cyclical measures...
>
>
> parminder
>
>
> On Sunday 01 September 2013 07:31 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>> Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>>
>>> not sure I am as pessimistic about this as both of you. There are
>>> plenty of examples in history where international agreements have
>>> regulated matters where countries have agreed, for the greater good,
>>> to regulate or stop previous actions. The Geneva Convention is one
>>> example, outlawing of poison gases after WW1 (worked for a while) is
>>> another.
>>>
>>> I am sure also that regularly in trade treaties countries give up
>>> certain actions in return for other advantages.
>>>
>>> In the case of the Internet, it may well be that an open available
>>> trusted global network - which can only be achieved if espionage is
>>> contained - is the greater good that leads to a decent regulatory
>>> regime.
>> I see two major problems with this optimistic scenario:
>>
>> On one hand the world trade system is already largely designed around
>> the vision of the US and like-minded countries on how the world trade
>> system should work, and the US is already a very central node in this
>> world trade system. The US already has pretty much all of the advantages
>> that a country could possibly have. I don't see what ?other advantages?
>> the US could possibly be offered in exchange for the US agreeing to
>> give up the NSA's foreign surveillance activities which are obviously
>> very important from the perspective of the US government.
>>
>> On the other hand, a lot of whatever trust that people used to have for
>> the US as a ?democratic country? that claims to be strongly committed to
>> human rights has been permanently destroyed. This loss of credibility
>> affects not only US government representatives and by extension
>> government representatives from other Western countries. After all the
>> crap with for example Microsoft claiming ?Your Privacy Is Our Priority?
>> while at the same time secretly cooperating with the NSA's efforts to
>> undermine our privacy, every reasonable and well-informed person will
>> similarly distrust technology vendors.
>>
>> Add to this that the US concerns about terrorist threats etc are not
>> just a matter of mere paranoia. It would not be reasonable for the US to
>> agree a simple and straightforward principle like never again wanting
>> to know the contents of conversations of people outside the US. The US
>> will have to insist that in situations of legitimate suspicion of plans
>> for terrorist activities, surveillance activities will have to be
>> conducted. Regardless of how the rules for handling that kind of
>> exceptional situations would be designed precisely, if those rules meet
>> both the requirements of international human rights law and the
>> requirement of providing effective means of surveillance for suspected
>> terrorists, those rules are not going to be totally simple and
>> straightforward. Consequently, although certainly necessary, such rules
>> are not going to help much in regard to rebuilding the trust that has
>> been destroyed.
>>
>> I conclude that without trustworthy efforts to create effective
>> technical protections of communications privacy, a ?trusted global
>> network? cannot be achieved in the post-Snowden world.
>>
>> Nota bene, I'm not advocating for trying to make surveillance totally
>> impossible.
>>
>> What we IMO need in the post-Snowden world is
>>
>> 1) trustworthy end-to-end encryption of all non-public Internet
>> communication content,
>>
>> 2) trustworthy protection of the software on the computers and other
>> communication devices against remote compromise,
>>
>> 3) redesigned communication protocols which ensure that at no point in
>> the communication channel between the endpoints, information about both
>> communication endpoints is visible in unencrypted form, and
>>
>> 4) trustworthy anti-surveillance monitoring which would likely detect
>> the problem in the case of a system compromise that results in
>> significant quantities of communication channel endpoint information
>> leaking out.
>>
>> When all of that has been achieved, surveillance of the communications
>> content and communications metadata of specific persons will still be
>> possible, but it'll be expensive enough that cost economics will force
>> it to be limited to specific persons where there is significant reason
>> to consider them a major threat.
>>
>> It is the human rights violating automated mass surveillance which must
>> be brought to an end.
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>> _______________________________________________
>> IRP mailing list
>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp



From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Wed Sep 25 11:37:52 2013
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 21:07:52 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Letter to Pres. Rousseff, was, Re: [governance]
 Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
In-Reply-To: <CAFwCmbED+WWmHrBLv4KxOUSz5aFWCFtgajbmtv76PwvweYNMKg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK-FJAf8PwDCDDj=rWTvyKcXuryceMHwzqUT=X+fd=vqSHC0iw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+MV=uGv=DLLSEr0rHe3N4jdwNUvs0t+uTGtaaz-pKiX6x1Tvw@mail.gmail.com>
	<5242D6EB.4060609@cafonso.ca>
	<CALTAiTpbeo=CZKXZzVKGOjk7ubjoQjPF16auCgQ6K4vgZ=wOUg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+4KnA8ZtuGySHkf6s+Zsiwo=qs61T2TgUWo=h9qauwvJj8Qaw@mail.gmail.com>
	<5242EEFE.5030806@apc.org>
	<CAFwCmbED+WWmHrBLv4KxOUSz5aFWCFtgajbmtv76PwvweYNMKg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHCaiYiPHHL9=TErT9zjtm-PKzFpj9sjMqRFgd=r5qJ3iQ@mail.gmail.com>

I agree with Anne that the speech was clever in many ways, but am also a
little worried about how the continuous references to multilateralism will
be read in our own domestic context, where the importance of these
statements from a Brazilian perspective is not necessarily fully
appreciated or understood in its nuances. The whole debate about whether a
reformed Internet governance should take a multilateral or multistakeholder
route *is* gaining momentum at the moment, and if we as international civil
society are going to make a comment on the Brazilian president's speech, I
do think we have to comment on her remarks on this issue as well - or our
own stance on the question of multistakeholderism might be misunderstood in
our own countries.

Isn't there a way in which we can do so without undermining the Brazilian
national agenda (or even better, by supporting that agenda)? If so, I'll be
very happy to support a letter but if this is not noted at all, it might be
difficult for us to do so, as silence could be read as implicit approval.

Thanks and best,
Anja




On 25 September 2013 20:33, Anne Jellema <anne at webfoundation.org> wrote:

> I support Anriette's suggestion and I hope the international letter could
> help Brazilian colleagues to secure a meeting with Rousseff's advisors in
> the near future to better understand her position and lobby on the best
> ways for Brazil to show international leadership in this area.
>
> As I read Joana and Carlos's remarks, I was remembering that on other
> global issues (such as trade justice and climate change), Brazil has often
> managed to punch well above its weight diplomatically by positioning itself
> very strategically as a bridge-builder between "South" and "North" blocs
> (to caricature them very crudely).  Reading her speech, and the clever way
> it managed to pick up on key demands and buzzwords from both sides of the
> internet governance divide, I did wonder whether Brazil is once again
> angling to set itself up as the player that can broker pragmatic
> compromises between competing ideologies. If so, I think that's probably
> good news, especially given that the PT in power has usually been
> relatively open to working with civil society.
>
> Cheers
> Anne
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>wrote:
>
>>  Dear all
>>
>> I would like to propose that we do a letter from civil society commending
>> her on her speech. We could mention our support and wishes for the Marco
>> Civil, and, if we want, the multi-lateral vs. multi-stakeholder question.
>>
>> Anriette
>>
>> On 25/09/2013 15:41, Gene Kimmelman wrote:
>>
>> Having been in these situations in the U.S., I fully understand the need
>> to accept and fully embrace progress; I do not want to interfere in what
>> our Brazilian friends are fully capable of handling, other than to say I
>> fully support the sentiment expressed by Joana and Carlos!
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com>wrote:
>>
>>>   Dear all,
>>>
>>> I totally support Carlos Afonso's view.
>>>
>>>  One step at the time.
>>>
>>> What matters now is that Dilma has clearly mentioned the CGI.br
>>> principles, including the support for net neutrality. It means a LOT for
>>> our national scenario and for years of fight to try to pass Marco Civil.
>>> Meaning it wont be easy for telcos to take down net neutrality provisions
>>> from the draft bill.
>>>
>>> Even better, this all has happened right after she opened a channel of
>>> communication/consulation with CGI.br. That's THE dynamics for internet
>>> public policies we dreamed about in Brazil. The issue on using the word
>>> "multilateral" shall NOT be used to loose the focus on this major
>>> achievement.
>>>
>>>  It is indeed an issue of concern. But it's not actually something new.
>>> It has been highlighted in several opportunities in the Brazilian positions
>>> at ITU, held by Anatel, our regulatory agency.  For instance, in our
>>> previous opinion on the role of States. Nevertheless, positions from our
>>> Ministry of Foreign Affairs towards multistakeholderism are very clear and
>>> positive. And now CGI.br has the door open with the president to correct
>>> explain all the important debate of multistakeholder approach on IG. So we
>>> have opportunities to correct this schizophrenic aspect and there is hope.
>>>
>>>  So, please, people, let's be positive and understand that having the
>>> President referring to these principles - an to Internet Policies - in the
>>> UNGA is not a minor thing. I had the lucky to be in a panel at the Council
>>> of Europe a few minutes after she delivered the speech and managed to
>>> incorporate some of her quotes in my presentation. The public got really
>>> impressed.
>>>
>>>  all the best
>>>
>>> joana
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> --
>>>
>>> Joana Varon Ferraz
>>> @joana_varon
>>> PGP 0x016B8E73
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear people,
>>>>
>>>> I am not sure we will go too far (although philosophers can really be
>>>> far-fetched in this exercise) in doing an exegesis of her discourse. Let
>>>> us see how the practice goes. The signs are good: she entered the room
>>>> to talk to us CGI.br folk with our 10 Principles in hand and the first
>>>> thing she told us was she agreed with them.
>>>>
>>>> She also mentioned the Marco Civil as proposed by the rapporteur (result
>>>> of a 4-year public dialogue) is the one she agrees with (which is the
>>>> one CGI.br formally supported), and was going to fight for it, although
>>>> recognizing that as bill of law transiting through Congress it might
>>>> suffer modifications which she might veto but Congress could reverse and
>>>> so on -- in summary, normal practice in a democratic State. The big
>>>> challenge now is the process in Congress, where the transnational telcos
>>>> and big media have enormous power.
>>>>
>>>> frt rgds
>>>>
>>>> --c.a.
>>>>
>>>> On 09/24/2013 09:58 PM, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote:
>>>> > the Steering Committee principle reads as "Internet governance must be
>>>> > exercised in a transparent, multilateral and democratic manner, with
>>>> the
>>>> > participation of the various sectors of society, thereby preserving
>>>> and
>>>> > encouraging its character as a collective creation."
>>>> >
>>>> > Her wording for the UNGA says: "Open, multilateral and democratic
>>>> > governance, carried out with transparency by stimulating collective
>>>> > creativity and the participation of society, Governments and the
>>>> private
>>>> > sector."
>>>> >
>>>> > My reading of that is that: (1) it does not repeat the idea that
>>>> Internet
>>>> > governance as a collective creation and (2) the first one defines
>>>> Internet
>>>> > governance as something "with the participation of the various
>>>> sectors of
>>>> > society", and the second only mentions it should be carried out with
>>>> > stimuli for "the participation of society, governments and the private
>>>> > sector."
>>>> >
>>>> > Can you see my point?
>>>> > Em português o trem funciona do mesmo jeito.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Carolina Rossini <
>>>> > carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Via Renata Avila, segue discurso da Dilma na UN.
>>>> >> Coming from Renata Avila, see attached Dilma draft speech at UN.
>>>> >> C
>>>> >>
>>>> >> --
>>>>  >> *Carolina Rossini*
>>>> >> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
>>>> >> Open Technology Institute
>>>> >> *New America Foundation*
>>>>  >> //
>>>> >> http://carolinarossini.net/
>>>> >> + 1 6176979389 <%2B%201%206176979389>
>>>> >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
>>>> >> skype: carolrossini
>>>> >> @carolinarossini
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>> >>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> >> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>> >>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>> >>
>>>> >> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>> >>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>> >>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
>> executive director, association for progressive communicationswww.apc.org
>> po box 29755, melville 2109
>> south africa
>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Anne Jellema
> Chief Executive Officer
> Cape Town, RSA
> mob (ZA) +27 61 036 9652
> tel (ZA) +27 21 788 4585
> tel (US) +1 202 684 6885
>  Skype anne.jellema
> @afjellema
>
> World Wide Web Foundation | 1889 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, USA |
> www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation
>



-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130925/19964d41/attachment.htm>

From ca at cafonso.ca  Wed Sep 25 12:02:04 2013
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 13:02:04 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] Letter to Pres. Rousseff, was, Re: [governance]
 Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHCaiYiPHHL9=TErT9zjtm-PKzFpj9sjMqRFgd=r5qJ3iQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK-FJAf8PwDCDDj=rWTvyKcXuryceMHwzqUT=X+fd=vqSHC0iw@mail.gmail.com>	<CA+MV=uGv=DLLSEr0rHe3N4jdwNUvs0t+uTGtaaz-pKiX6x1Tvw@mail.gmail.com>	<5242D6EB.4060609@cafonso.ca>	<CALTAiTpbeo=CZKXZzVKGOjk7ubjoQjPF16auCgQ6K4vgZ=wOUg@mail.gmail.com>	<CA+4KnA8ZtuGySHkf6s+Zsiwo=qs61T2TgUWo=h9qauwvJj8Qaw@mail.gmail.com>	<5242EEFE.5030806@apc.org>	<CAFwCmbED+WWmHrBLv4KxOUSz5aFWCFtgajbmtv76PwvweYNMKg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJqNAHCaiYiPHHL9=TErT9zjtm-PKzFpj9sjMqRFgd=r5qJ3iQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <524308FC.5080209@cafonso.ca>

Rousseff sees "multilateral" as "among nations", not "among
governments". But I do understand the term in the international
diplomatic scene takes a meaning opposed to what civil society defends
and each government has its own particular interpretation -- BTW, as do
different civil society "tribes".

My IMHO advice: let us not be black-and-white on this. Let us think of
the ways in which we can build bridges. Rousseff has opened a wonderful
window of opportunity, let us not just dismiss it because there is that
"12-letter word" in her statement.

fraternal regards

--c.a.

On 09/25/2013 12:37 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
> I agree with Anne that the speech was clever in many ways, but am also a
> little worried about how the continuous references to multilateralism will
> be read in our own domestic context, where the importance of these
> statements from a Brazilian perspective is not necessarily fully
> appreciated or understood in its nuances. The whole debate about whether a
> reformed Internet governance should take a multilateral or multistakeholder
> route *is* gaining momentum at the moment, and if we as international civil
> society are going to make a comment on the Brazilian president's speech, I
> do think we have to comment on her remarks on this issue as well - or our
> own stance on the question of multistakeholderism might be misunderstood in
> our own countries.
> 
> Isn't there a way in which we can do so without undermining the Brazilian
> national agenda (or even better, by supporting that agenda)? If so, I'll be
> very happy to support a letter but if this is not noted at all, it might be
> difficult for us to do so, as silence could be read as implicit approval.
> 
> Thanks and best,
> Anja
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 25 September 2013 20:33, Anne Jellema <anne at webfoundation.org> wrote:
> 
>> I support Anriette's suggestion and I hope the international letter could
>> help Brazilian colleagues to secure a meeting with Rousseff's advisors in
>> the near future to better understand her position and lobby on the best
>> ways for Brazil to show international leadership in this area.
>>
>> As I read Joana and Carlos's remarks, I was remembering that on other
>> global issues (such as trade justice and climate change), Brazil has often
>> managed to punch well above its weight diplomatically by positioning itself
>> very strategically as a bridge-builder between "South" and "North" blocs
>> (to caricature them very crudely).  Reading her speech, and the clever way
>> it managed to pick up on key demands and buzzwords from both sides of the
>> internet governance divide, I did wonder whether Brazil is once again
>> angling to set itself up as the player that can broker pragmatic
>> compromises between competing ideologies. If so, I think that's probably
>> good news, especially given that the PT in power has usually been
>> relatively open to working with civil society.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Anne
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>wrote:
>>
>>>  Dear all
>>>
>>> I would like to propose that we do a letter from civil society commending
>>> her on her speech. We could mention our support and wishes for the Marco
>>> Civil, and, if we want, the multi-lateral vs. multi-stakeholder question.
>>>
>>> Anriette
>>>
>>> On 25/09/2013 15:41, Gene Kimmelman wrote:
>>>
>>> Having been in these situations in the U.S., I fully understand the need
>>> to accept and fully embrace progress; I do not want to interfere in what
>>> our Brazilian friends are fully capable of handling, other than to say I
>>> fully support the sentiment expressed by Joana and Carlos!
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>>   Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> I totally support Carlos Afonso's view.
>>>>
>>>>  One step at the time.
>>>>
>>>> What matters now is that Dilma has clearly mentioned the CGI.br
>>>> principles, including the support for net neutrality. It means a LOT for
>>>> our national scenario and for years of fight to try to pass Marco Civil.
>>>> Meaning it wont be easy for telcos to take down net neutrality provisions
>>>> from the draft bill.
>>>>
>>>> Even better, this all has happened right after she opened a channel of
>>>> communication/consulation with CGI.br. That's THE dynamics for internet
>>>> public policies we dreamed about in Brazil. The issue on using the word
>>>> "multilateral" shall NOT be used to loose the focus on this major
>>>> achievement.
>>>>
>>>>  It is indeed an issue of concern. But it's not actually something new.
>>>> It has been highlighted in several opportunities in the Brazilian positions
>>>> at ITU, held by Anatel, our regulatory agency.  For instance, in our
>>>> previous opinion on the role of States. Nevertheless, positions from our
>>>> Ministry of Foreign Affairs towards multistakeholderism are very clear and
>>>> positive. And now CGI.br has the door open with the president to correct
>>>> explain all the important debate of multistakeholder approach on IG. So we
>>>> have opportunities to correct this schizophrenic aspect and there is hope.
>>>>
>>>>  So, please, people, let's be positive and understand that having the
>>>> President referring to these principles - an to Internet Policies - in the
>>>> UNGA is not a minor thing. I had the lucky to be in a panel at the Council
>>>> of Europe a few minutes after she delivered the speech and managed to
>>>> incorporate some of her quotes in my presentation. The public got really
>>>> impressed.
>>>>
>>>>  all the best
>>>>
>>>> joana
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz
>>>> @joana_varon
>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear people,
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not sure we will go too far (although philosophers can really be
>>>>> far-fetched in this exercise) in doing an exegesis of her discourse. Let
>>>>> us see how the practice goes. The signs are good: she entered the room
>>>>> to talk to us CGI.br folk with our 10 Principles in hand and the first
>>>>> thing she told us was she agreed with them.
>>>>>
>>>>> She also mentioned the Marco Civil as proposed by the rapporteur (result
>>>>> of a 4-year public dialogue) is the one she agrees with (which is the
>>>>> one CGI.br formally supported), and was going to fight for it, although
>>>>> recognizing that as bill of law transiting through Congress it might
>>>>> suffer modifications which she might veto but Congress could reverse and
>>>>> so on -- in summary, normal practice in a democratic State. The big
>>>>> challenge now is the process in Congress, where the transnational telcos
>>>>> and big media have enormous power.
>>>>>
>>>>> frt rgds
>>>>>
>>>>> --c.a.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 09/24/2013 09:58 PM, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote:
>>>>>> the Steering Committee principle reads as "Internet governance must be
>>>>>> exercised in a transparent, multilateral and democratic manner, with
>>>>> the
>>>>>> participation of the various sectors of society, thereby preserving
>>>>> and
>>>>>> encouraging its character as a collective creation."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Her wording for the UNGA says: "Open, multilateral and democratic
>>>>>> governance, carried out with transparency by stimulating collective
>>>>>> creativity and the participation of society, Governments and the
>>>>> private
>>>>>> sector."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My reading of that is that: (1) it does not repeat the idea that
>>>>> Internet
>>>>>> governance as a collective creation and (2) the first one defines
>>>>> Internet
>>>>>> governance as something "with the participation of the various
>>>>> sectors of
>>>>>> society", and the second only mentions it should be carried out with
>>>>>> stimuli for "the participation of society, governments and the private
>>>>>> sector."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you see my point?
>>>>>> Em português o trem funciona do mesmo jeito.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Carolina Rossini <
>>>>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Via Renata Avila, segue discurso da Dilma na UN.
>>>>>>> Coming from Renata Avila, see attached Dilma draft speech at UN.
>>>>>>> C
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>  >> *Carolina Rossini*
>>>>>>> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
>>>>>>> Open Technology Institute
>>>>>>> *New America Foundation*
>>>>>  >> //
>>>>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/
>>>>>>> + 1 6176979389 <%2B%201%206176979389>
>>>>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
>>>>>>> skype: carolrossini
>>>>>>> @carolinarossini
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>
>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>
>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
>>> executive director, association for progressive communicationswww.apc.org
>>> po box 29755, melville 2109
>>> south africa
>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Anne Jellema
>> Chief Executive Officer
>> Cape Town, RSA
>> mob (ZA) +27 61 036 9652
>> tel (ZA) +27 21 788 4585
>> tel (US) +1 202 684 6885
>>  Skype anne.jellema
>> @afjellema
>>
>> World Wide Web Foundation | 1889 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, USA |
>> www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation
>>
> 
> 
> 

From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Wed Sep 25 12:06:46 2013
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 16:06:46 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Letter to Pres. Rousseff, was, Re: [governance]
 Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
In-Reply-To: <524308FC.5080209@cafonso.ca>
References: <CAK-FJAf8PwDCDDj=rWTvyKcXuryceMHwzqUT=X+fd=vqSHC0iw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+MV=uGv=DLLSEr0rHe3N4jdwNUvs0t+uTGtaaz-pKiX6x1Tvw@mail.gmail.com>
	<5242D6EB.4060609@cafonso.ca>
	<CALTAiTpbeo=CZKXZzVKGOjk7ubjoQjPF16auCgQ6K4vgZ=wOUg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+4KnA8ZtuGySHkf6s+Zsiwo=qs61T2TgUWo=h9qauwvJj8Qaw@mail.gmail.com>
	<5242EEFE.5030806@apc.org>
	<CAFwCmbED+WWmHrBLv4KxOUSz5aFWCFtgajbmtv76PwvweYNMKg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJqNAHCaiYiPHHL9=TErT9zjtm-PKzFpj9sjMqRFgd=r5qJ3iQ@mail.gmail.com>,<524308FC.5080209@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B27D87A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

My IMHO advice:

an artful dodge would be to ignore that 12-letter word and replace in the letter with..just counted, a 16 letter word ending in 'holder.'

Lee
________________________________________
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Carlos A. Afonso [ca at cafonso.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 12:02 PM
To: Anja Kovacs; Anne Jellema
Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Letter to Pres. Rousseff, was, Re: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN

Rousseff sees "multilateral" as "among nations", not "among
governments". But I do understand the term in the international
diplomatic scene takes a meaning opposed to what civil society defends
and each government has its own particular interpretation -- BTW, as do
different civil society "tribes".

My IMHO advice: let us not be black-and-white on this. Let us think of
the ways in which we can build bridges. Rousseff has opened a wonderful
window of opportunity, let us not just dismiss it because there is that
"12-letter word" in her statement.

fraternal regards

--c.a.

On 09/25/2013 12:37 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
> I agree with Anne that the speech was clever in many ways, but am also a
> little worried about how the continuous references to multilateralism will
> be read in our own domestic context, where the importance of these
> statements from a Brazilian perspective is not necessarily fully
> appreciated or understood in its nuances. The whole debate about whether a
> reformed Internet governance should take a multilateral or multistakeholder
> route *is* gaining momentum at the moment, and if we as international civil
> society are going to make a comment on the Brazilian president's speech, I
> do think we have to comment on her remarks on this issue as well - or our
> own stance on the question of multistakeholderism might be misunderstood in
> our own countries.
>
> Isn't there a way in which we can do so without undermining the Brazilian
> national agenda (or even better, by supporting that agenda)? If so, I'll be
> very happy to support a letter but if this is not noted at all, it might be
> difficult for us to do so, as silence could be read as implicit approval.
>
> Thanks and best,
> Anja
>
>
>
>
> On 25 September 2013 20:33, Anne Jellema <anne at webfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> I support Anriette's suggestion and I hope the international letter could
>> help Brazilian colleagues to secure a meeting with Rousseff's advisors in
>> the near future to better understand her position and lobby on the best
>> ways for Brazil to show international leadership in this area.
>>
>> As I read Joana and Carlos's remarks, I was remembering that on other
>> global issues (such as trade justice and climate change), Brazil has often
>> managed to punch well above its weight diplomatically by positioning itself
>> very strategically as a bridge-builder between "South" and "North" blocs
>> (to caricature them very crudely).  Reading her speech, and the clever way
>> it managed to pick up on key demands and buzzwords from both sides of the
>> internet governance divide, I did wonder whether Brazil is once again
>> angling to set itself up as the player that can broker pragmatic
>> compromises between competing ideologies. If so, I think that's probably
>> good news, especially given that the PT in power has usually been
>> relatively open to working with civil society.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Anne
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>wrote:
>>
>>>  Dear all
>>>
>>> I would like to propose that we do a letter from civil society commending
>>> her on her speech. We could mention our support and wishes for the Marco
>>> Civil, and, if we want, the multi-lateral vs. multi-stakeholder question.
>>>
>>> Anriette
>>>
>>> On 25/09/2013 15:41, Gene Kimmelman wrote:
>>>
>>> Having been in these situations in the U.S., I fully understand the need
>>> to accept and fully embrace progress; I do not want to interfere in what
>>> our Brazilian friends are fully capable of handling, other than to say I
>>> fully support the sentiment expressed by Joana and Carlos!
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>>   Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> I totally support Carlos Afonso's view.
>>>>
>>>>  One step at the time.
>>>>
>>>> What matters now is that Dilma has clearly mentioned the CGI.br
>>>> principles, including the support for net neutrality. It means a LOT for
>>>> our national scenario and for years of fight to try to pass Marco Civil.
>>>> Meaning it wont be easy for telcos to take down net neutrality provisions
>>>> from the draft bill.
>>>>
>>>> Even better, this all has happened right after she opened a channel of
>>>> communication/consulation with CGI.br. That's THE dynamics for internet
>>>> public policies we dreamed about in Brazil. The issue on using the word
>>>> "multilateral" shall NOT be used to loose the focus on this major
>>>> achievement.
>>>>
>>>>  It is indeed an issue of concern. But it's not actually something new.
>>>> It has been highlighted in several opportunities in the Brazilian positions
>>>> at ITU, held by Anatel, our regulatory agency.  For instance, in our
>>>> previous opinion on the role of States. Nevertheless, positions from our
>>>> Ministry of Foreign Affairs towards multistakeholderism are very clear and
>>>> positive. And now CGI.br has the door open with the president to correct
>>>> explain all the important debate of multistakeholder approach on IG. So we
>>>> have opportunities to correct this schizophrenic aspect and there is hope.
>>>>
>>>>  So, please, people, let's be positive and understand that having the
>>>> President referring to these principles - an to Internet Policies - in the
>>>> UNGA is not a minor thing. I had the lucky to be in a panel at the Council
>>>> of Europe a few minutes after she delivered the speech and managed to
>>>> incorporate some of her quotes in my presentation. The public got really
>>>> impressed.
>>>>
>>>>  all the best
>>>>
>>>> joana
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz
>>>> @joana_varon
>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear people,
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not sure we will go too far (although philosophers can really be
>>>>> far-fetched in this exercise) in doing an exegesis of her discourse. Let
>>>>> us see how the practice goes. The signs are good: she entered the room
>>>>> to talk to us CGI.br folk with our 10 Principles in hand and the first
>>>>> thing she told us was she agreed with them.
>>>>>
>>>>> She also mentioned the Marco Civil as proposed by the rapporteur (result
>>>>> of a 4-year public dialogue) is the one she agrees with (which is the
>>>>> one CGI.br formally supported), and was going to fight for it, although
>>>>> recognizing that as bill of law transiting through Congress it might
>>>>> suffer modifications which she might veto but Congress could reverse and
>>>>> so on -- in summary, normal practice in a democratic State. The big
>>>>> challenge now is the process in Congress, where the transnational telcos
>>>>> and big media have enormous power.
>>>>>
>>>>> frt rgds
>>>>>
>>>>> --c.a.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 09/24/2013 09:58 PM, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote:
>>>>>> the Steering Committee principle reads as "Internet governance must be
>>>>>> exercised in a transparent, multilateral and democratic manner, with
>>>>> the
>>>>>> participation of the various sectors of society, thereby preserving
>>>>> and
>>>>>> encouraging its character as a collective creation."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Her wording for the UNGA says: "Open, multilateral and democratic
>>>>>> governance, carried out with transparency by stimulating collective
>>>>>> creativity and the participation of society, Governments and the
>>>>> private
>>>>>> sector."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My reading of that is that: (1) it does not repeat the idea that
>>>>> Internet
>>>>>> governance as a collective creation and (2) the first one defines
>>>>> Internet
>>>>>> governance as something "with the participation of the various
>>>>> sectors of
>>>>>> society", and the second only mentions it should be carried out with
>>>>>> stimuli for "the participation of society, governments and the private
>>>>>> sector."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you see my point?
>>>>>> Em português o trem funciona do mesmo jeito.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Carolina Rossini <
>>>>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Via Renata Avila, segue discurso da Dilma na UN.
>>>>>>> Coming from Renata Avila, see attached Dilma draft speech at UN.
>>>>>>> C
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>  >> *Carolina Rossini*
>>>>>>> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
>>>>>>> Open Technology Institute
>>>>>>> *New America Foundation*
>>>>>  >> //
>>>>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/
>>>>>>> + 1 6176979389 <%2B%201%206176979389>
>>>>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
>>>>>>> skype: carolrossini
>>>>>>> @carolinarossini
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>
>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>
>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
>>> executive director, association for progressive communicationswww.apc.org
>>> po box 29755, melville 2109
>>> south africa
>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Anne Jellema
>> Chief Executive Officer
>> Cape Town, RSA
>> mob (ZA) +27 61 036 9652
>> tel (ZA) +27 21 788 4585
>> tel (US) +1 202 684 6885
>>  Skype anne.jellema
>> @afjellema
>>
>> World Wide Web Foundation | 1889 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, USA |
>> www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation
>>
>
>
>

From gpaque at gmail.com  Wed Sep 25 12:14:01 2013
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 11:14:01 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Last chance to apply: Master in Diplomacy with a
 specialisation in Internet Governance
Message-ID: <CALCecM-TP97-GWb2OBv6+u=Tky65Ar2XYGEAYQhWqn9b1WPMNg@mail.gmail.com>

In case you know anyone who might be interested. Apologies for
cross-posting. Thanks! Ginger




Dear friends,

DiploFoundation's call for applications for the 2014 Master in Diplomacy
with a specialisation in Internet governance closes in a few days. Details
of the programme are available below, and at
http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/MAPGD

*If you are interested in applying, or have any questions about the
programme, please e-mail us as soon as possible at admissions at diplomacy.edu.
Late applications may be considered; e-mail us to request a deadline
extension.*

We would appreciate if you could forward this message to others whom you
think may benefit from this programme. Thank you.

Best,
Stephanie



                       Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with an Internet
Governance Specialisation
------------------------------
 *Accelerate your career with this online diplomacy programme,
offered by DiploFoundation and the University of Malta.*
------------------------------
       This unique programme gives current and future Internet policymakers
a solid foundation in diplomatic skills and techniques, necessary to engage
effectively in international global policy processes.
     ’The IG route in the MA Contemporary Diplomacy Programme has enabled
me to situate the focus of my work on Internet Governance in Africa in a
space that is directly relevant to the mandate of the NEPAD Agency. I have
found immense value in being able to bring together the two worlds of
Internet Governance and Diplomacy.’

*Towela Nyirenda-Jere

Programme Manager,  e-Africa Programme, NEPAD Planning and Coordinating
Agency
*
         How the programme works

   - First, you attend a 10-day residential workshop in Malta. Here you
   will get a clear overview of the programme, meet your classmates and some
   of the faculty members, and develop skills in critical areas of diplomacy
   including negotiation, protocol, and language.
   - Next, you participate in five online courses, each lasting ten weeks.
   You will attend three or four courses in IG-related topics and choose the
   remaining courses from our wide range of diplomacy
topics<http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=761efa3b4c&e=330e500107>.
   Online study involves reading and discussing lecture texts with course
   lecturers and fellow participants, completing learning activities and
   assignments, and joining online meetings. Once you have completed these
   courses, you are eligible to receive a Postgraduate Diploma in Contemporary
   Diplomacy awarded by the University of Malta.
   - If you continue to the Master's degree, the final part of the
   programme is writing your dissertation, focussed on an IG-related topic,
   under the personal guidance of a faculty member. On successful completion,
   you will receive a Master’s degree in Contemporary Diplomacy awarded by the
   University of Malta.
   - The IG courses you attended – as well as other courses – will be
   listed in a detailed transcript which you can order on completion of the
   programme to supplement your diploma or degree in Contemporary Diplomacy.

       *Faculty
members*<http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=a413baaa84&e=330e500107>
include
practising and retired diplomats, academics, and specialists in IG with
both theoretical expertise and practical experience in the field.

*Online learning* takes place in small groups and is highly interactive,
drawing on the experience and knowledge of participants as well as
lecturers. Course work is flexible: within a weekly schedule, you decide
when and where to study. The programme requires 5–7 hours of study per week.
     Interested in a traditional diplomacy programme?
You can also register without the Internet governance (IG) specialisation -
see the
programme website<http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=cbfe3a896d&e=330e500107>for
more details.
       The Master/PGD in Contemporary Diplomacy is recognised worldwide and
has European postgraduate accreditation through the Faculty of Arts at the
University of Malta. Graduates of Diplo's IG
courses<http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=1e34296482&e=330e500107>
hold
key positions in national and international bodies working in Internet
Governance, including the Internet Governance Forum Multistakeholder
Advisory Group.

*Who should apply* Diplomats, government officials, and other individuals
interested in or responsible for IG, cybersecurity and other
Internet-related policy issues; business and civil society activists
involved in multistakeholder IG processes; postgraduate students,
journalists, staff of international and non-governmental organisations
wishing to take an active part in Internet policy-making.


 *How to apply* The next programme begins on 29 January 2014. *Apply by 1
October 2013*.
For further details and application instructions, please visit
 http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/MAPGD<http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=9c5026f365&e=330e500107>
or
contact admissions at diplomacy.edu


<http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=1d5ac5c6ce&e=330e500107>
 Like
us on FaceBook<http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=b128e9f8a3&e=330e500107>
<http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=92340b05cd&e=330e500107>
 Follow
us on Twitter<http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=499610482b&e=330e500107>
<http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=b00fc97a13&e=330e500107>
 Our
website<http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=0e26500066&e=330e500107>
<http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=ebd27fde42&e=330e500107>
 Our
network<http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=21d4254184&e=330e500107>
*Copyright © 2013 DiploFoundation, All rights reserved.*
        ------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130925/9c41afd2/attachment.htm>

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Wed Sep 25 12:37:57 2013
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 22:07:57 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Letter to Pres. Rousseff, was, Re: [governance]
 Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
In-Reply-To: <524308FC.5080209@cafonso.ca>
References: <CAK-FJAf8PwDCDDj=rWTvyKcXuryceMHwzqUT=X+fd=vqSHC0iw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+MV=uGv=DLLSEr0rHe3N4jdwNUvs0t+uTGtaaz-pKiX6x1Tvw@mail.gmail.com>
	<5242D6EB.4060609@cafonso.ca>
	<CALTAiTpbeo=CZKXZzVKGOjk7ubjoQjPF16auCgQ6K4vgZ=wOUg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+4KnA8ZtuGySHkf6s+Zsiwo=qs61T2TgUWo=h9qauwvJj8Qaw@mail.gmail.com>
	<5242EEFE.5030806@apc.org>
	<CAFwCmbED+WWmHrBLv4KxOUSz5aFWCFtgajbmtv76PwvweYNMKg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJqNAHCaiYiPHHL9=TErT9zjtm-PKzFpj9sjMqRFgd=r5qJ3iQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<524308FC.5080209@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHA5MzA0Thh40-iZs-RTna4eyHtpYoOMSzNwHRYGTp7Jeg@mail.gmail.com>

Just to clarify: my aim is not to dismiss this, but to ensure that we do
not come up with a statement that puts many of us in a very difficult
position vis-a-vis our own governments inthe ongoing negotiations on the
best model of global Internet governance. This is especially true in
contexts such as India where multistakeholderism, though making progress,
is far from as established as it is in Brazil and in fact continues to be
extremely fragile.

The solution is probably simply a matter of getting the framing right, and
as I said before, if we manage to do so, we will be very happy to support
the letter as well and publicly express our appreciation for an otherwise
outstanding intervention. I do agree that it would be wonderful if we could
build on this conribution in a positive and appreciative manner that can
benefit all of us.

Best regards,
Anja


On 25 September 2013 21:32, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:

> Rousseff sees "multilateral" as "among nations", not "among
> governments". But I do understand the term in the international
> diplomatic scene takes a meaning opposed to what civil society defends
> and each government has its own particular interpretation -- BTW, as do
> different civil society "tribes".
>
> My IMHO advice: let us not be black-and-white on this. Let us think of
> the ways in which we can build bridges. Rousseff has opened a wonderful
> window of opportunity, let us not just dismiss it because there is that
> "12-letter word" in her statement.
>
> fraternal regards
>
> --c.a.
>
> On 09/25/2013 12:37 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
> > I agree with Anne that the speech was clever in many ways, but am also a
> > little worried about how the continuous references to multilateralism
> will
> > be read in our own domestic context, where the importance of these
> > statements from a Brazilian perspective is not necessarily fully
> > appreciated or understood in its nuances. The whole debate about whether
> a
> > reformed Internet governance should take a multilateral or
> multistakeholder
> > route *is* gaining momentum at the moment, and if we as international
> civil
> > society are going to make a comment on the Brazilian president's speech,
> I
> > do think we have to comment on her remarks on this issue as well - or our
> > own stance on the question of multistakeholderism might be misunderstood
> in
> > our own countries.
> >
> > Isn't there a way in which we can do so without undermining the Brazilian
> > national agenda (or even better, by supporting that agenda)? If so, I'll
> be
> > very happy to support a letter but if this is not noted at all, it might
> be
> > difficult for us to do so, as silence could be read as implicit approval.
> >
> > Thanks and best,
> > Anja
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 25 September 2013 20:33, Anne Jellema <anne at webfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> >> I support Anriette's suggestion and I hope the international letter
> could
> >> help Brazilian colleagues to secure a meeting with Rousseff's advisors
> in
> >> the near future to better understand her position and lobby on the best
> >> ways for Brazil to show international leadership in this area.
> >>
> >> As I read Joana and Carlos's remarks, I was remembering that on other
> >> global issues (such as trade justice and climate change), Brazil has
> often
> >> managed to punch well above its weight diplomatically by positioning
> itself
> >> very strategically as a bridge-builder between "South" and "North" blocs
> >> (to caricature them very crudely).  Reading her speech, and the clever
> way
> >> it managed to pick up on key demands and buzzwords from both sides of
> the
> >> internet governance divide, I did wonder whether Brazil is once again
> >> angling to set itself up as the player that can broker pragmatic
> >> compromises between competing ideologies. If so, I think that's probably
> >> good news, especially given that the PT in power has usually been
> >> relatively open to working with civil society.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> Anne
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org
> >wrote:
> >>
> >>>  Dear all
> >>>
> >>> I would like to propose that we do a letter from civil society
> commending
> >>> her on her speech. We could mention our support and wishes for the
> Marco
> >>> Civil, and, if we want, the multi-lateral vs. multi-stakeholder
> question.
> >>>
> >>> Anriette
> >>>
> >>> On 25/09/2013 15:41, Gene Kimmelman wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Having been in these situations in the U.S., I fully understand the
> need
> >>> to accept and fully embrace progress; I do not want to interfere in
> what
> >>> our Brazilian friends are fully capable of handling, other than to say
> I
> >>> fully support the sentiment expressed by Joana and Carlos!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com
> >wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>   Dear all,
> >>>>
> >>>> I totally support Carlos Afonso's view.
> >>>>
> >>>>  One step at the time.
> >>>>
> >>>> What matters now is that Dilma has clearly mentioned the CGI.br
> >>>> principles, including the support for net neutrality. It means a LOT
> for
> >>>> our national scenario and for years of fight to try to pass Marco
> Civil.
> >>>> Meaning it wont be easy for telcos to take down net neutrality
> provisions
> >>>> from the draft bill.
> >>>>
> >>>> Even better, this all has happened right after she opened a channel of
> >>>> communication/consulation with CGI.br. That's THE dynamics for
> internet
> >>>> public policies we dreamed about in Brazil. The issue on using the
> word
> >>>> "multilateral" shall NOT be used to loose the focus on this major
> >>>> achievement.
> >>>>
> >>>>  It is indeed an issue of concern. But it's not actually something
> new.
> >>>> It has been highlighted in several opportunities in the Brazilian
> positions
> >>>> at ITU, held by Anatel, our regulatory agency.  For instance, in our
> >>>> previous opinion on the role of States. Nevertheless, positions from
> our
> >>>> Ministry of Foreign Affairs towards multistakeholderism are very
> clear and
> >>>> positive. And now CGI.br has the door open with the president to
> correct
> >>>> explain all the important debate of multistakeholder approach on IG.
> So we
> >>>> have opportunities to correct this schizophrenic aspect and there is
> hope.
> >>>>
> >>>>  So, please, people, let's be positive and understand that having the
> >>>> President referring to these principles - an to Internet Policies -
> in the
> >>>> UNGA is not a minor thing. I had the lucky to be in a panel at the
> Council
> >>>> of Europe a few minutes after she delivered the speech and managed to
> >>>> incorporate some of her quotes in my presentation. The public got
> really
> >>>> impressed.
> >>>>
> >>>>  all the best
> >>>>
> >>>> joana
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>> Joana Varon Ferraz
> >>>> @joana_varon
> >>>> PGP 0x016B8E73
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Dear people,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I am not sure we will go too far (although philosophers can really be
> >>>>> far-fetched in this exercise) in doing an exegesis of her discourse.
> Let
> >>>>> us see how the practice goes. The signs are good: she entered the
> room
> >>>>> to talk to us CGI.br folk with our 10 Principles in hand and the
> first
> >>>>> thing she told us was she agreed with them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> She also mentioned the Marco Civil as proposed by the rapporteur
> (result
> >>>>> of a 4-year public dialogue) is the one she agrees with (which is the
> >>>>> one CGI.br formally supported), and was going to fight for it,
> although
> >>>>> recognizing that as bill of law transiting through Congress it might
> >>>>> suffer modifications which she might veto but Congress could reverse
> and
> >>>>> so on -- in summary, normal practice in a democratic State. The big
> >>>>> challenge now is the process in Congress, where the transnational
> telcos
> >>>>> and big media have enormous power.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> frt rgds
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --c.a.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 09/24/2013 09:58 PM, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote:
> >>>>>> the Steering Committee principle reads as "Internet governance must
> be
> >>>>>> exercised in a transparent, multilateral and democratic manner, with
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>> participation of the various sectors of society, thereby preserving
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>> encouraging its character as a collective creation."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Her wording for the UNGA says: "Open, multilateral and democratic
> >>>>>> governance, carried out with transparency by stimulating collective
> >>>>>> creativity and the participation of society, Governments and the
> >>>>> private
> >>>>>> sector."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> My reading of that is that: (1) it does not repeat the idea that
> >>>>> Internet
> >>>>>> governance as a collective creation and (2) the first one defines
> >>>>> Internet
> >>>>>> governance as something "with the participation of the various
> >>>>> sectors of
> >>>>>> society", and the second only mentions it should be carried out with
> >>>>>> stimuli for "the participation of society, governments and the
> private
> >>>>>> sector."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Can you see my point?
> >>>>>> Em português o trem funciona do mesmo jeito.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Carolina Rossini <
> >>>>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Via Renata Avila, segue discurso da Dilma na UN.
> >>>>>>> Coming from Renata Avila, see attached Dilma draft speech at UN.
> >>>>>>> C
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>  >> *Carolina Rossini*
> >>>>>>> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
> >>>>>>> Open Technology Institute
> >>>>>>> *New America Foundation*
> >>>>>  >> //
> >>>>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/
> >>>>>>> + 1 6176979389 <%2B%201%206176979389>
> >>>>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
> >>>>>>> skype: carolrossini
> >>>>>>> @carolinarossini
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>>>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> >>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >>>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>>>
> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >>>>
> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> ------------------------------------------------------
> >>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
> >>> executive director, association for progressive
> communicationswww.apc.org
> >>> po box 29755, melville 2109
> >>> south africa
> >>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Anne Jellema
> >> Chief Executive Officer
> >> Cape Town, RSA
> >> mob (ZA) +27 61 036 9652
> >> tel (ZA) +27 21 788 4585
> >> tel (US) +1 202 684 6885
> >>  Skype anne.jellema
> >> @afjellema
> >>
> >> World Wide Web Foundation | 1889 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, USA
> |
> >> www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>



-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130925/b920c52b/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed Sep 25 12:45:14 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 09:45:14 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] Letter to Pres. Rousseff, was, Re: [governance]
 Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
In-Reply-To: <524308FC.5080209@cafonso.ca>
References: <CAK-FJAf8PwDCDDj=rWTvyKcXuryceMHwzqUT=X+fd=vqSHC0iw@mail.gmail.com>	<CA+MV=uGv=DLLSEr0rHe3N4jdwNUvs0t+uTGtaaz-pKiX6x1Tvw@mail.gmail.com>	<5242D6EB.4060609@cafonso.ca>	<CALTAiTpbeo=CZKXZzVKGOjk7ubjoQjPF16auCgQ6K4vgZ=wOUg@mail.gmail.com>	<CA+4KnA8ZtuGySHkf6s+Zsiwo=qs61T2TgUWo=h9qauwvJj8Qaw@mail.gmail.com>	<5242EEFE.5030806@apc.org>	<CAFwCmbED+WWmHrBLv4KxOUSz5aFWCFtgajbmtv76PwvweYNMKg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJqNAHCaiYiPHHL9=TErT9zjtm-PKzFpj9sjMqRFgd=r5qJ3iQ@mail.gmail.com> <524308FC.5080209@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <00d101ceba0e$9cca5fa0$d65f1ee0$@gmail.com>

The Brazil statement is I think, an excellent including the references in
the context of governance to MLism rather than to MSism given the ambiguity
and bad faith which can be ascribed to many of the particular uses (and
users) of the latter terminology/methodology.

The multilateral system has earned its spurs if nothing else through the
UNDHR and the work of such agencies as the WHO and UNICEF and in their times
the UNDP and UNESCO.

The quite evidently subverted MSism of the Internet may by my reckoning at
this moment be something of a poisoned challice (if nothing else through the
potentially questionable motives (and ideologies) of its most ardent
governmental and other backers) and we await its redemption through the
(possible) mounting of a suitable response post-Snowden.

At this point I see no overwhelming reason to go with what we don't know
(MSism) and discarding something we do know (MLism) and a lot of potential
risks to democratic governance by doing so, even if we have certain recent
reservations.

M.

-----Original Message-----
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 9:02 AM
To: Anja Kovacs; Anne Jellema
Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Letter to Pres. Rousseff, was, Re: [governance]
Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN

Rousseff sees "multilateral" as "among nations", not "among governments".
But I do understand the term in the international diplomatic scene takes a
meaning opposed to what civil society defends and each government has its
own particular interpretation -- BTW, as do different civil society
"tribes".

My IMHO advice: let us not be black-and-white on this. Let us think of the
ways in which we can build bridges. Rousseff has opened a wonderful window
of opportunity, let us not just dismiss it because there is that "12-letter
word" in her statement.

fraternal regards

--c.a.

On 09/25/2013 12:37 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
> I agree with Anne that the speech was clever in many ways, but am also 
> a little worried about how the continuous references to 
> multilateralism will be read in our own domestic context, where the 
> importance of these statements from a Brazilian perspective is not 
> necessarily fully appreciated or understood in its nuances. The whole 
> debate about whether a reformed Internet governance should take a 
> multilateral or multistakeholder route *is* gaining momentum at the 
> moment, and if we as international civil society are going to make a 
> comment on the Brazilian president's speech, I do think we have to 
> comment on her remarks on this issue as well - or our own stance on 
> the question of multistakeholderism might be misunderstood in our own
countries.
> 
> Isn't there a way in which we can do so without undermining the 
> Brazilian national agenda (or even better, by supporting that agenda)? 
> If so, I'll be very happy to support a letter but if this is not noted 
> at all, it might be difficult for us to do so, as silence could be read as
implicit approval.
> 
> Thanks and best,
> Anja
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 25 September 2013 20:33, Anne Jellema <anne at webfoundation.org> wrote:
> 
>> I support Anriette's suggestion and I hope the international letter 
>> could help Brazilian colleagues to secure a meeting with Rousseff's 
>> advisors in the near future to better understand her position and 
>> lobby on the best ways for Brazil to show international leadership in
this area.
>>
>> As I read Joana and Carlos's remarks, I was remembering that on other 
>> global issues (such as trade justice and climate change), Brazil has 
>> often managed to punch well above its weight diplomatically by 
>> positioning itself very strategically as a bridge-builder between 
>> "South" and "North" blocs (to caricature them very crudely).  Reading 
>> her speech, and the clever way it managed to pick up on key demands 
>> and buzzwords from both sides of the internet governance divide, I 
>> did wonder whether Brazil is once again angling to set itself up as 
>> the player that can broker pragmatic compromises between competing 
>> ideologies. If so, I think that's probably good news, especially 
>> given that the PT in power has usually been relatively open to working
with civil society.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Anne
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen
<anriette at apc.org>wrote:
>>
>>>  Dear all
>>>
>>> I would like to propose that we do a letter from civil society 
>>> commending her on her speech. We could mention our support and 
>>> wishes for the Marco Civil, and, if we want, the multi-lateral vs.
multi-stakeholder question.
>>>
>>> Anriette
>>>
>>> On 25/09/2013 15:41, Gene Kimmelman wrote:
>>>
>>> Having been in these situations in the U.S., I fully understand the 
>>> need to accept and fully embrace progress; I do not want to 
>>> interfere in what our Brazilian friends are fully capable of 
>>> handling, other than to say I fully support the sentiment expressed by
Joana and Carlos!
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Joana Varon
<joana at varonferraz.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>>   Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> I totally support Carlos Afonso's view.
>>>>
>>>>  One step at the time.
>>>>
>>>> What matters now is that Dilma has clearly mentioned the CGI.br 
>>>> principles, including the support for net neutrality. It means a 
>>>> LOT for our national scenario and for years of fight to try to pass
Marco Civil.
>>>> Meaning it wont be easy for telcos to take down net neutrality 
>>>> provisions from the draft bill.
>>>>
>>>> Even better, this all has happened right after she opened a channel 
>>>> of communication/consulation with CGI.br. That's THE dynamics for 
>>>> internet public policies we dreamed about in Brazil. The issue on 
>>>> using the word "multilateral" shall NOT be used to loose the focus 
>>>> on this major achievement.
>>>>
>>>>  It is indeed an issue of concern. But it's not actually something new.
>>>> It has been highlighted in several opportunities in the Brazilian 
>>>> positions at ITU, held by Anatel, our regulatory agency.  For 
>>>> instance, in our previous opinion on the role of States. 
>>>> Nevertheless, positions from our Ministry of Foreign Affairs 
>>>> towards multistakeholderism are very clear and positive. And now 
>>>> CGI.br has the door open with the president to correct explain all 
>>>> the important debate of multistakeholder approach on IG. So we have
opportunities to correct this schizophrenic aspect and there is hope.
>>>>
>>>>  So, please, people, let's be positive and understand that having 
>>>> the President referring to these principles - an to Internet 
>>>> Policies - in the UNGA is not a minor thing. I had the lucky to be 
>>>> in a panel at the Council of Europe a few minutes after she 
>>>> delivered the speech and managed to incorporate some of her quotes 
>>>> in my presentation. The public got really impressed.
>>>>
>>>>  all the best
>>>>
>>>> joana
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz
>>>> @joana_varon
>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear people,
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not sure we will go too far (although philosophers can really 
>>>>> be far-fetched in this exercise) in doing an exegesis of her 
>>>>> discourse. Let us see how the practice goes. The signs are good: 
>>>>> she entered the room to talk to us CGI.br folk with our 10 
>>>>> Principles in hand and the first thing she told us was she agreed with
them.
>>>>>
>>>>> She also mentioned the Marco Civil as proposed by the rapporteur 
>>>>> (result of a 4-year public dialogue) is the one she agrees with 
>>>>> (which is the one CGI.br formally supported), and was going to 
>>>>> fight for it, although recognizing that as bill of law transiting 
>>>>> through Congress it might suffer modifications which she might 
>>>>> veto but Congress could reverse and so on -- in summary, normal 
>>>>> practice in a democratic State. The big challenge now is the 
>>>>> process in Congress, where the transnational telcos and big media have
enormous power.
>>>>>
>>>>> frt rgds
>>>>>
>>>>> --c.a.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 09/24/2013 09:58 PM, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote:
>>>>>> the Steering Committee principle reads as "Internet governance 
>>>>>> must be exercised in a transparent, multilateral and democratic 
>>>>>> manner, with
>>>>> the
>>>>>> participation of the various sectors of society, thereby 
>>>>>> preserving
>>>>> and
>>>>>> encouraging its character as a collective creation."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Her wording for the UNGA says: "Open, multilateral and democratic 
>>>>>> governance, carried out with transparency by stimulating 
>>>>>> collective creativity and the participation of society, 
>>>>>> Governments and the
>>>>> private
>>>>>> sector."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My reading of that is that: (1) it does not repeat the idea that
>>>>> Internet
>>>>>> governance as a collective creation and (2) the first one defines
>>>>> Internet
>>>>>> governance as something "with the participation of the various
>>>>> sectors of
>>>>>> society", and the second only mentions it should be carried out 
>>>>>> with stimuli for "the participation of society, governments and 
>>>>>> the private sector."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you see my point?
>>>>>> Em português o trem funciona do mesmo jeito.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Carolina Rossini < 
>>>>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Via Renata Avila, segue discurso da Dilma na UN.
>>>>>>> Coming from Renata Avila, see attached Dilma draft speech at UN.
>>>>>>> C
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>  >> *Carolina Rossini*
>>>>>>> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open 
>>>>>>> Technology Institute *New America Foundation*
>>>>>  >> //
>>>>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/
>>>>>>> + 1 6176979389 <%2B%201%206176979389>
>>>>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
>>>>>>> skype: carolrossini
>>>>>>> @carolinarossini
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, 
>>>>>>> visit:
>>>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, 
>>>>> visit:
>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>
>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>
>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, 
>>> association for progressive communicationswww.apc.org po box 29755, 
>>> melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Anne Jellema
>> Chief Executive Officer
>> Cape Town, RSA
>> mob (ZA) +27 61 036 9652
>> tel (ZA) +27 21 788 4585
>> tel (US) +1 202 684 6885
>>  Skype anne.jellema
>> @afjellema
>>
>> World Wide Web Foundation | 1889 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, 
>> USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation
>>
> 
> 
> 


From Camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu  Wed Sep 25 12:46:40 2013
From: Camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu (Camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 16:46:40 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Call_for_Tenders_SMART_2013/N004_=93E?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?uropean_Capability_for_Situational_Awareness=94_-_Europe?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?an_Federation_for_cyber-censorship_and_human_rights_moni?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?toring?=
Message-ID: <B947C187D5C52B4B9C0DBC45FF88501849F1B40C@S-DC-ESTG04-B.net1.cec.eu.int>

Dear all,

First of all I'm sorry for cross-posting.

Please note the deadline for the ECSA tender SMART 2013/N004 (normally tomorrow 26 September) has been extended at the request of several bidders until 1 October at 16.00h.

The opening of the tender has also been postponed: 15 October

Attached you can find the new official contract notice that will be published tomorrow at 9.00am in the Official Journal of the European Union. The SPECS are also enclosed.

I copy the original email below for your convenience.

Best regards

Ms Camino Manjon Sierra
European Commission - DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology
Unit D1 (International relations)
Internet Governance; ICANN GAC; EU Registry; Internet and Human Rights
Desk Officer Iran, Syria , Sudan, Iraq & Yemen
Avenue de Beaulieu 25 (5/98) / B-1049 / Brussels / Belgium
T: +32-2-29-78797
M: +32-488-203-447
Twitter @msprotonneutron
Linked-In https://www.linkedin.com/pub/camino-manjon/50/b20/240





The purpose of this email is to inform you of the recent publication of the Call for Tenders SMART 2013/N004 “European Capability for Situational Awareness” (ECSA). If you are interested in this contract, you should submit your tender no later than26/09/2013.

You will find all the relevant information (invitation to the tender, tender specifications and model contract) in the following link: http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/smart-2013n004-—-european-capability-situational-awareness and attached for those using certain tools which have proven to be a limitation to access our documentation.

At the initiative of the Directorate General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology (DG CONNECT), and in close cooperation with other European Commission services (DG Development and Cooperation and DG Enterprise) and the European External Action Service (EEAS), the European Commission has put in place the No-Disconnect Strategy. The goal of this policy toolkit is to provide on-going support to counter-censorship and surveillance to facilitate the role of activists, political dissidents, bloggers, journalists and citizens living and/or operating in high-risk environments, or elsewhere. This way we make operational our commitment to uphold human rights and fundamental freedoms online and support that the No-Disconnect Strategy embraces the wider EU strategy for Human Rights.

- http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/neelie-kroes/eu-fighting-cybercensorship/

- http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/131181.pdf

For those who are not familiar with the Strategy, its four main strands of activity are: (1) development of technological tools; (2) training/awareness and capacity building; (3) development of methods to provide a global capability for situational awareness; and (4) cooperation with the ICT/Internet industry, EU Member States and third countries, also involved in the protection of online freedom of expression and privacy.

The tender "European capability for situational awareness" (ECSA) is aimed at providing to the European Commission the framework necessary to evaluate the creation of a wider European Federation for cyber-censorship and human rights monitoring, and the underlying system infrastructure required to that end.

To achieve this objective, the ICT-PSP Work Programme 2013 will support the development of the ECSA platform with an allocation of approximately EUR 400,000 for the initial phase (conceptualization of the platform according to the conditions seth forth in the tender specifications that you will find in the link above and in attachment, and the design of a first prototype of the systems infrastructure and interactive map).

The idea departed partially from the “OECD Communiqué on Principles for Internet Policy Making”, in particular the following two ones:

·         “Develop capacities to bring publicly available, reliable data into the policy-making process. Publicly available data can increase the quality of all stakeholders’ participation in Internet policy- making as well as governments’ ultimate policy decisions. The collection, validation and public dissemination of objective data to inform Internet policy decisions should be reinforced and used to augment the combined research capacities of governments, other competent authorities and other stakeholders. International comparable metrics will help to quantify the on-going economic developments and assess the proportionality and effectiveness of any policy solutions created in multi-stakeholder processes. Data gathering should be undertaken so as to avoid administrative burdens and data analysis should be done carefully to enable sound policymaking.”

·         “Transparency, fair process, and accountability. In order to build public trust in the Internet environment, policy-making processes and substantive policies that ensure transparency, fair process, and accountability should be encouraged. Transparency ensures that Internet users have timely, accessible, and actionable information that is relevant to their rights and interests”.

Is in this context in which we realized that a tool enabling evidence-based policy-making and transparency related, in this case, to censorship and surveillance, could also provide situational awareness not only to EU policy and decision-makers but also to those affected directly by the aforementioned restrictions, maximizing their empowerment: political dissidents, activists, human rights defenders, bloggers, journalists and several other essential actors in the fight for online (and offline) freedom.

Now, shifting the focus of this email to the tender itself, the tasks outlined in the tender specifications will address, among several other things, the definition of the governance framework and systems infrastructure that should govern and support the operations of the federation of organizations that tenderers will have to propose, taking into account that all sorts of expertise on Internet-event monitoring will be needed.

With the view to translate the Internet reality into a “cartography” of cyber-censorship and cyber-surveillance, the federation will be anchored in a dynamic platform -controlled from a dashboard-, where the aforementioned federated network of partners with Internet monitoring and, more specifically Internet censorship and surveillance monitoring capabilities, will aggregate a variety of clearly defined sets of data (including Open Data and Big Data) coming from several sources and stakeholders.

We expect this project to provide reliable and real time or near-real time information on the status of network connectivity, network traffic alterations/restrictions and serve as a new source of Internet security incidents, as well as to provide timely information on legal, social and political developments related to the use of the Internet and media for the exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

As it seems obvious, the gathering of data (and in some cases of information) will be related to the location and intensity of censorship and surveillance in non-democratic countries, nascent democracies, jurisdictions where human rights are most at risk and other parts of the globe where similar trends have been arising in recent times.

The data gathering will have two tracks: the first one addressing restrictions/disruptions of Internet and ICT infrastructure, access, traffic, content, Internet cut-offs or security events, inter alia, overlaid with a second track of contextual data of political, social, legal, regulatory, policy, media, journalistic or human rights nature, related to the Internet or not and with a global scope, which would help provide the full picture and enable the EU and other actors to swiftly act upon reliable and timely information. Examples of this second track could be arrests of journalists, restrictions on freedom of expression in times of elections, laws affecting Internet openness, crack-downs on activists or restriction to NGO´s establishment, to name a few.

That near-real time information will be mashed-up and controlled from the dashboard, and presented in a user-friendly manner, ideally in different layers (thematic, geographic, highly troubled areas, etc.) through interactive visualizations via live maps as an essential condition, coupled with the generation of alarms; subject-matter reports and geographical reports. As you will see in the tender, new ways of dissemination of information are most welcome.

As highlighted before, this type of capability is expected to enhance the current EU´s early-warning, decision-making and policy-making skills and strengthen the level of situational awareness of, but not limited to, stakeholders such as digital activists or human rights defenders, but even researchers.

In particular, the tasks you will find in the tender are:

Task 1 Creation of an Internet censorship monitoring Federation

Task 2 Provision of a Data Sources catalogue

Task 3 Definition of a Data Governance Framework

Task 4 Definition of the technical and infrastructure specifications, features and functionalities (including security measures)

Task 5 Recommendations

Some of the expected positive impacts of ECSA we can name are as follows: (1) Ensuring Internet resilience and stability; (2) Reinforcement of early-warning capabilities and emergency response concerning events affecting human rights, legal, policy and media restrictions; (3) Better measurement of the evolution of non-democratic environments to democratic ones ("democracy thermometer"); (4) Better exchange of information and capacity building among relevant stakeholders; (5) Better response in case of attacks to human rights and activists networks; (6) Creation of a body of knowledge at the disposal of academics and researchers, as well as of the general public (Open Science); (7) Publication of timely reports and alarms on relevant Internet and human rights related events (including activity and threat reports); (8) Support to the implementation of Human Rights-based approaches; (9) Optimization of resources and tailored targeted grant support in areas where human rights are most at risk in terms of cyber censorship and surveillance; (10) Reinforcement of capabilities to ensure global Internet connectivity; (11) Provide (new) methods for network measurement; (12) Provision of a new source of information about Internet security and infrastructure incidents; or (13) Provision of capabilities for crisis mapping, among others.

In Part 1 of the Tender specifications you will find the Technical Description, containing the general context, the specific context and examples of organisations and existing projects in the area of Internet monitoring (whereby some of your projects we regularly observe are mentioned).

As regards the Eligibility Criteria, we recommend you to have a look in detail at Part 2 of the Tender Specifications containing the Administrative Details, in particular Section 1 “Eligibility requirements”; Section 2 “Administrative Requirements”; Section 5.2 “Selection Criteria” and Section 5.3 “Award Criteria”.

At the request of tenderers, additional information will be communicated solely for the purpose of clarifying the nature of the contract and the tender specifications. Such information will have to be communicated on the same date to all interested parties hence your questions will be published in the link referred to in the document “invitation to the tender”. This means that for whatever doubt you may have, you can write directly to me (camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu<mailto:camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu>) copying our functional mailbox CNECT-D1 at ec.europa.eu<mailto:CNECT-D1 at ec.europa.eu>. We will do so for transparency reasons and to guarantee equal competition, making publicly available both question and answers.

The opening of received tenders will take place on 10/10/2013 at 10.00h in the Commission building located in Avenue de Beaulieu 25, Brussels. One authorised representative of each tenderer may attend the opening. Tenderers who plan to attend this opening session can inform by e-mail to camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu<mailto:camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu>; by fax (+32 2 296 89 70) or letter at least 72h in advance.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130925/cce9a823/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ENOTICES_CONNECT-2013-128737-F14-EN.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 76468 bytes
Desc: ENOTICES_CONNECT-2013-128737-F14-EN.pdf
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130925/cce9a823/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ECSAFinalTenderspecifications-5.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 622210 bytes
Desc: ECSAFinalTenderspecifications-5.pdf
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130925/cce9a823/attachment-0001.pdf>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Wed Sep 25 12:57:51 2013
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 12:57:51 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Letter to Pres. Rousseff, was, Re: [governance]
 Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
In-Reply-To: <524308FC.5080209@cafonso.ca>
References: <CAK-FJAf8PwDCDDj=rWTvyKcXuryceMHwzqUT=X+fd=vqSHC0iw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+MV=uGv=DLLSEr0rHe3N4jdwNUvs0t+uTGtaaz-pKiX6x1Tvw@mail.gmail.com> <5242D6EB.4060609@cafonso.ca> <CALTAiTpbeo=CZKXZzVKGOjk7ubjoQjPF16auCgQ6K4vgZ=wOUg@mail.gmail.com> <CA+4KnA8ZtuGySHkf6s+Zsiwo=qs61T2TgUWo=h9qauwvJj8Qaw@mail.gmail.com> <5242EEFE.5030806@apc.org> <CAFwCmbED+WWmHrBLv4KxOUSz5aFWCFtgajbmtv76PwvweYNMKg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJqNAHCaiYiPHHL9=TErT9zjtm-PKzFpj9sjMqRFgd=r5qJ3iQ@mail.gmail.com> <524308FC.5080209@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <38720178-1D15-4220-BBC8-77CC330F38B5@gmail.com>

I agree. I talked to friends in the gov and it seems that she used multilateral meaning multistakeholder 
But I also agree this needs to be clarified in an official note and maybe even ask a official note back from Itamaraty
But this can also be a shot on our own foot if comes back as actual "multilateral"... In which case maybe we should not call attention to it?
I would think that us Brazilians in the list need to talk with folks in the gov to clarify all that before a very loud action....
Anyway, just trying to brainstorm what is better.
I also would prefer up point the very positive parts of her speech which are VERY helpful for the Marco Civil discussion
I am afraid to have the good distracted by the bad.... 

Sent from my iPhone 

On Sep 25, 2013, at 12:02 PM, "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:

> Rousseff sees "multilateral" as "among nations", not "among
> governments". But I do understand the term in the international
> diplomatic scene takes a meaning opposed to what civil society defends
> and each government has its own particular interpretation -- BTW, as do
> different civil society "tribes".
> 
> My IMHO advice: let us not be black-and-white on this. Let us think of
> the ways in which we can build bridges. Rousseff has opened a wonderful
> window of opportunity, let us not just dismiss it because there is that
> "12-letter word" in her statement.
> 
> fraternal regards
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> On 09/25/2013 12:37 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>> I agree with Anne that the speech was clever in many ways, but am also a
>> little worried about how the continuous references to multilateralism will
>> be read in our own domestic context, where the importance of these
>> statements from a Brazilian perspective is not necessarily fully
>> appreciated or understood in its nuances. The whole debate about whether a
>> reformed Internet governance should take a multilateral or multistakeholder
>> route *is* gaining momentum at the moment, and if we as international civil
>> society are going to make a comment on the Brazilian president's speech, I
>> do think we have to comment on her remarks on this issue as well - or our
>> own stance on the question of multistakeholderism might be misunderstood in
>> our own countries.
>> 
>> Isn't there a way in which we can do so without undermining the Brazilian
>> national agenda (or even better, by supporting that agenda)? If so, I'll be
>> very happy to support a letter but if this is not noted at all, it might be
>> difficult for us to do so, as silence could be read as implicit approval.
>> 
>> Thanks and best,
>> Anja
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 25 September 2013 20:33, Anne Jellema <anne at webfoundation.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> I support Anriette's suggestion and I hope the international letter could
>>> help Brazilian colleagues to secure a meeting with Rousseff's advisors in
>>> the near future to better understand her position and lobby on the best
>>> ways for Brazil to show international leadership in this area.
>>> 
>>> As I read Joana and Carlos's remarks, I was remembering that on other
>>> global issues (such as trade justice and climate change), Brazil has often
>>> managed to punch well above its weight diplomatically by positioning itself
>>> very strategically as a bridge-builder between "South" and "North" blocs
>>> (to caricature them very crudely).  Reading her speech, and the clever way
>>> it managed to pick up on key demands and buzzwords from both sides of the
>>> internet governance divide, I did wonder whether Brazil is once again
>>> angling to set itself up as the player that can broker pragmatic
>>> compromises between competing ideologies. If so, I think that's probably
>>> good news, especially given that the PT in power has usually been
>>> relatively open to working with civil society.
>>> 
>>> Cheers
>>> Anne
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Dear all
>>>> 
>>>> I would like to propose that we do a letter from civil society commending
>>>> her on her speech. We could mention our support and wishes for the Marco
>>>> Civil, and, if we want, the multi-lateral vs. multi-stakeholder question.
>>>> 
>>>> Anriette
>>>> 
>>>> On 25/09/2013 15:41, Gene Kimmelman wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Having been in these situations in the U.S., I fully understand the need
>>>> to accept and fully embrace progress; I do not want to interfere in what
>>>> our Brazilian friends are fully capable of handling, other than to say I
>>>> fully support the sentiment expressed by Joana and Carlos!
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com>wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>  Dear all,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I totally support Carlos Afonso's view.
>>>>> 
>>>>> One step at the time.
>>>>> 
>>>>> What matters now is that Dilma has clearly mentioned the CGI.br
>>>>> principles, including the support for net neutrality. It means a LOT for
>>>>> our national scenario and for years of fight to try to pass Marco Civil.
>>>>> Meaning it wont be easy for telcos to take down net neutrality provisions
>>>>> from the draft bill.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Even better, this all has happened right after she opened a channel of
>>>>> communication/consulation with CGI.br. That's THE dynamics for internet
>>>>> public policies we dreamed about in Brazil. The issue on using the word
>>>>> "multilateral" shall NOT be used to loose the focus on this major
>>>>> achievement.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It is indeed an issue of concern. But it's not actually something new.
>>>>> It has been highlighted in several opportunities in the Brazilian positions
>>>>> at ITU, held by Anatel, our regulatory agency.  For instance, in our
>>>>> previous opinion on the role of States. Nevertheless, positions from our
>>>>> Ministry of Foreign Affairs towards multistakeholderism are very clear and
>>>>> positive. And now CGI.br has the door open with the president to correct
>>>>> explain all the important debate of multistakeholder approach on IG. So we
>>>>> have opportunities to correct this schizophrenic aspect and there is hope.
>>>>> 
>>>>> So, please, people, let's be positive and understand that having the
>>>>> President referring to these principles - an to Internet Policies - in the
>>>>> UNGA is not a minor thing. I had the lucky to be in a panel at the Council
>>>>> of Europe a few minutes after she delivered the speech and managed to
>>>>> incorporate some of her quotes in my presentation. The public got really
>>>>> impressed.
>>>>> 
>>>>> all the best
>>>>> 
>>>>> joana
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> --
>>>>> 
>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz
>>>>> @joana_varon
>>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Dear people,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I am not sure we will go too far (although philosophers can really be
>>>>>> far-fetched in this exercise) in doing an exegesis of her discourse. Let
>>>>>> us see how the practice goes. The signs are good: she entered the room
>>>>>> to talk to us CGI.br folk with our 10 Principles in hand and the first
>>>>>> thing she told us was she agreed with them.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> She also mentioned the Marco Civil as proposed by the rapporteur (result
>>>>>> of a 4-year public dialogue) is the one she agrees with (which is the
>>>>>> one CGI.br formally supported), and was going to fight for it, although
>>>>>> recognizing that as bill of law transiting through Congress it might
>>>>>> suffer modifications which she might veto but Congress could reverse and
>>>>>> so on -- in summary, normal practice in a democratic State. The big
>>>>>> challenge now is the process in Congress, where the transnational telcos
>>>>>> and big media have enormous power.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> frt rgds
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --c.a.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 09/24/2013 09:58 PM, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote:
>>>>>>> the Steering Committee principle reads as "Internet governance must be
>>>>>>> exercised in a transparent, multilateral and democratic manner, with
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> participation of the various sectors of society, thereby preserving
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> encouraging its character as a collective creation."
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Her wording for the UNGA says: "Open, multilateral and democratic
>>>>>>> governance, carried out with transparency by stimulating collective
>>>>>>> creativity and the participation of society, Governments and the
>>>>>> private
>>>>>>> sector."
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> My reading of that is that: (1) it does not repeat the idea that
>>>>>> Internet
>>>>>>> governance as a collective creation and (2) the first one defines
>>>>>> Internet
>>>>>>> governance as something "with the participation of the various
>>>>>> sectors of
>>>>>>> society", and the second only mentions it should be carried out with
>>>>>>> stimuli for "the participation of society, governments and the private
>>>>>>> sector."
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Can you see my point?
>>>>>>> Em português o trem funciona do mesmo jeito.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Carolina Rossini <
>>>>>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Via Renata Avila, segue discurso da Dilma na UN.
>>>>>>>> Coming from Renata Avila, see attached Dilma draft speech at UN.
>>>>>>>> C
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> *Carolina Rossini*
>>>>>>>> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
>>>>>>>> Open Technology Institute
>>>>>>>> *New America Foundation*
>>>>>>>> //
>>>>>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/
>>>>>>>> + 1 6176979389 <%2B%201%206176979389>
>>>>>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
>>>>>>>> skype: carolrossini
>>>>>>>> @carolinarossini
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>> 
>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>> 
>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
>>>> executive director, association for progressive communicationswww.apc.org
>>>> po box 29755, melville 2109
>>>> south africa
>>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Anne Jellema
>>> Chief Executive Officer
>>> Cape Town, RSA
>>> mob (ZA) +27 61 036 9652
>>> tel (ZA) +27 21 788 4585
>>> tel (US) +1 202 684 6885
>>> Skype anne.jellema
>>> @afjellema
>>> 
>>> World Wide Web Foundation | 1889 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, USA |
>>> www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation
>> 
>> 
>> 

From joana at varonferraz.com  Wed Sep 25 13:16:58 2013
From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 19:16:58 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] [letter to Dilma Rousseff] merging threads from IGC and
 BB
Message-ID: <CALTAiTrO=KuiuutE4qkGx07MAEKgok+Tx9a2=A4vRj0m49uAew@mail.gmail.com>

Diego, as you, and others, might not be at bestbits list, let me mention
that this issue about the letter has been debated on both lists. So lets
merge the threads here and change the tone of the letter so it can be
inclusive of all the international civil society organizations and
individuals, ok?

Fundamental guidelines for moving forward:

Bearing in mind the points raised by Anja and other folks on the issue of
multistakeholderism, I would suggest that particularly with the goal not to
undermine the positive aspect of Dilma's speech, and the impacts on the
national scenario, we hear to Carlos Afonso's wise (insider) suggestion and
mention this critical topic in a positive manner as well:

"My IMHO advice: let us not be black-and-white on this. Let us think of the
ways in which we can build bridges. Rousseff has opened a wonderful window
of opportunity, let us not just dismiss it because there is that "12-letter
word" in her statement."

The link again:
https://pad.riseup.net/p/IGC-Supports-Brazil


cheers

joana

On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Diego Rafael Canabarro <
diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote:

> I started a pad. Helpers, please help. Haters, please keep off.
>
> https://pad.riseup.net/p/IGC-Supports-Brazil
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in>wrote:
>
>> Would it perhaps be possible then to ask her as part of the statement to
>> clarify her stance on the global model which she preposes, in particular
>> with regard to the involvement of stakeholders other than the government?
>> By linking this up with her obvious support of the Brazilian domestic
>> model, this could perhaps be done in a way that asks the question without
>> undoing any of the fabulousness of her speech.
>>
>> As I noted on another list, my aim is not to dismiss Dilma's
>> intervention, but to ensure that we do not come up with a statement that
>> puts many of us in a very difficult position vis-a-vis our own governments
>> inthe ongoing negotiations on the best model of global Internet governance.
>> This is especially true in contexts such as India where
>> multistakeholderism, though making progress, is far from as established as
>> it is in Brazil and in fact continues to be extremely fragile.
>>
>> Thanks and best,
>> Anja
>>
>>
>>
>> On 25 September 2013 21:47, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> I would not like to take on this task since I am deeply involved here
>>> and might introduce bias which would delay approval by our flock -- this
>>> needs to be from the international civil society community.
>>>
>>> It would be *extremely important* to have it ready by tomorrow late
>>> night (it can be very late in the night -- I am not really sleeping
>>> these days) Brazilian time so I can print it and try and deliver it to
>>> the Presidenta's hands (or her closest advisors).
>>>
>>> fraternal regards
>>>
>>> --c.a.
>>>
>>> On 09/25/2013 11:52 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote:
>>> > I believe that Carolina (Rossini), Joana (Varon) and Marilia Maciel
>>> > could (should) be part of the task-force. : )
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
>>> > <suresh at hserus.net <mailto:suresh at hserus.net>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >     Carlos and Diego could take the lead on this one, with other
>>> >     brazilian colleagues more directly involved in Marco civil than we
>>> are
>>> >
>>> >     I am happy to sign on to a suitable statement
>>> >
>>> >     --srs (htc one x)
>>> >
>>> >     On 25 September 2013 7:50:34 PM parminder __ wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>     If such is the range of support, lets write a statement supporting
>>> >>     Dilma's very important speech, and commend her/ Brazil on it (as
>>> >>     also suggested on another list)
>>> >>
>>> >>     parminder
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>     On Wednesday 25 September 2013 06:05 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
>>> wrote:
>>> >>>     In which case she has delivered a ringing endorsement of
>>> >>>     values near and dear to civil society.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>     --srs (iPad)
>>> >>>
>>> >>>>     On 24-Sep-2013, at 22:22, "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca>
>>> <mailto:ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>     Yes, I was one of the ones who talked to her just before she
>>> travelled
>>> >>>>     to the Evil Empire. This is the meaning.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>     The best part was her firm and clear defense of net neutrality
>>> (not even
>>> >>>>     aunt Neelie dares so much). A tremendous cold shower on the
>>> >>>>     transnational telco cartel in Brazil, and a renewed hope Marco
>>> Civil
>>> >>>>     could be approved as we dream it should.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>     fraternal regards
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>     --c.a.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>>     On 09/24/2013 01:33 PM, Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA wrote:
>>> >>>>>     Dear Raphael,
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>     You are right.
>>> >>>>>     I was asking myself if she didn't use "Multilateral" by error.
>>> Did she want
>>> >>>>>     to talk "Multistakeholder".
>>> >>>>>     If I consider this paragraph for instance :
>>> >>>>>     "2 - Open, multilateral and democratic governance, carried out
>>> with transparency by stimulating
>>> >>>>>     collective creativity and the participation of society,
>>> Governments and the
>>> >>>>>     private sector."
>>> >>>>>     If the word "Society"is meant to mean "Civil Society", then I
>>> suppose she
>>> >>>>>     wanted to mean "Multistakeholder"
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>     Regards
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>     NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul
>>> >>>>>     TRAINER IN COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>     ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT
>>> >>>>>     Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>     Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>     Skype : jpnkurunziz
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>     Facebook :  http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza
>>> >>>>>     Tel : +257 79 981459 <tel:%2B257%2079%20981459>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>     ________________________________
>>> >>>>>     De : Diego Rafael Canabarro <diegocanabarro at gmail.com>
>>> <mailto:diegocanabarro at gmail.com>
>>> >>>>>     À : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <mailto:
>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>> >>>>>     <governance at lists.igcaucus.org> <mailto:
>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org>;
>>> >>>>>     Carolina Rossini <carolina.rossini at gmail.com> <mailto:
>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>     Envoyé le : Mardi 24 septembre 2013 18h17
>>> >>>>>     Objet : Re: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>     Three mentions to "multilateral".
>>> >>>>>     No mention to "multistakeholder".
>>> >>>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>> >>>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> >>>>>        governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:
>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>> >>>>>     To be removed from the list, visit:
>>> >>>>>        http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>     For all other list information and functions, see:
>>> >>>>>        http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> >>>>>     To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>> >>>>>        http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> >>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>> >>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> >>>>         governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:
>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>> >>>>     To be removed from the list, visit:
>>> >>>>         http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>     For all other list information and functions, see:
>>> >>>>         http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> >>>>     To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>> >>>>         http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >     ____________________________________________________________
>>> >     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> >          governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> >     <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>> >     To be removed from the list, visit:
>>> >          http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> >
>>> >     For all other list information and functions, see:
>>> >          http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> >     To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>> >          http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> >
>>> >     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Diego R. Canabarro
>>> > http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br <http://ufrgs.br>
>>> > diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu <http://pubpol.umass.edu>
>>> > MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com <http://gmail.com>
>>> > Skype: diegocanabarro
>>> > Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA)
>>> > --
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Anja Kovacs
>> The Internet Democracy Project
>>
>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>> www.internetdemocracy.in
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Diego R. Canabarro
> http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597
>
> --
> diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br
> diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu
> MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com
>  Skype: diegocanabarro
> Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA)
> --
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
-- 

Joana Varon Ferraz
@joana_varon
PGP 0x016B8E73
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130925/7a5bd83b/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Wed Sep 25 13:21:45 2013
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 13:21:45 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] [letter to Dilma Rousseff] merging threads from IGC
 and BB
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTrO=KuiuutE4qkGx07MAEKgok+Tx9a2=A4vRj0m49uAew@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTrO=KuiuutE4qkGx07MAEKgok+Tx9a2=A4vRj0m49uAew@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <19D94929-B8AA-4EB6-9B64-8A3E2C98C5B3@gmail.com>

Agree

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 25, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:

> Diego, as you, and others, might not be at bestbits list, let me mention that this issue about the letter has been debated on both lists. So lets merge the threads here and change the tone of the letter so it can be inclusive of all the international civil society organizations and individuals, ok?
> 
> Fundamental guidelines for moving forward:
> 
> Bearing in mind the points raised by Anja and other folks on the issue of multistakeholderism, I would suggest that particularly with the goal not to undermine the positive aspect of Dilma's speech, and the impacts on the national scenario, we hear to Carlos Afonso's wise (insider) suggestion and mention this critical topic in a positive manner as well:
> 
> "My IMHO advice: let us not be black-and-white on this. Let us think of the ways in which we can build bridges. Rousseff has opened a wonderful window of opportunity, let us not just dismiss it because there is that "12-letter word" in her statement."
> 
> The link again:
> https://pad.riseup.net/p/IGC-Supports-Brazil
> 
> 
> cheers
> 
> joana
> 
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Diego Rafael Canabarro <diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I started a pad. Helpers, please help. Haters, please keep off.
>> 
>> https://pad.riseup.net/p/IGC-Supports-Brazil
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in> wrote:
>>> Would it perhaps be possible then to ask her as part of the statement to clarify her stance on the global model which she preposes, in particular with regard to the involvement of stakeholders other than the government? By linking this up with her obvious support of the Brazilian domestic model, this could perhaps be done in a way that asks the question without undoing any of the fabulousness of her speech. 
>>> 
>>> As I noted on another list, my aim is not to dismiss Dilma's intervention, but to ensure that we do not come up with a statement that puts many of us in a very difficult position vis-a-vis our own governments inthe ongoing negotiations on the best model of global Internet governance. This is especially true in contexts such as India where multistakeholderism, though making progress, is far from as established as it is in Brazil and in fact continues to be extremely fragile. 
>>> 
>>> Thanks and best,
>>> Anja
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 25 September 2013 21:47, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>>>> I would not like to take on this task since I am deeply involved here
>>>> and might introduce bias which would delay approval by our flock -- this
>>>> needs to be from the international civil society community.
>>>> 
>>>> It would be *extremely important* to have it ready by tomorrow late
>>>> night (it can be very late in the night -- I am not really sleeping
>>>> these days) Brazilian time so I can print it and try and deliver it to
>>>> the Presidenta's hands (or her closest advisors).
>>>> 
>>>> fraternal regards
>>>> 
>>>> --c.a.
>>>> 
>>>> On 09/25/2013 11:52 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote:
>>>> > I believe that Carolina (Rossini), Joana (Varon) and Marilia Maciel
>>>> > could (should) be part of the task-force. : )
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
>>>> > <suresh at hserus.net <mailto:suresh at hserus.net>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >     Carlos and Diego could take the lead on this one, with other
>>>> >     brazilian colleagues more directly involved in Marco civil than we are
>>>> >
>>>> >     I am happy to sign on to a suitable statement
>>>> >
>>>> >     --srs (htc one x)
>>>> >
>>>> >     On 25 September 2013 7:50:34 PM parminder __ wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >>     If such is the range of support, lets write a statement supporting
>>>> >>     Dilma's very important speech, and commend her/ Brazil on it (as
>>>> >>     also suggested on another list)
>>>> >>
>>>> >>     parminder
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>     On Wednesday 25 September 2013 06:05 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>>>> >>>     In which case she has delivered a ringing endorsement of
>>>> >>>     values near and dear to civil society.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>     --srs (iPad)
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>>     On 24-Sep-2013, at 22:22, "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca> <mailto:ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>     Yes, I was one of the ones who talked to her just before she travelled
>>>> >>>>     to the Evil Empire. This is the meaning.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>     The best part was her firm and clear defense of net neutrality (not even
>>>> >>>>     aunt Neelie dares so much). A tremendous cold shower on the
>>>> >>>>     transnational telco cartel in Brazil, and a renewed hope Marco Civil
>>>> >>>>     could be approved as we dream it should.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>     fraternal regards
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>     --c.a.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>>     On 09/24/2013 01:33 PM, Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA wrote:
>>>> >>>>>     Dear Raphael,
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>     You are right.
>>>> >>>>>     I was asking myself if she didn't use "Multilateral" by error. Did she want
>>>> >>>>>     to talk "Multistakeholder".
>>>> >>>>>     If I consider this paragraph for instance :
>>>> >>>>>     "2 - Open, multilateral and democratic governance, carried out with transparency by stimulating
>>>> >>>>>     collective creativity and the participation of society, Governments and the
>>>> >>>>>     private sector."
>>>> >>>>>     If the word "Society"is meant to mean "Civil Society", then I suppose she
>>>> >>>>>     wanted to mean "Multistakeholder"
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>     Regards
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>     NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul
>>>> >>>>>     TRAINER IN COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>     ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT
>>>> >>>>>     Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>     Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>     Skype : jpnkurunziz
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>     Facebook :  http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza
>>>> >>>>>     Tel : +257 79 981459 <tel:%2B257%2079%20981459>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>     ________________________________
>>>> >>>>>     De : Diego Rafael Canabarro <diegocanabarro at gmail.com> <mailto:diegocanabarro at gmail.com>
>>>> >>>>>     À : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>> >>>>>     <governance at lists.igcaucus.org> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>;
>>>> >>>>>     Carolina Rossini <carolina.rossini at gmail.com> <mailto:carolina.rossini at gmail.com>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>     Envoyé le : Mardi 24 septembre 2013 18h17
>>>> >>>>>     Objet : Re: [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>     Three mentions to "multilateral".
>>>> >>>>>     No mention to "multistakeholder".
>>>> >>>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>> >>>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>> >>>>>        governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>> >>>>>     To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>> >>>>>        http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>     For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>> >>>>>        http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> >>>>>     To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>> >>>>>        http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>> >>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>> >>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>> >>>>         governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>> >>>>     To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>> >>>>         http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>     For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>> >>>>         http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> >>>>     To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>> >>>>         http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> >     ____________________________________________________________
>>>> >     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>> >          governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> >     <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>>> >     To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>> >          http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>> >
>>>> >     For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>> >          http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> >     To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>> >          http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>> >
>>>> >     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > Diego R. Canabarro
>>>> > http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br <http://ufrgs.br>
>>>> > diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu <http://pubpol.umass.edu>
>>>> > MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com <http://gmail.com>
>>>> > Skype: diegocanabarro
>>>> > Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA)
>>>> > --
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>> 
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>> 
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs
>>> The Internet Democracy Project
>>> 
>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>>> www.internetdemocracy.in
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Diego R. Canabarro
>> http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 
>> 
>> --
>> diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br
>> diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu
>> MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com
>> Skype: diegocanabarro
>> Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA)
>> --
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> -- 
> 
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> @joana_varon
> PGP 0x016B8E73
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130925/5e114430/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Mon Sep  2 04:21:42 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2013 16:21:42 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] IGF plus
In-Reply-To: <521CDF2E.7000705@itforchange.net>
References: <CE429C24.2DD22%andrew@gp-digital.org> <521CDF2E.7000705@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <52244A96.5060702@ciroap.org>

On 28/08/2013, at 3:17 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> Fully support this. Lets give one full day to this...

(Sorry for the delayed response, I've been travelling until my return to
the office today.)  We don't have one full day available for this at the
Best Bits meeting, unless we take out other things that people want to
do, but I've added this as a sub-item to the draft agenda for Bali for
the Day 1 morning, under the rather broad heading "Global Internet
governance principles, enhanced cooperation and the IGF".

Since you (and Valeria) are nominated as facilitators of that session,
you can guide us in suggesting the appropriate emphasis between
sub-topics for discussion.  Most surely, we could spend a full week
rather than two days if we were to cover everything in the depth it
deserves.

I'll also follow up directly with the two of you (and the steering
committee, and separately the other nominated facilitators) about this. 
Meanwhile I'm working on getting the registration system going, and
Access are working on crowd funding for those who need support to
participate.

-- 

*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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge
hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/> | 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.

*WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130902/611d58c5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 261 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130902/611d58c5/attachment.sig>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Wed Sep 25 13:25:04 2013
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 13:25:04 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Taking the Transparency Push Global
References: <0783c5af752516db406e4edd7d7e996790e.20130925153118@mail65.atl11.rsgsv.net>
Message-ID: <7A655500-5F8D-4674-9853-2E061C0657D9@gmail.com>



Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Global Network Initiative <info at globalnetworkinitiative.org>
> Date: September 25, 2013, 11:31:28 AM EDT
> To: Carolina <carolina.rossini at gmail.com>
> Subject: Taking the Transparency Push Global
> Reply-To: Global Network Initiative <info at globalnetworkinitiative.org>
> 
> 
> News from the Global Network Initiative	View this email in your browser
> 	Facebook                                                                     
> 	Twitter                                                                     
> 	Website                                                                     
> 	Email                                                                     
>  
> GNI Writes to Governments Seeking Surveillance Transparency 
> The Global Network Initiative has written to the 21 governments in the Freedom Online Coalition, asking them to report on the requests they make for electronic communications surveillance and to make it legally possible for companies to report regularly to the public on the government requests that they receive from law enforcement as well as national security authorities.
> 
> Read international news coverage of the letters: 
> Tech group asks 21 countries to disclose surveillance requests
> Surveillance du Net : une coalition demande aux gouvernements plus de transparence
> GNI向21个国家政府发出公开信，要求提高信息监控活动的透明度
> 	Share                                                             
> 	Tweet                                                             
> 	Forward to Friend                                                             
> Multimedia
>                         
> GNI and the Telecommunications Industry Dialogue at the Stockholm Internet Forum Unconference.
> More news
> Presidential and Congressional Steps on Communication Surveillance Programs
> GNI Comments to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board
> Executive Summary of GNI Telecoms report available in Arabic, Chinese, French, Russian and Spanish.
> Copyright © 2013 Global Network Initiative, All rights reserved.
> You are receiving this email because you opted in at our website, or through another method.
> 
> Our mailing address is:
> Global Network Initiative
> 1634 I St. NW
> Suite 1100
> Washington, Dc 20006
> 
> Add us to your address book
> unsubscribe from this list   update subscription preferences  
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130925/2fc0bd17/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Wed Sep 25 15:28:11 2013
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 15:28:11 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Letter to Pres. Rousseff, was, Re: [governance]
 Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
In-Reply-To: <EFA9ECCB-46B8-4AD7-BCCA-D26681BBDD01@palermo.edu>
References: <CAK-FJAf8PwDCDDj=rWTvyKcXuryceMHwzqUT=X+fd=vqSHC0iw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+MV=uGv=DLLSEr0rHe3N4jdwNUvs0t+uTGtaaz-pKiX6x1Tvw@mail.gmail.com> <5242D6EB.4060609@cafonso.ca> <CALTAiTpbeo=CZKXZzVKGOjk7ubjoQjPF16auCgQ6K4vgZ=wOUg@mail.gmail.com> <CA+4KnA8ZtuGySHkf6s+Zsiwo=qs61T2TgUWo=h9qauwvJj8Qaw@mail.gmail.com> <5242EEFE.5030806@apc.org> <CAFwCmbED+WWmHrBLv4KxOUSz5aFWCFtgajbmtv76PwvweYNMKg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJqNAHCaiYiPHHL9=TErT9zjtm-PKzFpj9sjMqRFgd=r5qJ3iQ@mail.gmail.com> <524308FC.5080209@cafonso.ca> <38720178-1D15-4220-BBC8-77CC330F38B5@gmail.com> <08F39F0C-2310-4C5D-82BC-813EA164B30A@gmail.com> <EFA9ECCB-46B8-4AD7-BCCA-D26681BBDD01@palermo.edu>
Message-ID: <A9C66C0F-C909-4F86-85E2-11449B49627E@gmail.com>

I did not say was a mistake. I said we are trying to understand what happened 

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 25, 2013, at 2:35 PM, Eduardo Bertoni <eberto2 at palermo.edu> wrote:

> 
> 
>> Well...if Itamaraty made the mistake of confusing a word in the statement of the President (as Carolina said) this will be the first time I see the brazilian diplomacy making this kind of mistake. But at the end anybody can make mistakes, right?
>> 
>> Anyway, on the same line of what I said yesterday, suggesting to be cautious with any statement, I support what Anja, Valeria and others said in this exchange of opinions.  
>> 
>> Eduardo Bertoni 
>> 
>> Sent from a mobile device.  Apologies for typos or brevity.
>> 
>> 
>> On Sep 25, 2013, at 5:57 PM, Carolina <carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> I agree. I talked to friends in the gov and it seems that she used multilateral meaning multistakeholder 
>>> But I also agree this needs to be clarified in an official note and maybe even ask a official note back from Itamaraty
>>> But this can also be a shot on our own foot if comes back as actual "multilateral"... In which case maybe we should not call attention to it?
>>> I would think that us Brazilians in the list need to talk with folks in the gov to clarify all that before a very loud action....
>>> Anyway, just trying to brainstorm what is better.
>>> I also would prefer up point the very positive parts of her speech which are VERY helpful for the Marco Civil discussion
>>> I am afraid to have the good distracted by the bad.... 
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone 
>>> 
>>> On Sep 25, 2013, at 12:02 PM, "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Rousseff sees "multilateral" as "among nations", not "among
>>>> governments". But I do understand the term in the international
>>>> diplomatic scene takes a meaning opposed to what civil society defends
>>>> and each government has its own particular interpretation -- BTW, as do
>>>> different civil society "tribes".
>>>> 
>>>> My IMHO advice: let us not be black-and-white on this. Let us think of
>>>> the ways in which we can build bridges. Rousseff has opened a wonderful
>>>> window of opportunity, let us not just dismiss it because there is that
>>>> "12-letter word" in her statement.
>>>> 
>>>> fraternal regards
>>>> 
>>>> --c.a.
>>>> 
>>>> On 09/25/2013 12:37 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>>>>> I agree with Anne that the speech was clever in many ways, but am also a
>>>>> little worried about how the continuous references to multilateralism will
>>>>> be read in our own domestic context, where the importance of these
>>>>> statements from a Brazilian perspective is not necessarily fully
>>>>> appreciated or understood in its nuances. The whole debate about whether a
>>>>> reformed Internet governance should take a multilateral or multistakeholder
>>>>> route *is* gaining momentum at the moment, and if we as international civil
>>>>> society are going to make a comment on the Brazilian president's speech, I
>>>>> do think we have to comment on her remarks on this issue as well - or our
>>>>> own stance on the question of multistakeholderism might be misunderstood in
>>>>> our own countries.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Isn't there a way in which we can do so without undermining the Brazilian
>>>>> national agenda (or even better, by supporting that agenda)? If so, I'll be
>>>>> very happy to support a letter but if this is not noted at all, it might be
>>>>> difficult for us to do so, as silence could be read as implicit approval.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks and best,
>>>>> Anja
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 25 September 2013 20:33, Anne Jellema <anne at webfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I support Anriette's suggestion and I hope the international letter could
>>>>>> help Brazilian colleagues to secure a meeting with Rousseff's advisors in
>>>>>> the near future to better understand her position and lobby on the best
>>>>>> ways for Brazil to show international leadership in this area.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> As I read Joana and Carlos's remarks, I was remembering that on other
>>>>>> global issues (such as trade justice and climate change), Brazil has often
>>>>>> managed to punch well above its weight diplomatically by positioning itself
>>>>>> very strategically as a bridge-builder between "South" and "North" blocs
>>>>>> (to caricature them very crudely).  Reading her speech, and the clever way
>>>>>> it managed to pick up on key demands and buzzwords from both sides of the
>>>>>> internet governance divide, I did wonder whether Brazil is once again
>>>>>> angling to set itself up as the player that can broker pragmatic
>>>>>> compromises between competing ideologies. If so, I think that's probably
>>>>>> good news, especially given that the PT in power has usually been
>>>>>> relatively open to working with civil society.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>> Anne
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Dear all
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I would like to propose that we do a letter from civil society commending
>>>>>>> her on her speech. We could mention our support and wishes for the Marco
>>>>>>> Civil, and, if we want, the multi-lateral vs. multi-stakeholder question.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Anriette
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 25/09/2013 15:41, Gene Kimmelman wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Having been in these situations in the U.S., I fully understand the need
>>>>>>> to accept and fully embrace progress; I do not want to interfere in what
>>>>>>> our Brazilian friends are fully capable of handling, other than to say I
>>>>>>> fully support the sentiment expressed by Joana and Carlos!
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com>wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I totally support Carlos Afonso's view.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> One step at the time.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> What matters now is that Dilma has clearly mentioned the CGI.br
>>>>>>>> principles, including the support for net neutrality. It means a LOT for
>>>>>>>> our national scenario and for years of fight to try to pass Marco Civil.
>>>>>>>> Meaning it wont be easy for telcos to take down net neutrality provisions
>>>>>>>> from the draft bill.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Even better, this all has happened right after she opened a channel of
>>>>>>>> communication/consulation with CGI.br. That's THE dynamics for internet
>>>>>>>> public policies we dreamed about in Brazil. The issue on using the word
>>>>>>>> "multilateral" shall NOT be used to loose the focus on this major
>>>>>>>> achievement.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> It is indeed an issue of concern. But it's not actually something new.
>>>>>>>> It has been highlighted in several opportunities in the Brazilian positions
>>>>>>>> at ITU, held by Anatel, our regulatory agency.  For instance, in our
>>>>>>>> previous opinion on the role of States. Nevertheless, positions from our
>>>>>>>> Ministry of Foreign Affairs towards multistakeholderism are very clear and
>>>>>>>> positive. And now CGI.br has the door open with the president to correct
>>>>>>>> explain all the important debate of multistakeholder approach on IG. So we
>>>>>>>> have opportunities to correct this schizophrenic aspect and there is hope.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> So, please, people, let's be positive and understand that having the
>>>>>>>> President referring to these principles - an to Internet Policies - in the
>>>>>>>> UNGA is not a minor thing. I had the lucky to be in a panel at the Council
>>>>>>>> of Europe a few minutes after she delivered the speech and managed to
>>>>>>>> incorporate some of her quotes in my presentation. The public got really
>>>>>>>> impressed.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> all the best
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> joana
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz
>>>>>>>> @joana_varon
>>>>>>>> PGP 0x016B8E73
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Dear people,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I am not sure we will go too far (although philosophers can really be
>>>>>>>>> far-fetched in this exercise) in doing an exegesis of her discourse. Let
>>>>>>>>> us see how the practice goes. The signs are good: she entered the room
>>>>>>>>> to talk to us CGI.br folk with our 10 Principles in hand and the first
>>>>>>>>> thing she told us was she agreed with them.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> She also mentioned the Marco Civil as proposed by the rapporteur (result
>>>>>>>>> of a 4-year public dialogue) is the one she agrees with (which is the
>>>>>>>>> one CGI.br formally supported), and was going to fight for it, although
>>>>>>>>> recognizing that as bill of law transiting through Congress it might
>>>>>>>>> suffer modifications which she might veto but Congress could reverse and
>>>>>>>>> so on -- in summary, normal practice in a democratic State. The big
>>>>>>>>> challenge now is the process in Congress, where the transnational telcos
>>>>>>>>> and big media have enormous power.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> frt rgds
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> --c.a.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On 09/24/2013 09:58 PM, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> the Steering Committee principle reads as "Internet governance must be
>>>>>>>>>> exercised in a transparent, multilateral and democratic manner, with
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> participation of the various sectors of society, thereby preserving
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> encouraging its character as a collective creation."
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Her wording for the UNGA says: "Open, multilateral and democratic
>>>>>>>>>> governance, carried out with transparency by stimulating collective
>>>>>>>>>> creativity and the participation of society, Governments and the
>>>>>>>>> private
>>>>>>>>>> sector."
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> My reading of that is that: (1) it does not repeat the idea that
>>>>>>>>> Internet
>>>>>>>>>> governance as a collective creation and (2) the first one defines
>>>>>>>>> Internet
>>>>>>>>>> governance as something "with the participation of the various
>>>>>>>>> sectors of
>>>>>>>>>> society", and the second only mentions it should be carried out with
>>>>>>>>>> stimuli for "the participation of society, governments and the private
>>>>>>>>>> sector."
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Can you see my point?
>>>>>>>>>> Em português o trem funciona do mesmo jeito.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Carolina Rossini <
>>>>>>>>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Via Renata Avila, segue discurso da Dilma na UN.
>>>>>>>>>>> Coming from Renata Avila, see attached Dilma draft speech at UN.
>>>>>>>>>>> C
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> *Carolina Rossini*
>>>>>>>>>>> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
>>>>>>>>>>> Open Technology Institute
>>>>>>>>>>> *New America Foundation*
>>>>>>>>>>> //
>>>>>>>>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/
>>>>>>>>>>> + 1 6176979389 <%2B%201%206176979389>
>>>>>>>>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
>>>>>>>>>>> skype: carolrossini
>>>>>>>>>>> @carolinarossini
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>>>>>  governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>>>>>>>  http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>>>>>>  http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>>>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>>>>>>>  http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>>>  governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>>>>>  http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>>>>  http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>>>>>  http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>>  governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>>>>  http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>>>  http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>>>>  http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
>>>>>>> executive director, association for progressive communicationswww.apc.org
>>>>>>> po box 29755, melville 2109
>>>>>>> south africa
>>>>>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Anne Jellema
>>>>>> Chief Executive Officer
>>>>>> Cape Town, RSA
>>>>>> mob (ZA) +27 61 036 9652
>>>>>> tel (ZA) +27 21 788 4585
>>>>>> tel (US) +1 202 684 6885
>>>>>> Skype anne.jellema
>>>>>> @afjellema
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> World Wide Web Foundation | 1889 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, USA |
>>>>>> www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 

From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed Sep 25 16:23:14 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 13:23:14 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Taking the Transparency Push Global
In-Reply-To: <7A655500-5F8D-4674-9853-2E061C0657D9@gmail.com>
References: <0783c5af752516db406e4edd7d7e996790e.20130925153118@mail65.atl11.rsgsv.net> <7A655500-5F8D-4674-9853-2E061C0657D9@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <022301ceba2d$182314d0$48693e70$@gmail.com>

Perhaps someone could enlighten me on this…

 

I know that pursuing this is a major pre-occupation of various US Internet corps (Google, Facebook etc.) and I can see that getting this made public might help them get off the hook a bit (look how few the requests given the number of users we have/items we process etc.

 

What I don't understand is why civil society should be interested in this at all since there seem to be an almost infinite number of ways of gaming this (according to various Snowden documents i.e. one reqyest covering all communications between x and xxxistan for the month of January)

 

Surely CS is concerned with findings ways of managing these practices rather than getting better information on specific items of activity etc.etc.

 

M

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolina
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 10:25 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Taking the Transparency Push Global

 



Sent from my iPhone


Begin forwarded message:

From: Global Network Initiative <info at globalnetworkinitiative.org>
Date: September 25, 2013, 11:31:28 AM EDT
To: Carolina <carolina.rossini at gmail.com>
Subject: Taking the Transparency Push Global
Reply-To: Global Network Initiative <info at globalnetworkinitiative.org>




News from the Global Network Initiative

 <http://us5.campaign-archive2.com/?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=46aa5dfc6f&e=d7e996790e> View this email in your browser 









 <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=e362df1f48&e=d7e996790e> 

 <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=67fe639a73&e=d7e996790e> Facebook 

 




 <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=a1b1502bff&e=d7e996790e> 

 <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=2178b95cdd&e=d7e996790e> Twitter 

 




 <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=afe80d4a5f&e=d7e996790e> 

 <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=9ac13c5a06&e=d7e996790e> Website 

 




 <mailto:info at globalnetworkinitiative.org> 

 <mailto:info at globalnetworkinitiative.org> Email 

 



 <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=d240aef96c&e=d7e996790e>  <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=d240aef96c&e=d7e996790e> Global Network Initiative - Protecting and Advancing Freedom of Expression and Privacy in Information and Communication Technologies <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=d240aef96c&e=d7e996790e> 

 




GNI Writes to Governments Seeking Surveillance Transparency 


 



The Global Network Initiative has  <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=420621a6ab&e=d7e996790e> written to the 21 governments in the Freedom Online Coalition, asking them to report on the requests they make for electronic communications surveillance and to make it legally possible for companies to report regularly to the public on the government requests that they receive from law enforcement as well as national security authorities.

Read international news coverage of the letters:  

*	 <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=568a4500af&e=d7e996790e> Tech group asks 21 countries to disclose surveillance requests
*	 <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=755e7c4ce5&e=d7e996790e> Surveillance du Net : une coalition demande aux gouvernements plus de transparence
*	 <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=c32c8a2adc&e=d7e996790e> GNI向21个国家政府发出公开信，要求提高信息监控活动的透明度









 <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=44a93081bc&e=d7e996790e> 

 <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=6f03696f97&e=d7e996790e> Share 

 




 <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=ba8a43950d&e=d7e996790e> 

 <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=77ecf9af01&e=d7e996790e> Tweet 

 




 <http://us5.forward-to-friend.com/forward?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=46aa5dfc6f&e=d7e996790e> 

 <http://us5.forward-to-friend.com/forward?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=46aa5dfc6f&e=d7e996790e> Forward to Friend 

 


	






Multimedia


 



 <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=ca8f62326a&e=d7e996790e> 


GNI and the Telecommunications Industry Dialogue at the  <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=f50d8f95ae&e=d7e996790e> Stockholm Internet Forum Unconference.






More news


*	Presidential and Congressional Steps on  <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=df4f5787a6&e=d7e996790e> Communication Surveillance Programs
*	GNI Comments to the  <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=2880ae504f&e=d7e996790e> Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board
*	Executive Summary of GNI Telecoms report available in  <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=fc14b178fe&e=d7e996790e> Arabic, Chinese, French, Russian and Spanish.



Copyright © 2013 Global Network Initiative, All rights reserved.

You are receiving this email because you opted in at our website, or through another method.

Our mailing address is:

Global Network Initiative

1634 I St. NW

Suite 1100

Washington, Dc 20006


Add us to your address book <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage1.com/vcard?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=8c54375c8a> 


 <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage1.com/unsubscribe?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=8c54375c8a&e=d7e996790e&c=46aa5dfc6f> unsubscribe from this list    <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage2.com/profile?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=8c54375c8a&e=d7e996790e> update subscription preferences  

 <http://www.mailchimp.com/monkey-rewards/?utm_source=freemium_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=monkey_rewards&aid=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&afl=1> Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp

  <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/open.php?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=46aa5dfc6f&e=d7e996790e> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130925/01eddfec/attachment.htm>

From dsullivan at globalnetworkinitiative.org  Wed Sep 25 17:24:36 2013
From: dsullivan at globalnetworkinitiative.org (David Sullivan)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 17:24:36 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Taking the Transparency Push Global
In-Reply-To: <022301ceba2d$182314d0$48693e70$@gmail.com>
References: <0783c5af752516db406e4edd7d7e996790e.20130925153118@mail65.atl11.rsgsv.net>
 <7A655500-5F8D-4674-9853-2E061C0657D9@gmail.com> <022301ceba2d$182314d0$48693e70$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+hSVSp_Mtw0wpaKKq9FFQkEnw14gU=ztw13F5ZJVB8HMvifUA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Michael,

This is David Sullivan from GNI. There is no shortage of civil society
organizations (both GNI members and others) who are on these lists and have
been very active in pushing for transparency on surveillance and will have
their own responses to your question, but there are a couple of points I'd
like to make.

First, from GNI's point of view these transparency reforms are a
prerequisite to enable an informed debate about putting human rights at the
center of communications surveillance regimes. As we said in our
statement<http://globalnetworkinitiative.org/news/transparency-national-security-and-protecting-rights-online>back
in June,"We view such transparency reforms as necessary first steps in
examining
whether domestic law adequately protects the rights to privacy and freedom
of expression."

Secondly, our letters to the FOC governments complement the efforts of the
coalition that CDT has
organized<https://www.cdt.org/pr_statement/cdt-brings-together-major-internet-companies-advocates-demand-more-transparency-around->of
more than 60 companies, civil society organizations and other
stakeholders who have made a similar ask of the US government. Already
legislation has been introduced in response to that letter in both the
House and Senate. Those bills have not slowed momentum toward substantive
reform (momentum has been building in particular to address the bulk phone
records programs), rather they complement and reinforce those efforts.

Finally, yes there are definitely ways to "game the stats" in this realm
where we need to be very careful. For what it's worth, GNI has been very
careful to specify that both governments and companies should report not
just on the number of requests they make/receive, but also the number of
persons or accounts affected by those orders, to mitigate this concern.

All the best,
David


-- 
David Sullivan
Policy and Communications Director
Global Network Initiative <http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/>
Office: +1 202 741 5048
Mobile: +1 646 595 5373
PGP: 0x60D244AA
@David_MSullivan <https://twitter.com/David_MSullivan>

GNI has moved, please note our new address:
1200 18th St. NW, Suite 602
Washington, DC 20036



On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 4:23 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>wrote:

> Perhaps someone could enlighten me on this...****
>
> ** **
>
> I know that pursuing this is a major pre-occupation of various US Internet
> corps (Google, Facebook etc.) and I can see that getting this made public
> might help them get off the hook a bit (look how few the requests given the
> number of users we have/items we process etc.****
>
> ** **
>
> What I don't understand is why civil society should be interested in this
> at all since there seem to be an almost infinite number of ways of gaming
> this (according to various Snowden documents i.e. one reqyest covering all
> communications between x and xxxistan for the month of January)****
>
> ** **
>
> Surely CS is concerned with findings ways of managing these practices
> rather than getting better information on specific items of activity
> etc.etc.****
>
> ** **
>
> M****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:
> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Carolina
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 25, 2013 10:25 AM
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> *Subject:* [bestbits] Fwd: Taking the Transparency Push Global****
>
> ** **
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone****
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:****
>
> *From:* Global Network Initiative <info at globalnetworkinitiative.org>
> *Date:* September 25, 2013, 11:31:28 AM EDT
> *To:* Carolina <carolina.rossini at gmail.com>
> *Subject:* *Taking the Transparency Push Global*
> *Reply-To:* Global Network Initiative <info at globalnetworkinitiative.org>**
> **
>
>   News from the Global Network Initiative****
>
> View this email in your browser<http://us5.campaign-archive2.com/?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=46aa5dfc6f&e=d7e996790e>
> ****
>
> <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=e362df1f48&e=d7e996790e>
> ****
>
> Facebook<http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=67fe639a73&e=d7e996790e>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
>
> <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=a1b1502bff&e=d7e996790e>
> ****
>
> Twitter<http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=2178b95cdd&e=d7e996790e>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
>
> <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=afe80d4a5f&e=d7e996790e>
> ****
>
> Website<http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=9ac13c5a06&e=d7e996790e>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> <info at globalnetworkinitiative.org>****
>
> Email <info at globalnetworkinitiative.org> ****
>
> ** **
>
> <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=d240aef96c&e=d7e996790e>
> **[image: Global Network Initiative - Protecting and Advancing Freedom of
> Expression and Privacy in Information and Communication Technologies]<http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=d240aef96c&e=d7e996790e>
> **<http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=d240aef96c&e=d7e996790e>
> ****
>
> ** **
> GNI Writes to Governments Seeking Surveillance Transparency ****
>
> ** **
>
> The Global Network Initiative has written to the 21 governments in the
> Freedom Online Coalition<http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=420621a6ab&e=d7e996790e>,
> asking them to report on the requests they make for electronic
> communications surveillance and to make it legally possible for companies
> to report regularly to the public on the government requests that they
> receive from law enforcement as well as national security authorities.
>
> Read international news coverage of the letters:  ****
>
>    - Tech group asks 21 countries to disclose surveillance requests<http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=568a4500af&e=d7e996790e>
>    ****
>    - Surveillance du Net : une coalition demande aux gouvernements plus
>    de transparence<http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=755e7c4ce5&e=d7e996790e>
>    ****
>    - GNI向21个国家政府发出公开信，要求提高信息监控活动的透明度<http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=c32c8a2adc&e=d7e996790e>
>    ****
>
>   <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=44a93081bc&e=d7e996790e>
> ****
>
> Share<http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=6f03696f97&e=d7e996790e>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
>
> <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=ba8a43950d&e=d7e996790e>
> ****
>
> Tweet<http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=77ecf9af01&e=d7e996790e>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
>
> <http://us5.forward-to-friend.com/forward?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=46aa5dfc6f&e=d7e996790e>
> ****
>
> Forward to Friend<http://us5.forward-to-friend.com/forward?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=46aa5dfc6f&e=d7e996790e>
> ****
>
> ** **
>   Multimedia****
>
> ** **
>
>
> <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=ca8f62326a&e=d7e996790e>
> ****
>
> GNI and the Telecommunications Industry Dialogue at the Stockholm
> Internet Forum Unconference<http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=f50d8f95ae&e=d7e996790e>
> .****
>   More news****
>
>    - Presidential and Congressional Steps on Communication Surveillance
>    Programs<http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=df4f5787a6&e=d7e996790e>
>    ****
>    - GNI Comments to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board<http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=2880ae504f&e=d7e996790e>
>    ****
>    - Executive Summary of GNI Telecoms report available in Arabic,
>    Chinese, French, Russian and Spanish<http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=fc14b178fe&e=d7e996790e>
>    .****
>
>  *Copyright (c) 2013 Global Network Initiative, All rights reserved.*****
>
> You are receiving this email because you opted in at our website, or
> through another method.
>
> *Our mailing address is:*****
>
> Global Network Initiative****
>
> 1634 I St. NW****
>
> Suite 1100****
>
> Washington, Dc 20006****
>
>
> Add us to your address book<http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage1.com/vcard?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=8c54375c8a>
> ****
>
> unsubscribe from this list<http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage1.com/unsubscribe?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=8c54375c8a&e=d7e996790e&c=46aa5dfc6f>
>    update subscription preferences<http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage2.com/profile?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=8c54375c8a&e=d7e996790e>
>
>
> [image: Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp]<http://www.mailchimp.com/monkey-rewards/?utm_source=freemium_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=monkey_rewards&aid=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&afl=1>
> ****
>
> ****
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130925/066d8209/attachment.htm>

From joy at apc.org  Wed Sep 25 06:17:36 2013
From: joy at apc.org (joy)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 22:17:36 +1200
Subject: [bestbits] Seoul Conference on Cyberspace 2013
In-Reply-To: <CAOGFQRyV90+o6HYXSip2V4KaA5D69emGqsUeo5m40=ga=a821w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOGFQRyV90+o6HYXSip2V4KaA5D69emGqsUeo5m40=ga=a821w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5242B840.7040408@apc.org>

thanks oh byoungil - for my part you have not caused confusion at all,
but simply raised important questions. it is good if this list has
helped you with answers to them.
please let me know if you feel you need any more support to secure
korean civil society participation as we are happy to help if there is
anything suitable you feel we can do
best wishes

Joy
On 24/09/2013 9:45 p.m., Byoung-il Oh wrote:
> Thanks Anja Kovacs, 
>
> I checked it to the secretariat. As Anja said, at least 3 people from
> civil society would be invited, Anja Kovacs, someone from CDT and ISOC. 
>
> The speaker list of the homepage has not been updated yet. They will
> update it as soon as they got the personal information from speakers. 
>
> I'm sorry for causing misunderstanding about CS panels. 
>
> Best, 
>
> Oh byoungil 
>
> 2013/9/24 Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in
> <mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in>>
>
>     Dear all,
>
>     I'm unfortunately not able to respond at length right now, but
>     thought I should at least mention that I've been invited as a
>     speaker (and accepted), and I know at least three other people
>     from CS will be attending as well. I don't have any info on other
>     CS speakers.
>
>     Best,
>     Anja
>
>     On Sep 24, 2013 12:16 PM, "Shahzad Ahmad" <shahzad at bytesforall.pk
>     <mailto:shahzad at bytesforall.pk>> wrote:
>
>         Dear Parminder,
>
>         At least Budapest conference was not that closed. I know there
>         was an effort to bring range of stakeholders (including CSOs)
>         to that event and in some instances even funded by the
>         Hungarian Government. Though, we could not attend being
>         committed elsewhere but we had at least two sessions with the
>         embassy to inform them of local issues. Some of the diplomats
>         also went to Budapest to attend.  
>
>         We believe that undermining CSOs strengths and efforts (even
>         among ourselves) wont't help the cause at all. We believe IGF
>         is important so are many other spread out forums. Not
>         necessarily all of us would have the capacity and time to
>         engage with each one of them but we appreciate the efforts by
>         all the colleagues especially CSOs and academia to keep the
>         struggle up. 
>
>         So can we all please pay some urgent attention to the appeal
>         by Byoungil? Byoungil, please count us in for any response
>         based on your observations that you plan to put forward on the
>         openness, access and objectives of this conference. It is all
>         the more important to engage with this given its importance.
>
>         Best wishes and regards
>
>         Shahzad
>
>
>
>         From: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>         <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
>         Date: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 9:51 AM
>         To: "&lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt
>         <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt>,"
>         <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
>         Subject: Re: [bestbits] Seoul Conference on Cyberspace 2013
>
>         Hi Byoungil
>
>         I may be wrong but I have a somewhat different perspective on
>         this Conference on Cyberspace...
>
>         This Seoul conference is one of a series that started with
>         London Cyber conference and then went to Budapest, now coming
>         to Seoul....
>
>         One, it is not inclusive (multistakeholder etc) not at all
>         because of any China/ Russia factor, but because that is how
>         it always has been. That is how it was designed, and I can
>         assure you that China and Russia were not among the chief
>         designers. 
>
>         Secondly, it is not an unimportant conference or site of
>         global IG; it is a very important one.
>
>         This is how it is.... OECD, UN Security Council and such
>         spaces are where big boys play and decide things; IGF et all
>         are for the show, a largely managed show for kids, for all
>         those who would otherwise make noises - yes, you got it, a
>         large pat of it, civil society.....
>
>         Now, having developed the basic frameworks/ principles. this
>         series of cyber conferences is where part co-optation is
>         sought from the outside - from some more powerful countries
>         outside the 'inner club' , may be one or two very power
>         non-gov actor too.... But still a strictly controlled space
>         (as you found out) , of selective co-optation. In these
>         spaces, the wannabes, euphemistically called emerging
>         economies, are allowed a peek in, only if they behave they
>         could be included into bilateral and pluri-lateral
>         arrangements. Here, the policy frameworks and principles
>         developed in deep secret closed spaces are sought to be aired
>         a bit, with an attempt to expand their legitimacy. (You will
>         find out as you see the conference outcome documents.)
>
>         Of course, there is no business here of the pesky civil
>         society kinds . They are too powerless, and perhaps naive, to
>         even be offered an co-optation.... They have their agreed play
>         space at the IGF where, in less than 2 weeks after this key
>         global IG meeting, multistakeholderism will again be
>         celebrated by the same parties holding this conference as
>         strictly for 'adults only'.
>
>         Do excuse my ironic tone, but I have been earlier trying to
>         say in plain words that we should focus on real sites of
>         global IG, at least as much as we do on our few favourite
>         ones. Incidentally, these latter sites seem to be also the
>         ones that the most dominant global IG powers would want civil
>         society to be stay bogged down with.
>
>         parminder
>
>
>         On Monday 23 September 2013 09:00 PM, Byoung-il Oh wrote:
>>         Hi, 
>>
>>         As you may know, Seoul Conference on Cyberspace 2013 will be
>>         held in Seoul on Oct. 17-18. 
>>         http://www.seoulcyber2013.kr/en/main/main.do
>>
>>         Last May, I had met the chief officer of Preparatory
>>         Secretariat of the conference to inquire to him the progress
>>         of the conference. At that time, the detailed agenda and
>>         panelists had not been fixed yet. In the meeting, I inquired
>>         what would the output of the conference and how civil society
>>         could participate in the process. The answer was that they
>>         expected to produce chair's summary plus as the output, but
>>         needed more discussion on what could be the 'plus'. 
>>         As a preparatory process, they told several pre-workshop
>>         would be held.
>>         http://www.seoulcyber2013.kr/en/event/workshop.html
>>
>>         However, they didn't give definite answer to the question of
>>         how the result of pre-workshop would be linked to the output
>>         of the conference, how civil society could participate in the
>>         process and give opinions to draft the output. 
>>
>>         After the meeting, I felt that this conference would not be
>>         for making concrete policy through substantial discussions of
>>         multi-stakeholders, but just cosmetic diplomatic events.
>>         Actually, the Preparatory Secretariat is operated under the
>>         Ministry of Foreign Affiars, not Telecommunication authority. 
>>
>>         In the meeting, the chief officer told that he himself
>>         thought much of the value of open and multi-stakeholder
>>         process, but they had to consider the position of the
>>         countries (China, Russia etc) which don't like
>>         multistakeholderism. 
>>
>>         After that, we, the coaliton of civil society in Korea,
>>         invited a staff of Preparatory Secretariat as a panel in our
>>         public forum last June, but we couldn't hear nothing new from
>>         him. 
>>
>>         Recently, I checked its homepage and found with surprise that
>>         anyone from civil society could not invited as a panel.
>>         http://www.seoulcyber2013.kr/en/program/speakers_1.html
>>         Moreover, I found that they even restricted the participation
>>         of the public. It was a closed conference! When I tried to
>>         register in the conference, I had to request PIN first in the
>>         http://register.seoulcyber2013.kr/, but I couldn't receive a
>>         PIN. So I called to the secretariat and ask why. They said
>>         that PIN would be given to the invited person. In the case of
>>         who were not invited, preparatory secretariat will examine
>>         the person who requested to particiapte and dicide whether to
>>         allow participation or not. I have no idea this was the
>>         conventional practice in the former cyberspace conference. 
>>
>>         And, I wonder how do you think about cyberspace conference,
>>         the importance of the conference in the context of global
>>         internet governance. 
>>
>>         Best Regards,
>>         Oh Byoungil 
>>
>>         -- 
>>         <http://www.jinbo.net/support/>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> <http://www.jinbo.net/support/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130925/841d5a5c/attachment.htm>

From joana at varonferraz.com  Wed Sep 25 19:40:48 2013
From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 01:40:48 +0200
Subject: [First draft] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance]
 Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
Message-ID: <CALTAiTrp8TuxcJC1cH+Y_bwaReqyzNuBeJOwJNv=72ZRzhAeiA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Avri et all,

By now the letter looks like this:

https://pad.riseup.net/p/IGC-Supports-Brazil

Please, bring your inputs to make it sound more international.

We haven't set a time frame to close the drafting and start to collect
endorsements, but there is this opportunity that Carlos Afonso has
mentioned to deliver it in person (Carlos,please, allow me to quote you
again within these two lists):

"It would be *extremely important* to have it *ready by tomorrow late night
*(it can be very late in the night -- I am not really sleeping these
days)*Brazilian time
* so I can print it and try and deliver it to the Presidenta's hands (or
her closest advisors)." (wrote 7 hours ago).

Depending on what you think about this current draft, it might be feasible
to have endorsements by tomorrow night.

Let's try to close the drafting process tomorrow at 09:00am (Brazilian
time) and have the whole afternoon to collect signatures within
Europe/Asia/Africa and the day to do so within the Americas?

Sorry for the rush. I'm just trying to follow all the suggestions received
in different threads as coherently as possible.

best

joana



On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> While I cannot accept any plan that is dominated by States and their
> multilateral closed club, I don't think that the letter necessarily must be
> read that way.
>
> She does say:
>
> > 2 - Open, multilateral and democratic governance, carried out with
> transparency by stimulating
> > collective creativity and the participation of society, Governments and
> the private sector.
>
> And while this is not quite yet an endorsement of the fully participatory
> democracy I hope MSism leads to, it does seem to aim that way.
>
> Yes, is it still top down, as the governments will be stimulating the
> people as opposed to the people simulating the government, but there are
> other sentiments that do warrant support.
>
> As long as civil society does not bind itself to government leadership by
> buying into a multilateral vision, I suppose it is possible to come up with
> something that could get some sort of support.
>
> But in one day as Carlos asks?
>
> avri
>
>
>
>
> On 25 Sep 2013, at 13:04, McTim wrote:
>
> > <cc list trimmed>
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 12:45 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> The Brazil statement is I think, an excellent including the references
> in
> >> the context of governance to MLism rather than to MSism given the
> ambiguity
> >> and bad faith which can be ascribed to many of the particular uses (and
> >> users) of the latter terminology/methodology.
> >>
> >> The multilateral system has earned its spurs if nothing else through the
> >> UNDHR and the work of such agencies as the WHO and UNICEF and in their
> times
> >> the UNDP and UNESCO.
> >>
> >> The quite evidently subverted MSism of the Internet may by my reckoning
> at
> >> this moment be something of a poisoned challice (if nothing else
> through the
> >> potentially questionable motives (and ideologies) of its most ardent
> >> governmental and other backers) and we await its redemption through the
> >> (possible) mounting of a suitable response post-Snowden.
> >
> > MSism needs no "redemption".  Just because one supporter of it got
> > caught doing dodgy things does not somehow tar the entire structure of
> > Internet policy making that has been built over decades.
> >
> > I for one would object quite strongly to the Caucus supporting MLism
> > over MSism.  I think it was a fine speech but if we are going to write
> > a letter of support, we should note that we have always supported
> > MSism.
> >
> > If you want a global treaty to stop governments from spying on
> > everything we do online, I think it foolish to leave it in the hands
> > of governments only!
> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> >
> > McTim
> > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> > route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
-- 

Joana Varon Ferraz
@joana_varon
PGP 0x016B8E73
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130926/89ff6085/attachment.htm>

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Wed Sep 25 20:03:13 2013
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 10:03:13 +1000
Subject: [First draft] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits]
 [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTrp8TuxcJC1cH+Y_bwaReqyzNuBeJOwJNv=72ZRzhAeiA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTrp8TuxcJC1cH+Y_bwaReqyzNuBeJOwJNv=72ZRzhAeiA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3E50EDCA034A4892A857CCB5EBBC21BA@Toshiba>

Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and at the same time worse.

I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any more than two paragraphs and the chance of it being read is meagre.

To be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. – the first paragraph

We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing social justice, would like to express our strong support for the statement delivered this week by your Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. 

(reference the speech if you wish for those who would like to read more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and elaborate on it).

And specifically I dont think we need to talk post Snowden, and demand apologies from the USA. That ain’t going to happen.

Ian Peter

From: Joana Varon 
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 9:40 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Avri Doria ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
Subject: [First draft] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN

Dear Avri et all, 


By now the letter looks like this:

https://pad.riseup.net/p/IGC-Supports-Brazil

Please, bring your inputs to make it sound more international.


We haven't set a time frame to close the drafting and start to collect endorsements, but there is this opportunity that Carlos Afonso has mentioned to deliver it in person (Carlos,please, allow me to quote you again within these two lists):

"It would be *extremely important* to have it ready by tomorrow late night (it can be very late in the night -- I am not really sleeping these days) Brazilian time so I can print it and try and deliver it to the Presidenta's hands (or her closest advisors)." (wrote 7 hours ago).


Depending on what you think about this current draft, it might be feasible to have endorsements by tomorrow night. 


Let's try to close the drafting process tomorrow at 09:00am (Brazilian time) and have the whole afternoon to collect signatures within Europe/Asia/Africa and the day to do so within the Americas? 


Sorry for the rush. I'm just trying to follow all the suggestions received in different threads as coherently as possible. 


best

joana





On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

  Hi,

  While I cannot accept any plan that is dominated by States and their multilateral closed club, I don't think that the letter necessarily must be read that way.

  She does say:

  > 2 - Open, multilateral and democratic governance, carried out with transparency by stimulating

  > collective creativity and the participation of society, Governments and the private sector.


  And while this is not quite yet an endorsement of the fully participatory democracy I hope MSism leads to, it does seem to aim that way.

  Yes, is it still top down, as the governments will be stimulating the people as opposed to the people simulating the government, but there are other sentiments that do warrant support.

  As long as civil society does not bind itself to government leadership by buying into a multilateral vision, I suppose it is possible to come up with something that could get some sort of support.

  But in one day as Carlos asks?

  avri





  On 25 Sep 2013, at 13:04, McTim wrote:

  > <cc list trimmed>
  >
  > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 12:45 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
  >> The Brazil statement is I think, an excellent including the references in
  >> the context of governance to MLism rather than to MSism given the ambiguity
  >> and bad faith which can be ascribed to many of the particular uses (and
  >> users) of the latter terminology/methodology.
  >>
  >> The multilateral system has earned its spurs if nothing else through the
  >> UNDHR and the work of such agencies as the WHO and UNICEF and in their times
  >> the UNDP and UNESCO.
  >>
  >> The quite evidently subverted MSism of the Internet may by my reckoning at
  >> this moment be something of a poisoned challice (if nothing else through the
  >> potentially questionable motives (and ideologies) of its most ardent
  >> governmental and other backers) and we await its redemption through the
  >> (possible) mounting of a suitable response post-Snowden.
  >
  > MSism needs no "redemption".  Just because one supporter of it got
  > caught doing dodgy things does not somehow tar the entire structure of
  > Internet policy making that has been built over decades.
  >
  > I for one would object quite strongly to the Caucus supporting MLism
  > over MSism.  I think it was a fine speech but if we are going to write
  > a letter of support, we should note that we have always supported
  > MSism.
  >
  > If you want a global treaty to stop governments from spying on
  > everything we do online, I think it foolish to leave it in the hands
  > of governments only!
  >
  > --
  > Cheers,
  >
  > McTim
  > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
  > route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
  >

  > ____________________________________________________________
  > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
  >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
  > To be removed from the list, visit:
  >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
  >
  > For all other list information and functions, see:
  >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
  > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
  >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
  >
  > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t




  ____________________________________________________________
  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
  To be removed from the list, visit:
       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

  For all other list information and functions, see:
       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
  To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
       http://www.igcaucus.org/

  Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t





-- 
-- 

Joana Varon Ferraz
@joana_varon
PGP 0x016B8E73





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130926/d5ec2c1a/attachment.htm>

From ca at cafonso.ca  Wed Sep 25 20:09:06 2013
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 21:09:06 -0300
Subject: [First draft] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits]
 [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTrp8TuxcJC1cH+Y_bwaReqyzNuBeJOwJNv=72ZRzhAeiA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTrp8TuxcJC1cH+Y_bwaReqyzNuBeJOwJNv=72ZRzhAeiA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <52437B22.50405@cafonso.ca>

Joana, cara mia, great work as always.

[] fraterno

--c.a.

On 09/25/2013 08:40 PM, Joana Varon wrote:
> Dear Avri et all,
> 
> By now the letter looks like this:
> 
> https://pad.riseup.net/p/IGC-Supports-Brazil
> 
> Please, bring your inputs to make it sound more international.
> 
> We haven't set a time frame to close the drafting and start to collect
> endorsements, but there is this opportunity that Carlos Afonso has
> mentioned to deliver it in person (Carlos,please, allow me to quote you
> again within these two lists):
> 
> "It would be *extremely important* to have it *ready by tomorrow late night
> *(it can be very late in the night -- I am not really sleeping these
> days)*Brazilian time
> * so I can print it and try and deliver it to the Presidenta's hands (or
> her closest advisors)." (wrote 7 hours ago).
> 
> Depending on what you think about this current draft, it might be feasible
> to have endorsements by tomorrow night.
> 
> Let's try to close the drafting process tomorrow at 09:00am (Brazilian
> time) and have the whole afternoon to collect signatures within
> Europe/Asia/Africa and the day to do so within the Americas?
> 
> Sorry for the rush. I'm just trying to follow all the suggestions received
> in different threads as coherently as possible.
> 
> best
> 
> joana
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> While I cannot accept any plan that is dominated by States and their
>> multilateral closed club, I don't think that the letter necessarily must be
>> read that way.
>>
>> She does say:
>>
>>> 2 - Open, multilateral and democratic governance, carried out with
>> transparency by stimulating
>>> collective creativity and the participation of society, Governments and
>> the private sector.
>>
>> And while this is not quite yet an endorsement of the fully participatory
>> democracy I hope MSism leads to, it does seem to aim that way.
>>
>> Yes, is it still top down, as the governments will be stimulating the
>> people as opposed to the people simulating the government, but there are
>> other sentiments that do warrant support.
>>
>> As long as civil society does not bind itself to government leadership by
>> buying into a multilateral vision, I suppose it is possible to come up with
>> something that could get some sort of support.
>>
>> But in one day as Carlos asks?
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 25 Sep 2013, at 13:04, McTim wrote:
>>
>>> <cc list trimmed>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 12:45 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> The Brazil statement is I think, an excellent including the references
>> in
>>>> the context of governance to MLism rather than to MSism given the
>> ambiguity
>>>> and bad faith which can be ascribed to many of the particular uses (and
>>>> users) of the latter terminology/methodology.
>>>>
>>>> The multilateral system has earned its spurs if nothing else through the
>>>> UNDHR and the work of such agencies as the WHO and UNICEF and in their
>> times
>>>> the UNDP and UNESCO.
>>>>
>>>> The quite evidently subverted MSism of the Internet may by my reckoning
>> at
>>>> this moment be something of a poisoned challice (if nothing else
>> through the
>>>> potentially questionable motives (and ideologies) of its most ardent
>>>> governmental and other backers) and we await its redemption through the
>>>> (possible) mounting of a suitable response post-Snowden.
>>>
>>> MSism needs no "redemption".  Just because one supporter of it got
>>> caught doing dodgy things does not somehow tar the entire structure of
>>> Internet policy making that has been built over decades.
>>>
>>> I for one would object quite strongly to the Caucus supporting MLism
>>> over MSism.  I think it was a fine speech but if we are going to write
>>> a letter of support, we should note that we have always supported
>>> MSism.
>>>
>>> If you want a global treaty to stop governments from spying on
>>> everything we do online, I think it foolish to leave it in the hands
>>> of governments only!
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> McTim
>>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
>>> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
> 
> 

From joana at varonferraz.com  Wed Sep 25 21:44:17 2013
From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 03:44:17 +0200
Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re:
 [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
Message-ID: <CALTAiTqsSn+b4P679+emZ5AG8cDVzOr8tDrHEt=iNZ1i5sOfeg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad now to avoid
more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for all the contributions.

Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or major
disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 am (Brazilian time).
Then collect endorsements through out the day.

*Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's say 22:00, also
Brazilian time*. So Carlos can deliver it in hand to President Dilma. *
*

thanks once again,

joana

*Letter from** International C**ivil Society** Organizations** **to
President Dilma Rousseff in support of her **statement at **the 68th
Session of the **UNGA *


Your Excellency,

We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world,
committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing
social and economic justice, would like to express our strong support
forthe statement delivered this week by your
Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. We
commend you for taking a leading role on these issues and would like to:

1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in clear
accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee*'*s* *Principles
for the Governance and Use of the Internet.

2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian Draft Bill
of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that upholds these
principles.

3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and demanding
explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal interception of
information and data, framing it as a grave violation of human rights and
of civil liberties

4.* *Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of
Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder
model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which comprises
representatives from Government, Scientific and Technology Community, private
sector and Civil Society on an equal footing.

We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to social
justice and development, of which an open, stable, and reliable Internet is
a fundamental pillar.

Signatories:








On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro <
diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote:

> Ian is helping Joanna and me in drafting this reduced optimal version. : )
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <
> suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>
>>  Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set.
>> --srs (htc one x)
>>
>> On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" ** wrote:
>>
>> Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters.
>>
>> Louis
>> - - -
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and at the same
>>> time worse.
>>>
>>> I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any more than two paragraphs
>>> and the chance of it being read is meagre.
>>>
>>> To be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. – the first
>>> paragraph
>>>
>>> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world,
>>> committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing
>>> social justice, would like to express our strong support for the
>>> statement delivered this week by your Excellency at the 68th Session of the
>>> United Nations General Assembly.
>>>
>>> (reference the speech if you wish for those who would like to read more,
>>> but dont repeat it, interpret it, and elaborate on it).
>>>
>>> And specifically I dont think we need to talk post Snowden, and demand
>>> apologies from the USA. That ain’t going to happen.
>>>
>>> Ian Peter
>>>
>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Diego R. Canabarro
> http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597
>
> --
> diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br
> diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu
> MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com
> Skype: diegocanabarro
> Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA)
> --
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
-- 

Joana Varon Ferraz
@joana_varon
PGP 0x016B8E73
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130926/658f95e0/attachment.htm>

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Wed Sep 25 22:04:21 2013
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 23:04:21 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] [letter to Dilma Rousseff] merging threads from IGC
 and BB
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTrO=KuiuutE4qkGx07MAEKgok+Tx9a2=A4vRj0m49uAew@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTrO=KuiuutE4qkGx07MAEKgok+Tx9a2=A4vRj0m49uAew@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK1rQVEavEDCJtovniEcxZd9SsQGKRM1Yq=9U0065_KHTQ@mail.gmail.com>

Agreed as well, Joana. Another information that may be important is that
Dilma mentioned today that she does not believe that the UN should be
involved in all Internet governance issues.The UN should be responsible for
making sure that the Internet is not militarized. Diego just mentioned that
he heard something along this lines in an interview over the radio and I
thought it was a relevant.

I take the opportunity to invite you to a debate being co-organized by the
Center for Technology and Society of FGV and DiploFoundation about the role
of Brazil in the IG regime. Diego and I will be sharing a few thoughts on
issues such as impact of the NSA revelations to Brazil-US relations, to the
national regulatory/technical landscape and to Brazil's positions on global
IG. There will be opportunity for comments and questions. It will be
tomorrow (Thursday) at 13:00 GMT.
http://www.diplomacy.edu/calendar/webinar-brazil-leading-new-revolution-global-digital-policy

Best wishes
-- 
*Marília Maciel*
Pesquisadora Gestora
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio

Researcher and Coordinator
Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts

DiploFoundation associate
www.diplomacy.edu

Diplomatic Academic Research Editor
Diplomat Magazine
www.diplomatmagazine.nl
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130925/02de73b3/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Mon Sep  2 04:28:38 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2013 16:28:38 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] APrIGF workshop "Internet governance for human rights
 and democracy" streaming online this Wednesday
Message-ID: <52244C36.90002@ciroap.org>

Following on from the Enhanced Cooperation submission to the CSTD, the
following workshop will be held at the Asia-Pacific Regional IGF this
Wednesday, with live streaming at http://2013.rigf.asia/openness/ from
2:30pm local time (5:30am GMT/UTC, 19:30 US EST).  Please join us!

    *Workshop Title:* Internet governance for human rights and democracy

    The Internet is governed through a patchwork of rules, norms and
    standards, which its stakeholders have developed largely
    independently and without reference to an overarching framework of
    principles.  This has allowed the Internet to flourish through the
    adaptive and innovative development of new services, particularly in
    the technical sphere.  But the absence of guiding principles has
    also allowed powerful stakeholders to drive changes to Internet
    governance that conflict with human rights and other emerging global
    norms of Internet user communities, though undemocratic processes
    such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, member-only
    discussions at the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), and
    North-heavy regional groupings such as the G8 and OECD.  Is this
    status quo sustainable?  Would it help to democratise global
    Internet governance if all stakeholders had a better way of
    developing guiding principles for policy makers in areas that are
    not already covered by multi-stakeholder democratic processes?  How
    will the discussions at the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced
    Cooperation be able to address this?  What progress (if any) was
    made at the ITU's World Telecommunication/Information and
    Communication Technology Policy Forum (WTPF)?  What principles
    initiatives already exist, and what role could the IGF play in
    legitimising these at the global level?  What other mechanisms are
    available to advocate for the Internet we want, that is globally
    democratic and respects human rights?  This workshop will attempt to
    address these questions, including through the presentation of
    concrete proposals for practical reforms.

    A roundtable discussion that will feed into the two-day Best Bits
    civil society meeting in Bali in October, and into two subsequent
    multi-stakeholder workshops at the global IGF.


-- 

*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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge
hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
<http://www.consumersinternational.org> |
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.

*WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130902/f9e92a8e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 261 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130902/f9e92a8e/attachment.sig>

From veridiana at idec.org.br  Wed Sep 25 22:15:27 2013
From: veridiana at idec.org.br (Veridiana Alimonti)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 23:15:27 -0300
Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re:
 [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTqsSn+b4P679+emZ5AG8cDVzOr8tDrHEt=iNZ1i5sOfeg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTqsSn+b4P679+emZ5AG8cDVzOr8tDrHEt=iNZ1i5sOfeg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAA0O_-QGvqykxPpXAmGxw5G89d3ZbbAJ3bFkVfYqw=zdwENLRA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Joana and all,

the letter is concise, pointing important issues without losing the general
line of support. Very good!



2013/9/25 Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com>

> Dear all,
>
> Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad now to avoid
> more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for all the contributions.
>
> Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or major
> disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 am (Brazilian time).
> Then collect endorsements through out the day.
>
> *Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's say 22:00,
> also Brazilian time*. So Carlos can deliver it in hand to President
> Dilma. *
> *
>
> thanks once again,
>
> joana
>
> *Letter from** International C**ivil Society** Organizations** **to
> President Dilma Rousseff in support of her **statement at **the 68th
> Session of the **UNGA *
>
>
> Your Excellency,
>
> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world,
> committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing
> social and economic justice, would like to express our strong support forthe statement delivered this week by your
> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. We
> commend you for taking a leading role on these issues and would like to:
>
> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in clear
> accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee*'*s* *Principles
> for the Governance and Use of the Internet.
>
> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian Draft
> Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that upholds
> these principles.
>
> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and demanding
> explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal interception of
> information and data, framing it as a grave violation of human rights and
> of civil liberties
>
> 4.* *Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of
> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian
> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which
> comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and TechnologyCommunity,
> private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing.
>
> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to social
> justice and development, of which an open, stable, and reliable Internet is
> a fundamental pillar.
>
> Signatories:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro <
> diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ian is helping Joanna and me in drafting this reduced optimal version. : )
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <
>> suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>>
>>>  Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set.
>>> --srs (htc one x)
>>>
>>> On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" ** wrote:
>>>
>>> Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters.
>>>
>>> Louis
>>> - - -
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and at the same
>>>> time worse.
>>>>
>>>> I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any more than two paragraphs
>>>> and the chance of it being read is meagre.
>>>>
>>>> To be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. – the first
>>>> paragraph
>>>>
>>>> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world,
>>>> committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing
>>>> social justice, would like to express our strong support for the
>>>> statement delivered this week by your Excellency at the 68th Session of
>>>>  the United Nations General Assembly.
>>>>
>>>> (reference the speech if you wish for those who would like to read
>>>> more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and elaborate on it).
>>>>
>>>> And specifically I dont think we need to talk post Snowden, and demand
>>>> apologies from the USA. That ain’t going to happen.
>>>>
>>>> Ian Peter
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Diego R. Canabarro
>> http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597
>>
>> --
>> diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br
>> diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu
>> MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com
>> Skype: diegocanabarro
>> Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA)
>> --
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> --
>
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> @joana_varon
> PGP 0x016B8E73
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130925/6f3439ac/attachment.htm>

From genekimmelman at gmail.com  Wed Sep 25 22:20:51 2013
From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 22:20:51 -0400
Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re:
 [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTqsSn+b4P679+emZ5AG8cDVzOr8tDrHEt=iNZ1i5sOfeg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTqsSn+b4P679+emZ5AG8cDVzOr8tDrHEt=iNZ1i5sOfeg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C7981BEC-C85F-413B-AB5E-7FA2C6628968@gmail.com>

Well done!



On Sep 25, 2013, at 9:44 PM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:

> Dear all, 
> 
> Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad now to avoid more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for all the contributions.
> 
> Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or major disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 am (Brazilian time). Then collect endorsements through out the day. 
> 
> Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's say 22:00, also Brazilian time. So Carlos can deliver it in hand to President Dilma. 
> 
> thanks once again,
> 
> joana
> 
> Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to President Dilma Rousseff in support of her statement at the 68th Session of the UNGA 
> 
> 
> Your Excellency,
> 
> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing social and economic justice, would like to express our strong support for the statement delivered this week by your Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. We commend you for taking a leading role on these issues and would like to:
> 
> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee's Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet.
> 
> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that upholds these principles.
>  
> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and demanding explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal interception of  information and data, framing it as a grave violation of human rights and of civil liberties
> 
> 4. Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and Technology Community, private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing.
> 
> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to social justice and development, of which an open, stable, and reliable Internet is a fundamental pillar.
> 
> Signatories:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro <diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ian is helping Joanna and me in drafting this reduced optimal version. : )
> 
> 
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set. 
> --srs (htc one x)
> On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote:
> 
>> Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters.
>> 
>> Louis
>> - - -
>> 
>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and at the same time worse.
>>  
>> I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any more than two paragraphs and the chance of it being read is meagre.
>>  
>> To be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. – the first paragraph
>>  
>> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing social justice, would like to express our strong support for the statement delivered this week by your Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. 
>>  
>> (reference the speech if you wish for those who would like to read more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and elaborate on it).
>>  
>> And specifically I dont think we need to talk post Snowden, and demand apologies from the USA. That ain’t going to happen.
>>  
>> Ian Peter
>> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Diego R. Canabarro
> http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 
> 
> --
> diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br
> diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu
> MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com
> Skype: diegocanabarro
> Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA)
> --
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> -- 
> 
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> @joana_varon
> PGP 0x016B8E73
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130925/1e686d14/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Sep 25 22:24:18 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 07:54:18 +0530
Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re:
 [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTqsSn+b4P679+emZ5AG8cDVzOr8tDrHEt=iNZ1i5sOfeg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTqsSn+b4P679+emZ5AG8cDVzOr8tDrHEt=iNZ1i5sOfeg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <52439AD2.4050009@itforchange.net>

Hi All

Thanks for all the work done overnight  - for us in India.... Havent 
seen all the emails but jumping to the last one....

I strongly agree with the statement below, but the last point

In Brazil, the model is CGI.Br model (for some technical policy issues) 
plus Marco Civil (with am exemplary bottom up process of law forming, 
which, since it pertains to full fledged public policies is still voted 
by people's representative alone)..... I think this is a great model and 
should be used at other places, and I have often pushed this CGI.Br plus 
Macro Civil model in India..

The way it is mentioned is *not* the Brazil model, and it seems to be a 
unsubstantiated attempt to extend CGI.Br model to entire realm of 
Internet *public policy* making, which isnt there in Brazil, and as far 
as I know CGI.Br or any other groups have never demanded such incursion 
on rights and mandate of the Brazilain Parliament by CGI.Br. In fact, I 
am pretty sure the public of Brazil will reject any such proposal out of 
hand.

I would like 4 to amended as follows:

Convey our strong support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model of 
Internet governance where a multistakeholder body CGI.Br engages with 
logical infrastructure, naming and technical issues pertaining to the 
Internet as well as advices the government on larger public policy 
issues, and larger public policies pertaining to the Internet are 
developed in a bottom-up, inclusive and deliberative manner of how Marco 
Civil was developed, before it is voted on by people's representative 
bodies. This Brazilian model should be widely adopted included at the 
global level.
(This last line is optional.)

This above is the fact in Brazil, and that alone can be supported in 
this statement.

Thanks, and best regards

parmidner


On Thursday 26 September 2013 07:14 AM, Joana Varon wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad now to 
> avoid more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for all the 
> contributions.
>
> Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or major 
> disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 am (Brazilian 
> time). Then collect endorsements through out the day.
>
> *Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's say 22:00, 
> also Brazilian time*. So Carlos can deliver it in hand to President 
> Dilma. *
> *
>
> thanks once again,
>
> joana
>
> *Letter from**International C**ivil Society**Organizations****to 
> President Dilma Rousseff in support of her **statement at **the 68th 
> Session of the **UNGA *
>
>
> Your Excellency,
>
> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the 
> world, committed to the development of the Internetand its use for 
> advancing social and economic justice, would like to express our 
> strong support forthe statement delivered this week by your Excellency 
> at the 68th Session ofthe United Nations General Assembly. We commend 
> you for taking a leading roleon these issuesand would like to:
>
> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in 
> clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering 
> Committee/'/s//Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet.
>
> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian Draft 
> Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that 
> upholds these principles.
> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and 
> demanding explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal 
> interception of  information and data, framing it as a grave violation 
> of human rights and of civil liberties
>
> 4.//Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of 
> Internet Governance of theexperiences from theBrazilian 
> multistakeholder model of Internet governance,ledby CGI.br, which 
> comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and 
> TechnologyCommunity,private sectorand Civil Society on an equal footing.
>
> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to social 
> justice and development, of which an open, stable, and reliable 
> Internet is a fundamental pillar.
>
> Signatories:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro 
> <diegocanabarro at gmail.com <mailto:diegocanabarro at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Ian is helping Joanna and me in drafting this reduced optimal
>     version. : )
>
>
>     On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
>     <suresh at hserus.net <mailto:suresh at hserus.net>> wrote:
>
>         Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set.
>         --srs (htc one x)
>
>         On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote:
>
>>         Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters.
>>
>>         Louis
>>         - - -
>>
>>         On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter
>>         <ian.peter at ianpeter.com <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>             Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer
>>             and at the same time worse.
>>             I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any more than
>>             two paragraphs and the chance of it being read is meagre.
>>             To be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. –
>>             the first paragraph
>>             We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from
>>             around the world, committed to the development of the
>>             Internetand its use for advancing social justice, would
>>             like to express our strong supportforthe statement
>>             delivered this week by yourExcellencyat the 68th Session
>>             ofthe United Nations General Assembly.
>>             (reference the speech if you wish for those who would
>>             like to read more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and
>>             elaborate on it).
>>             And specifically I dont think we need to talk post
>>             Snowden, and demand apologies from the USA. That ain’t
>>             going to happen.
>>             Ian Peter
>>
>
>         ____________________________________________________________
>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>         governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>         <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>         To be removed from the list, visit:
>         http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>         For all other list information and functions, see:
>         http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>         To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>         http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>         Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     Diego R. Canabarro
>     http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597
>
>     --
>     diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br <http://ufrgs.br>
>     diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu <http://pubpol.umass.edu>
>     MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com <http://gmail.com>
>     Skype: diegocanabarro
>     Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 <tel:%2B55-51-9244-3425> (Brasil) /
>     +1-413-362-0133 <tel:%2B1-413-362-0133> (USA)
>     --
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>     To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>     For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>     To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> -- 
>
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> @joana_varon
> PGP 0x016B8E73
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130926/0daace42/attachment.htm>

From avri at acm.org  Wed Sep 25 22:38:28 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 22:38:28 -0400
Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re:
 [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTqsSn+b4P679+emZ5AG8cDVzOr8tDrHEt=iNZ1i5sOfeg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTqsSn+b4P679+emZ5AG8cDVzOr8tDrHEt=iNZ1i5sOfeg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DD82BE3A-9713-4C96-B12F-84F90FB2CD57@acm.org>

Hi,

I find this to be a good statement.  I think it is important to bring out the mention of participatory democracy of multiple stakeholder groups that are only ambiguously and secondarily included in the President's speech and to do so without  being bombastic or critical about it.  I think it was done well and in a way that hopefully represents a compromise between those in civil society that seem to abjure the multistakeholder model and those who still see it as the only path, though perhaps not a golden path but a rocky road.

avri

On 25 Sep 2013, at 21:44, Joana Varon wrote:

> Dear all, 
> 
> Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad now to avoid more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for all the contributions.
> 
> Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or major disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 am (Brazilian time). Then collect endorsements through out the day. 
> 
> Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's say 22:00, also Brazilian time. So Carlos can deliver it in hand to President Dilma. 
> 
> thanks once again,
> 
> joana
> 
> Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to President Dilma Rousseff in support of her statement at the 68th Session of the UNGA 
> 
> 
> Your Excellency,
> 
> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing social and economic justice, would like to express our strong support for the statement delivered this week by your Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. We commend you for taking a leading role on these issues and would like to:
> 
> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee's Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet.
> 
> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that upholds these principles.
>  
> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and demanding explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal interception of  information and data, framing it as a grave violation of human rights and of civil liberties
> 
> 4. Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and Technology Community, private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing.
> 
> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to social justice and development, of which an open, stable, and reliable Internet is a fundamental pillar.
> 
> Signatories:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro <diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ian is helping Joanna and me in drafting this reduced optimal version. : )
> 
> 
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set. 
> --srs (htc one x)
> On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote:
> 
>> Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters.
>> 
>> Louis
>> - - -
>> 
>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and at the same time worse.
>>  
>> I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any more than two paragraphs and the chance of it being read is meagre.
>>  
>> To be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. – the first paragraph
>>  
>> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing social justice, would like to express our strong support for the statement delivered this week by your Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. 
>>  
>> (reference the speech if you wish for those who would like to read more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and elaborate on it).
>>  
>> And specifically I dont think we need to talk post Snowden, and demand apologies from the USA. That ain’t going to happen.
>>  
>> Ian Peter
>> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Diego R. Canabarro
> http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 
> 
> --
> diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br
> diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu
> MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com
> Skype: diegocanabarro
> Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA)
> --
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> -- 
> 
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> @joana_varon
> PGP 0x016B8E73
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From joy at apc.org  Thu Sep 26 02:11:21 2013
From: joy at apc.org (joy)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 18:11:21 +1200
Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re:
 [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTqsSn+b4P679+emZ5AG8cDVzOr8tDrHEt=iNZ1i5sOfeg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTqsSn+b4P679+emZ5AG8cDVzOr8tDrHEt=iNZ1i5sOfeg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5243D009.5060004@apc.org>

Hi Joana - this looks good: short, clear, and strong
thanks all who have worked on this
Joy

On 26/09/2013 1:44 p.m., Joana Varon wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad now to
> avoid more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for all the
> contributions.
>
> Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or major
> disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 am (Brazilian
> time). Then collect endorsements through out the day.
>
> *Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's say 22:00,
> also Brazilian time*. So Carlos can deliver it in hand to President
> Dilma. *
> *
>
> thanks once again,
>
> joana
>
> *Letter from**International C**ivil Society**Organizations****to
> President Dilma Rousseff in support of her **statement at **the 68th
> Session of the **UNGA *
>
>
> Your Excellency,
>
> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the
> world, committed to the development of the Internetand its use for
> advancing social and economic justice, would like to express our
> strong support forthe statement delivered this week by your Excellency
> at the 68th Session ofthe United Nations General Assembly. We commend
> you for taking a leading roleon these issuesand would like to:
>
> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in
> clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering
> Committee/'/s//Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet.
>
> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian Draft
> Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that
> upholds these principles.
>  
> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and
> demanding explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal
> interception of  information and data, framing it as a grave violation
> of human rights and of civil liberties
>
> 4.//Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of
> Internet Governance of theexperiences from theBrazilian
> multistakeholder model of Internet governance,ledby CGI.br, which
> comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and
> TechnologyCommunity,private sectorand Civil Society on an equal footing.
>
> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to social
> justice and development, of which an open, stable, and reliable
> Internet is a fundamental pillar.
>
> Signatories:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro
> <diegocanabarro at gmail.com <mailto:diegocanabarro at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Ian is helping Joanna and me in drafting this reduced optimal
>     version. : )
>
>
>     On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
>     <suresh at hserus.net <mailto:suresh at hserus.net>> wrote:
>
>         Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set.
>         --srs (htc one x)
>
>         On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote:
>
>>         Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters.
>>
>>         Louis
>>         - - -
>>
>>         On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter
>>         <ian.peter at ianpeter.com <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>             Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer
>>             and at the same time worse.
>>              
>>             I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any more than
>>             two paragraphs and the chance of it being read is meagre.
>>              
>>             To be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. –
>>             the first paragraph
>>              
>>             We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from
>>             around the world, committed to the development of the
>>             Internet and its use for advancing social justice, would
>>             like to express our strong support for the statement
>>             delivered this week by your Excellency at the 68th
>>             Session of the United Nations General Assembly. 
>>              
>>             (reference the speech if you wish for those who would
>>             like to read more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and
>>             elaborate on it).
>>              
>>             And specifically I dont think we need to talk post
>>             Snowden, and demand apologies from the USA. That ain’t
>>             going to happen.
>>              
>>             Ian Peter
>>
>
>         ____________________________________________________________
>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>              governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>         <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>         To be removed from the list, visit:
>              http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>         For all other list information and functions, see:
>              http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>         To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>              http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>         Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     Diego R. Canabarro
>     http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 
>
>     --
>     diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br <http://ufrgs.br>
>     diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu <http://pubpol.umass.edu>
>     MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com <http://gmail.com>
>     Skype: diegocanabarro
>     Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 <tel:%2B55-51-9244-3425> (Brasil) /
>     +1-413-362-0133 <tel:%2B1-413-362-0133> (USA)
>     --
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>          governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>     <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>     To be removed from the list, visit:
>          http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>     For all other list information and functions, see:
>          http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>     To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>          http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> -- 
>
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> @joana_varon
> PGP 0x016B8E73
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130926/9f511026/attachment.htm>

From m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk  Thu Sep 26 05:10:55 2013
From: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk (Marianne Franklin)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 10:10:55 +0100
Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re:
 [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
In-Reply-To: <5243D009.5060004@apc.org>
References: <CALTAiTqsSn+b4P679+emZ5AG8cDVzOr8tDrHEt=iNZ1i5sOfeg@mail.gmail.com> <5243D009.5060004@apc.org>
Message-ID: <5243FA1F.8000804@gold.ac.uk>

Dear Joana and colleagues

Great work! Positive reinforcement goes a long way.

I have forwarded the letter to the IRP Coalition list as that 
constituency has a stake in this statement too.

best
MF

On 26/09/2013 07:11, joy wrote:
> Hi Joana - this looks good: short, clear, and strong
> thanks all who have worked on this
> Joy
>
> On 26/09/2013 1:44 p.m., Joana Varon wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad now to 
>> avoid more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for all the 
>> contributions.
>>
>> Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or major 
>> disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 am (Brazilian 
>> time). Then collect endorsements through out the day.
>>
>> *Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's say 
>> 22:00, also Brazilian time*. So Carlos can deliver it in hand to 
>> President Dilma. *
>> *
>>
>> thanks once again,
>>
>> joana
>>
>> *Letter from**International C**ivil Society**Organizations****to 
>> President Dilma Rousseff in support of her **statement at **the 68th 
>> Session of the **UNGA *
>>
>>
>> Your Excellency,
>>
>> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the 
>> world, committed to the development of the Internetand its use for 
>> advancing social and economic justice, would like to express our 
>> strong support forthe statement delivered this week by your 
>> Excellency at the 68th Session ofthe United Nations General Assembly. 
>> We commend you for taking a leading roleon these issuesand would like to:
>>
>> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in 
>> clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering 
>> Committee/'/s//Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet.
>>
>> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian 
>> Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that 
>> upholds these principles.
>> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and 
>> demanding explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal 
>> interception of  information and data, framing it as a grave 
>> violation of human rights and of civil liberties
>>
>> 4.//Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of 
>> Internet Governance of theexperiences from theBrazilian 
>> multistakeholder model of Internet governance,ledby CGI.br, which 
>> comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and 
>> TechnologyCommunity,private sectorand Civil Society on an equal footing.
>>
>> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to 
>> social justice and development, of which an open, stable, and 
>> reliable Internet is a fundamental pillar.
>>
>> Signatories:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro 
>> <diegocanabarro at gmail.com <mailto:diegocanabarro at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Ian is helping Joanna and me in drafting this reduced optimal
>>     version. : )
>>
>>
>>     On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
>>     <suresh at hserus.net <mailto:suresh at hserus.net>> wrote:
>>
>>         Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set.
>>         --srs (htc one x)
>>
>>         On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote:
>>
>>>         Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters.
>>>
>>>         Louis
>>>         - - -
>>>
>>>         On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter
>>>         <ian.peter at ianpeter.com <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>             Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer
>>>             and at the same time worse.
>>>             I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any more than
>>>             two paragraphs and the chance of it being read is meagre.
>>>             To be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. --
>>>             the first paragraph
>>>             We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from
>>>             around the world, committed to the development of the
>>>             Internetand its use for advancing social justice, would
>>>             like to express our strong supportforthe statement
>>>             delivered this week by yourExcellencyat the 68th Session
>>>             ofthe United Nations General Assembly.
>>>             (reference the speech if you wish for those who would
>>>             like to read more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and
>>>             elaborate on it).
>>>             And specifically I dont think we need to talk post
>>>             Snowden, and demand apologies from the USA. That ain't
>>>             going to happen.
>>>             Ian Peter
>>>
>>
>>         ____________________________________________________________
>>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>         governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>         <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>         To be removed from the list, visit:
>>         http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>>         For all other list information and functions, see:
>>         http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>         To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>         http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>>         Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     -- 
>>     Diego R. Canabarro
>>     http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597
>>
>>     --
>>     diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br <http://ufrgs.br>
>>     diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu <http://pubpol.umass.edu>
>>     MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com <http://gmail.com>
>>     Skype: diegocanabarro
>>     Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 <tel:%2B55-51-9244-3425> (Brasil) /
>>     +1-413-362-0133 <tel:%2B1-413-362-0133> (USA)
>>     --
>>
>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>     To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>>     For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>     To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> -- 
>>
>> Joana Varon Ferraz
>> @joana_varon
>> PGP 0x016B8E73
>>
>>
>

-- 
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/20130926/ca9b5d6e/attachment.htm>

From shahzad at bytesforall.pk  Thu Sep 26 05:16:40 2013
From: shahzad at bytesforall.pk (Shahzad Ahmad)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 14:16:40 +0500
Subject: [bestbits] IGF Visa
In-Reply-To: <4088A7E9-D14A-4EEA-BC39-541B674DC62B@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <CE69E633.47D4F%shahzad@bytesforall.pk>

Folks,

How is the visa situation for you for the IGF?

In Pakistan, we are facing numerous problems and apparently local embassy is
not informed by Indonesian Government about this event.

We are in contact with visaigf2013 at gmail.com but queries from there are also
confusing. To get a visa invitation, they need following:

-  Photo copy of passport
-  A UN official letter invitation from IGF
-  Itinerary

Anyone know, where you get the "UN Official Letter Invitation from IGF" to
be able to get IGF visa invitation letter from the IGF secretariat that is a
requirement for the Indonesian Embassy here. This was never a requirement in
the past. 

I know Donny must be very busy but this is something which may be escalated
to IGF secretariat for help as other may also have been facing similar
difficulties.

Best wishes and regards
Shahzad



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130926/14880427/attachment.htm>

From dbu at donnybu.com  Thu Sep 26 05:27:18 2013
From: dbu at donnybu.com (Donny B.U.)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:27:18 +0700
Subject: [bestbits] IGF Visa
In-Reply-To: <CE69E633.47D4F%shahzad@bytesforall.pk>
References: <4088A7E9-D14A-4EEA-BC39-541B674DC62B@ciroap.org>
	<CE69E633.47D4F%shahzad@bytesforall.pk>
Message-ID: <CAJOH5-woHWJGSg4DMPsaGK206piQbQ=oYb8raUNxSRPEXzZvAQ@mail.gmail.com>

dear shazad,

the un official letter invitation from igf actually the one that you
will received by email after you registered at intgovforum.org
sorry for short reply.

you can reach me anytime via email dbu at donnybu.com

-dbu-


On Thursday, September 26, 2013, Shahzad Ahmad wrote:

> Folks,
>
> How is the visa situation for you for the IGF?
>
> In Pakistan, we are facing numerous problems and apparently local embassy
> is not informed by Indonesian Government about this event.
>
> We are in contact with visaigf2013 at gmail.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'visaigf2013 at gmail.com');> but queries from there are also confusing. To
> get a visa invitation, they need following:
>
> - Photo copy of passport
> *- A UN official letter invitation from IGF *
> - Itinerary
>
> Anyone know, where you get the *"UN Official Letter Invitation from IGF" *to
> be able to get IGF visa invitation letter from the IGF secretariat that is
> a requirement for the Indonesian Embassy here. This was never a requirement
> in the past.
>
> I know Donny must be very busy but this is something which may be
> escalated to IGF secretariat for help as other may also have been facing
> similar difficulties.
>
> Best wishes and regards
> Shahzad
>
>

-- 
e: dbu at donnybu.com | t: @donnybu | f: donnybu | w: donnybu.com | p:
+62818930932
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130926/8e9883bf/attachment.htm>

From skiden at gmail.com  Thu Sep 26 05:32:38 2013
From: skiden at gmail.com (Sarah Kiden)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 12:32:38 +0300
Subject: [bestbits] IGF Visa
In-Reply-To: <CE69E633.47D4F%shahzad@bytesforall.pk>
References: <4088A7E9-D14A-4EEA-BC39-541B674DC62B@ciroap.org>
	<CE69E633.47D4F%shahzad@bytesforall.pk>
Message-ID: <CABKLyKgsCeMnDCYUOqg98v8YWyLXgVuQ_QZAMBQR0pom6+8XXw@mail.gmail.com>

Shahzad,

I hope you are okay. I already received my visa invitation letter.

I used my registration confirmation that I received after registering for
the IGF. When you register through this link
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-2013-registration, the IGF Secretariat
will send you a registration confirmation that you can send to
visaigf2013 at gmail.com together with a copy of your passport and itinerary.

I hope this is helpful.

Regards,

Sarah


On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Shahzad Ahmad <shahzad at bytesforall.pk>wrote:

> Folks,
>
> How is the visa situation for you for the IGF?
>
> In Pakistan, we are facing numerous problems and apparently local embassy
> is not informed by Indonesian Government about this event.
>
> We are in contact with visaigf2013 at gmail.com but queries from there are
> also confusing. To get a visa invitation, they need following:
>
> - Photo copy of passport
> *- A UN official letter invitation from IGF *
> - Itinerary
>
> Anyone know, where you get the *"UN Official Letter Invitation from IGF" *to
> be able to get IGF visa invitation letter from the IGF secretariat that is
> a requirement for the Indonesian Embassy here. This was never a requirement
> in the past.
>
> I know Donny must be very busy but this is something which may be
> escalated to IGF secretariat for help as other may also have been facing
> similar difficulties.
>
> Best wishes and regards
> Shahzad
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130926/d5c81657/attachment.htm>

From shahzad at bytesforall.pk  Thu Sep 26 05:42:47 2013
From: shahzad at bytesforall.pk (Shahzad Ahmad)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 14:42:47 +0500
Subject: [bestbits] IGF Visa
In-Reply-To: <CABKLyKgsCeMnDCYUOqg98v8YWyLXgVuQ_QZAMBQR0pom6+8XXw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CE69F800.47DCE%shahzad@bytesforall.pk>

Thanks everyone for the quick help.

We have just done that. Fingers crossed for the invitation letter.

Many more thanks and best wishes
Shahzad


From:  Sarah Kiden <skiden at gmail.com>
Date:  Thursday, September 26, 2013 2:32 PM
To:  Shahzad Ahmad <shahzad at bytesforall.pk>
Cc:  "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Bits" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject:  Re: [bestbits] IGF Visa

Shahzad, 

I hope you are okay. I already received my visa invitation letter.

I used my registration confirmation that I received after registering for
the IGF. When you register through this link
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-2013-registration, the IGF Secretariat
will send you a registration confirmation that you can send to
visaigf2013 at gmail.com together with a copy of your passport and itinerary.

I hope this is helpful.

Regards,

Sarah 


On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Shahzad Ahmad <shahzad at bytesforall.pk>
wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> How is the visa situation for you for the IGF?
> 
> In Pakistan, we are facing numerous problems and apparently local embassy is
> not informed by Indonesian Government about this event.
> 
> We are in contact with visaigf2013 at gmail.com but queries from there are also
> confusing. To get a visa invitation, they need following:
> 
> -  Photo copy of passport
> -  A UN official letter invitation from IGF
> -  Itinerary
> 
> Anyone know, where you get the "UN Official Letter Invitation from IGF" to be
> able to get IGF visa invitation letter from the IGF secretariat that is a
> requirement for the Indonesian Embassy here. This was never a requirement in
> the past. 
> 
> I know Donny must be very busy but this is something which may be escalated to
> IGF secretariat for help as other may also have been facing similar
> difficulties.
> 
> Best wishes and regards
> Shahzad
> 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130926/75419215/attachment.htm>

From nb at bollow.ch  Mon Sep  2 04:54:20 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 10:54:20 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Re: How to end human rights violating communcations
 surveillance (was Re: Position by IT for Change...)
In-Reply-To: <5223536E.8000601@itforchange.net>
References: <521E2A9E.7070004@itforchange.net>
	<E96416DB-C48F-4D94-B8E7-FCFCA7D5A2CA@apc.org>
	<CAJqNAHDvLLQcX87p2Kzu+15O=+8LNrNi+zrPyLgDCau4echNvA@mail.gmail.com>
	<030d01cea5b3$2cc32a80$86497f80$@gmail.com>
	<CACAaNxj2TOjeCQWbo0u31Uzpnv6qYT=9fdp0Z4wq-F+3sJQeBA@mail.gmail.com>
	<035f01cea5c3$7a5db390$6f191ab0$@gmail.com>
	<CACAaNxg_2Hu+MTkbxBLEetCPmwunM5GaMRo+6yOaxzGq7Ry27g@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130831220744.592c8d64@quill>
	<3CB796A02CAE419EAE5DB5686FE0E3E4@Toshiba>
	<20130901040132.65217d8a@quill>
	<5223536E.8000601@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <20130902105420.796d51b4@quill>

Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> I agree with Norbert that the cost of doing surveillance has to be 
> increased through appropriate technological means, to bring it closer
> to costs that existing before ICTs made it a kid's game as Snowden
> would say, to see anyone's communication with a few strokes of the
> key pad....
> 
> This is a course that should be systematically pursued...
> 
> However, I am in agreement with Ian that treaties are useful and
> needed, and that countries to give in to get something else in
> return, and all of it could result in greater global public good.

I agree with all of the above; I just don't think that the specific
objective of getting the US to agree to stop their current (human
rights violating) transborder surveillance activities is achievable via
a treaty process.

> To respond to Norbert's specific doubt, about what has US to benefit 
> from conceding on its global surveillance activities, I think they
> have a great lot to achieve. Like in no other business before, US has
> a preponderant dominance in global Internet business. It has a lot to
> gain if international agreements help develop some level of global
> norms, frameworks and rules of at least /some level/ /of/
> cross-national harmony if not homogeneity on how the global Internet
> basically works, and what can be expected by and granted to all
> global  players. No other country has more to gain through such
> 'global agreements' as the US's economic interests have.

Currently those objectives are satisfied to a very great extent already
in the absence of an Internet-specific treaty.

It is not plausible to me that the US could possibly in the current
kind of situation be willing to make significant concessions in
a treaty process in order to achieve objectives which are satisfied
already without a treaty. 

Of course this situation might change. It might happen that the current
efforts by many actors (led and coordinated to a significant extent by
ISOC), to prevent a gradual fragmentation of the Internet along national
boundaries, might fail. I certainly wouldn't want to encourage such a
process of “balkanisation”, and I hope that it won't happen, but if it
starts happening to a significant extent, it will profoundly change the
global geopolitics of Internet governance, possibly even to the extent
that the US might be willing to make significant concessions in order
to prevent such a cancer from spreading further.

Greetings,
Norbert

-- 
Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC:
1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person
2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept

From joana at varonferraz.com  Thu Sep 26 06:22:01 2013
From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 12:22:01 +0200
Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re:
 [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
In-Reply-To: <CA+EjHYo4cRODBe6=RD0EBUotwU8NA6uqpU1a9PosQUM5rtigAw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+EjHYo4cRODBe6=RD0EBUotwU8NA6uqpU1a9PosQUM5rtigAw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALTAiTpkET769_uCc2qqDZP_z8Oh8jqHyqaUT0tBqbLiwM13_Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Louis and Parminder,

Until now you were the only ones that didnt agree fully with the texto, due
to paragraph 4. From what I've got:

- Parminder has a stronger take that THE Brazilian model should be extended
to the world.

- Louis said that we should remove that mention on the text.

Before we start drafting the text, the issue about of multilateral vs
multistakeholderism was raised and we came to a conclusion that though its
not the time to criticize this specific point of Dilma's speech, we should
reinforce our support for developing models for a multistakeholder approach
on IG, also having CGI experiences as a inspiration.

Having in mind that for a broader endorsement we need to reach this middle
ground, would you be fine with the actual version or want to submit changes
in the language that don't affect this (middle ground) meaning? Thanks a
lot for the understanding.

best

joana



On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) <pouzin at well.com>wrote:

> IMHO it would be better without parag 4.
> Cheers, Louis
>
> btw, for those not living there, local brazilian time is UTC-3
> - - -
>
> On 26 September 2013 7:14:17 AM Joana Varon wrote:
>>
>>  Dear all,
>>
>> Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad now to avoid
>> more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for all the contributions.
>>
>> Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or major
>> disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 am (Brazilian time).
>> Then collect endorsements through out the day.
>>
>> *Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's say 22:00,
>> also Brazilian time*. So Carlos can deliver it in hand to President
>> Dilma. *
>> *
>>
>> thanks once again,
>>
>> joana
>>
>> *Letter from** International C**ivil Society** Organizations** **to
>> President Dilma Rousseff in support of her **statement at **the 68th
>> Session of the **UNGA *
>>
>>
>> Your Excellency,
>>
>> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world,
>> committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing
>> social and economic justice, would like to express our strong support forthe statement delivered this week by your
>> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. We
>> commend you for taking a leading role on these issues and would like to:
>>
>> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in clear
>> accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee*'*s* *Principles
>> for the Governance and Use of the Internet.
>>
>> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian Draft
>> Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that upholds
>> these principles.
>>
>> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and demanding
>> explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal interception of
>> information and data, framing it as a grave violation of human rights and
>> of civil liberties
>>
>> 4.* *Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of
>> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian
>> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which
>> comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and TechnologyCommunity,
>> private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing.
>>
>> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to social
>> justice and development, of which an open, stable, and reliable Internet is
>> a fundamental pillar.
>>
>> Signatories:
>>
>>
>


-- 
-- 

Joana Varon Ferraz
@joana_varon
PGP 0x016B8E73
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130926/522c5ff7/attachment.htm>

From joana at varonferraz.com  Thu Sep 26 06:30:48 2013
From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 12:30:48 +0200
Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re:
 [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTpkET769_uCc2qqDZP_z8Oh8jqHyqaUT0tBqbLiwM13_Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+EjHYo4cRODBe6=RD0EBUotwU8NA6uqpU1a9PosQUM5rtigAw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALTAiTpkET769_uCc2qqDZP_z8Oh8jqHyqaUT0tBqbLiwM13_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALTAiTp_HDi57ZO75rHDebd9rUAmN_1nK_X7KH7oNmv+m6V93g@mail.gmail.com>

Ops, just saw Parminder's emails with direct suggestions. So could we go
for:

4. Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model for
Internet governance lead by CGI.br.


On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:

> Hi Louis and Parminder,
>
> Until now you were the only ones that didnt agree fully with the texto,
> due to paragraph 4. From what I've got:
>
> - Parminder has a stronger take that THE Brazilian model should be
> extended to the world.
>
> - Louis said that we should remove that mention on the text.
>
> Before we start drafting the text, the issue about of multilateral vs
> multistakeholderism was raised and we came to a conclusion that though its
> not the time to criticize this specific point of Dilma's speech, we should
> reinforce our support for developing models for a multistakeholder approach
> on IG, also having CGI experiences as a inspiration.
>
> Having in mind that for a broader endorsement we need to reach this middle
> ground, would you be fine with the actual version or want to submit changes
> in the language that don't affect this (middle ground) meaning? Thanks a
> lot for the understanding.
>
> best
>
> joana
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) <pouzin at well.com>wrote:
>
>> IMHO it would be better without parag 4.
>> Cheers, Louis
>>
>> btw, for those not living there, local brazilian time is UTC-3
>> - - -
>>
>> On 26 September 2013 7:14:17 AM Joana Varon wrote:
>>>
>>>  Dear all,
>>>
>>> Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad now to
>>> avoid more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for all the contributions.
>>>
>>> Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or major
>>> disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 am (Brazilian time).
>>> Then collect endorsements through out the day.
>>>
>>> *Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's say 22:00,
>>> also Brazilian time*. So Carlos can deliver it in hand to President
>>> Dilma. *
>>> *
>>>
>>> thanks once again,
>>>
>>> joana
>>>
>>> *Letter from** International C**ivil Society** Organizations** **to
>>> President Dilma Rousseff in support of her **statement at **the 68th
>>> Session of the **UNGA *
>>>
>>>
>>> Your Excellency,
>>>
>>> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world,
>>> committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing
>>> social and economic justice, would like to express our strong support fo
>>> r the statement delivered this week by your Excellency at the 68th
>>> Session of the United Nations General Assembly. We commend you for taking
>>> a leading role on these issues and would like to:
>>>
>>> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in
>>> clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee*'*s* *Principles
>>> for the Governance and Use of the Internet.
>>>
>>> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian Draft
>>> Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that upholds
>>> these principles.
>>>
>>> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and demanding
>>> explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal interception of
>>> information and data, framing it as a grave violation of human rights and
>>> of civil liberties
>>>
>>> 4.* *Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of
>>> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian
>>> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which
>>> comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and TechnologyCommunity,
>>> private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing.
>>>
>>> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to social
>>> justice and development, of which an open, stable, and reliable Internet is
>>> a fundamental pillar.
>>>
>>> Signatories:
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> --
>
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> @joana_varon
> PGP 0x016B8E73
>
>
>


-- 
-- 

Joana Varon Ferraz
@joana_varon
PGP 0x016B8E73
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130926/2cd9efd5/attachment.htm>

From genekimmelman at gmail.com  Thu Sep 26 06:56:48 2013
From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 06:56:48 -0400
Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re:
 [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
Message-ID: <mes9g73mfbnu87isxuole3a8.1380193008606@email.android.com>

I support this,  and hope all others can

-------- Original message --------
From: "Louis Pouzin (well)" <pouzin at well.com> 
Date:  
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> 
Cc: "&lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt," <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,Diego Rafael Canabarro <diegocanabarro at gmail.com>,Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> 
Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN 
 
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:
Ops, just saw Parminder's emails with direct suggestions. So could we go for:

4. Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model for Internet governance lead by CGI.br.


Yes Joana, you can go for it.
Louis

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130926/54f1234d/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Sep 26 07:16:56 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:46:56 +0530
Subject: Fwd: Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff
 Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
In-Reply-To: <52441244.8030903@itforchange.net>
References: <52441244.8030903@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <524417A8.5070609@itforchange.net>



On Thursday 26 September 2013 03:52 PM, Joana Varon wrote:
> Hi Louis and Parminder,
>
> Until now you were the only ones that didnt agree fully with the 
> texto, due to paragraph 4. From what I've got:
>
> - Parminder has a stronger take that THE Brazilian model should be 
> extended to the world.

I am in fact in full agreement to 'The Brazilian model should be 
extended more widely' ..... I just dont agree with your description as 
being the existing Brazilian model :) . It sepaks about one part of it 
but not the other.

I am even happy to say


"Brazilian multistakeholder model of Internet governance should be 
extended more widely, including to the global level."


>
> - Louis said that we should remove that mention on the text.
>
> Before we start drafting the text, the issue about of multilateral vs 
> multistakeholderism was raised and we came to a conclusion that though 
> its not the time to criticize this specific point of Dilma's speech, 
> we should reinforce our support for developing models for a 
> multistakeholder approach on IG, also having CGI experiences as a 
> inspiration.
>
> Having in mind that for a broader endorsement we need to reach this 
> middle ground, would you be fine with the actual version or want to 
> submit changes in the language that don't affect this (middle ground) 
> meaning? Thanks a lot for the understanding.

Please see the above formulation. But if you insist that CGI experience 
(which model I like a lot) should be mentioned as an inspiration, I am 
unable to understand why should then the Marco Civil experience also be 
mentioned, the two together kind of completing the Brazilian model.

so maybe we can say;

""Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder approach to 
Internet governance, which model should be extended more widely, 
including to the global level. In this regard CGI and Marco Civil 
process should serve as an inspiration".

This formulation just adds Marco Civil process as a part of Brazilian IG 
system to your earlier formulation which I understand is only a fact. It 
takes nothing away from it.


parminder






>
> best
>
> joana
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) <pouzin at well.com 
> <mailto:pouzin at well.com>> wrote:
>
>     IMHO it would be better without parag 4.
>     Cheers, Louis
>
>     btw, for those not living there, local brazilian time is UTC-3
>     - - -
>
>     On 26 September 2013 7:14:17 AM Joana Varon wrote:
>
>>         Dear all,
>>
>>         Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad
>>         now to avoid more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for
>>         all the contributions.
>>
>>         Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or
>>         major disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00
>>         am (Brazilian time). Then collect endorsements through out
>>         the day.
>>
>>         *Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's
>>         say 22:00, also Brazilian time*. So Carlos can deliver it in
>>         hand to President Dilma. *
>>         *
>>
>>         thanks once again,
>>
>>         joana
>>
>>         *Letter from**International C**ivil
>>         Society**Organizations****to President Dilma Rousseff in
>>         support of her **statement at **the 68th Session of the **UNGA *
>>
>>
>>         Your Excellency,
>>
>>         We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around
>>         the world, committed to the development of the Internetand
>>         its use for advancing social and economic justice, would like
>>         to express our strong support forthe statement delivered this
>>         week by your Excellency at the 68th Session ofthe United
>>         Nations General Assembly. We commend you for taking a leading
>>         roleon these issuesand would like to:
>>
>>         1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the
>>         occasion, in clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet
>>         Steering Committee/'/s//Principles for the Governance and Use
>>         of the Internet.
>>
>>         2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the
>>         Brazilian Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da
>>         Internet) in a way that upholds these principles.
>>         3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval
>>         and demanding explanations from the USA about the procedures
>>         of illegal interception of information and data, framing it
>>         as a grave violation of human rights and of civil liberties
>>
>>         4.//Reinforce our support for an extension into broader
>>         spheres of Internet Governance of theexperiences from
>>         theBrazilian multistakeholder model of Internet
>>         governance,ledby CGI.br, which comprises representatives from
>>         Government, Scientific and TechnologyCommunity,private
>>         sectorand Civil Society on an equal footing.
>>
>>         We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment
>>         to social justice and development, of which an open, stable,
>>         and reliable Internet is a fundamental pillar.
>>
>>         Signatories:
>>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> -- 
>
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> @joana_varon
> PGP 0x016B8E73
>
>



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130926/30c265c1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From jeremy at ciroap.org  Thu Sep 26 07:19:18 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 07:19:18 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] [letter to Dilma Rousseff] merging
 threads from IGC and BB
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK1rQVEavEDCJtovniEcxZd9SsQGKRM1Yq=9U0065_KHTQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTrO=KuiuutE4qkGx07MAEKgok+Tx9a2=A4vRj0m49uAew@mail.gmail.com> <CACpVkK1rQVEavEDCJtovniEcxZd9SsQGKRM1Yq=9U0065_KHTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4D7F2645-19C9-48F0-9407-9FF9C3D34B04@ciroap.org>

The link to endorse the statement is now up:

http://bestbits.net/brazil-66-unga/

Even if you think you already endorsed it in this thread, it will be your responsibility now to add your name to this page. :-)  Please also be sure to respond to the email confirmation (or let me know if you don't get it).

Thanks.

-- 
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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130926/712c8922/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130926/712c8922/attachment.sig>

From joana at varonferraz.com  Thu Sep 26 07:27:40 2013
From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 13:27:40 +0200
Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re:
 [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
In-Reply-To: <14159ed1660.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
References: <CA+EjHYo4cRODBe6=RD0EBUotwU8NA6uqpU1a9PosQUM5rtigAw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALTAiTpkET769_uCc2qqDZP_z8Oh8jqHyqaUT0tBqbLiwM13_Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALTAiTp_HDi57ZO75rHDebd9rUAmN_1nK_X7KH7oNmv+m6V93g@mail.gmail.com>
	<14159ed1660.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <CALTAiTqgPypHqOL00bnT=z9TcjwAfnnsQC_notps-D3pDMHHig@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Parminder,

Considering the support from the others, this is as far as we could go:

4. Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model for
Internet governance lead by CGI.br.

Im happy you see CGI model as the whole model to be extended to the world.
And we can chat a lot about it. Indeed, its a very good starting point. But
it still have its problems, as every innovative way of deal with things. In
fact, this letter has also the goal to straighten CGI political power as
endorsing it as a legitim  intent. So, for the purpose if this and for
wider consensus lets stay at this point, ok? The part of marco civil is
already mentioned in previous paragraphs.

We shall publish it now at BB for collecting signatures as time is passing
by. Will come up with a link asap. Hope u could help with the outreach.

Thanks once again for all the inputs, collaboration and insights.

Best.

Joana




On Sep 26, 2013 1:00 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:

>  The text is fine as it is.
>
> Do any other members of the caucus feel strongly about changing point 4?
>
> --srs (htc one x)
>
> On 26 September 2013 4:00:48 PM Joana Varon ** wrote:
>
> Ops, just saw Parminder's emails with direct suggestions. So could we go
> for:
>
> 4. Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model for
> Internet governance lead by CGI.br.
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi Louis and Parminder,
>>
>> Until now you were the only ones that didnt agree fully with the texto,
>> due to paragraph 4. From what I've got:
>>
>> - Parminder has a stronger take that THE Brazilian model should be
>> extended to the world.
>>
>> - Louis said that we should remove that mention on the text.
>>
>> Before we start drafting the text, the issue about of multilateral vs
>> multistakeholderism was raised and we came to a conclusion that though its
>> not the time to criticize this specific point of Dilma's speech, we should
>> reinforce our support for developing models for a multistakeholder approach
>> on IG, also having CGI experiences as a inspiration.
>>
>> Having in mind that for a broader endorsement we need to reach this
>> middle ground, would you be fine with the actual version or want to submit
>> changes in the language that don't affect this (middle ground) meaning?
>> Thanks a lot for the understanding.
>>
>> best
>>
>> joana
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) <pouzin at well.com>wrote:
>>
>>> IMHO it would be better without parag 4.
>>> Cheers, Louis
>>>
>>> btw, for those not living there, local brazilian time is UTC-3
>>> - - -
>>>
>>> On 26 September 2013 7:14:17 AM Joana Varon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad now to
>>>> avoid more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for all the contributions.
>>>>
>>>> Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or major
>>>> disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 am (Brazilian time).
>>>> Then collect endorsements through out the day.
>>>>
>>>> *Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's say 22:00,
>>>> also Brazilian time*. So Carlos can deliver it in hand to President
>>>> Dilma. *
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>> thanks once again,
>>>>
>>>> joana
>>>>
>>>> *Letter from** International C**ivil Society** Organizations** **to
>>>> President Dilma Rousseff in support of her **statement at **the 68th
>>>> Session of the **UNGA *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Your Excellency,
>>>>
>>>> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world,
>>>> committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing
>>>> social and economic justice, would like to express our strong support f
>>>> or the statement delivered this week by your Excellency at the 68th
>>>> Session of the United Nations General Assembly. We commend you for taking
>>>> a leading role on these issues and would like to:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in
>>>> clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee*'*s* *Principles
>>>> for the Governance and Use of the Internet.
>>>>
>>>> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian Draft
>>>> Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that upholds
>>>> these principles.
>>>>
>>>> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and
>>>> demanding explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal
>>>> interception of  information and data, framing it as a grave violation of
>>>> human rights and of civil liberties
>>>>
>>>> 4.* *Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of
>>>> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian
>>>> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which
>>>> comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and TechnologyCommunity,
>>>> private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing.
>>>>
>>>> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to social
>>>> justice and development, of which an open, stable, and reliable Internet is
>>>> a fundamental pillar.
>>>>
>>>> Signatories:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>>
>> Joana Varon Ferraz
>> @joana_varon
>> PGP 0x016B8E73
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> --
>
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> @joana_varon
> PGP 0x016B8E73
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130926/c4a54abe/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Sep 26 07:31:55 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 17:01:55 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] [letter to Dilma Rousseff] merging
 threads from IGC and BB
In-Reply-To: <4D7F2645-19C9-48F0-9407-9FF9C3D34B04@ciroap.org>
References: <CALTAiTrO=KuiuutE4qkGx07MAEKgok+Tx9a2=A4vRj0m49uAew@mail.gmail.com> <CACpVkK1rQVEavEDCJtovniEcxZd9SsQGKRM1Yq=9U0065_KHTQ@mail.gmail.com> <4D7F2645-19C9-48F0-9407-9FF9C3D34B04@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <52441B2B.7040105@itforchange.net>


Jeremy


Joana's deadline for proposing amendments to the statement is not over 
yet, and the statement is changing right now..

Putting up an earlier version for sign on causes a great amount of 
confusion to the process...

regards, parminder


On Thursday 26 September 2013 04:49 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> The link to endorse the statement is now up:
>
> http://bestbits.net/brazil-66-unga/
>
> Even if you think you already endorsed it in this thread, it will be 
> your responsibility now to add your name to this page. :-)  Please 
> also be sure to respond to the email confirmation (or let me know if 
> you don't get it).
>
> Thanks.
>
> -- 
>
> *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
>
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge 
> hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/> | 
> 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.
>
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For 
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130926/600844c9/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Thu Sep 26 07:36:44 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 07:36:44 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] [letter to Dilma Rousseff] merging
 threads from IGC and BB
In-Reply-To: <52441B2B.7040105@itforchange.net>
References: <CALTAiTrO=KuiuutE4qkGx07MAEKgok+Tx9a2=A4vRj0m49uAew@mail.gmail.com> <CACpVkK1rQVEavEDCJtovniEcxZd9SsQGKRM1Yq=9U0065_KHTQ@mail.gmail.com> <4D7F2645-19C9-48F0-9407-9FF9C3D34B04@ciroap.org> <52441B2B.7040105@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <994E46CA-5369-4EF9-A576-C81577AF2D9A@ciroap.org>

On 26/09/2013, at 7:31 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> Joana's deadline for proposing amendments to the statement is not over yet, and the statement is changing right now..
> 
> Putting up an earlier version for sign on causes a great amount of confusion to the process...


Sorry, I was acting on instructions to put it up early because consensus had already been reached, but then the thread suddenly reactivated and point 4 changed... anyway point 4 is now "Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model for Internet governance lead by CGI.br", is that correct?

-- 
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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130926/d22e73f5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130926/d22e73f5/attachment.sig>

From anriette at apc.org  Thu Sep 26 07:37:44 2013
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 13:37:44 +0200
Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re:
 [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTqsSn+b4P679+emZ5AG8cDVzOr8tDrHEt=iNZ1i5sOfeg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTqsSn+b4P679+emZ5AG8cDVzOr8tDrHEt=iNZ1i5sOfeg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <52441C88.8030709@apc.org>

Dear Joana

This is exactly what I had in mind when I proposed this letter. I am
sorry I could not contribute to the drafting. We will circulate it to
APC members for support. I am at the African IGF and traveling tonight
so am copying our communications manager, Mallory Knodel, to ask her to
do this as Valeria Betancourt our policy manager is also in transit.
Could you please send her the final copy if there are changes?

Thanks.. good letter.

Anriette


On 26/09/2013 03:44, Joana Varon wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad now to
> avoid more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for all the
> contributions.
>
> Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or major
> disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 am (Brazilian
> time). Then collect endorsements through out the day.
>
> *Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's say 22:00,
> also Brazilian time*. So Carlos can deliver it in hand to President
> Dilma. *
> *
>
> thanks once again,
>
> joana
>
> *Letter from**International C**ivil Society**Organizations****to
> President Dilma Rousseff in support of her **statement at **the 68th
> Session of the **UNGA *
>
>
> Your Excellency,
>
> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the
> world, committed to the development of the Internetand its use for
> advancing social and economic justice, would like to express our
> strong support forthe statement delivered this week by your Excellency
> at the 68th Session ofthe United Nations General Assembly. We commend
> you for taking a leading roleon these issuesand would like to:
>
> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in
> clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering
> Committee/'/s//Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet.
>
> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian Draft
> Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that
> upholds these principles.
>  
> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and
> demanding explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal
> interception of  information and data, framing it as a grave violation
> of human rights and of civil liberties
>
> 4.//Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of
> Internet Governance of theexperiences from theBrazilian
> multistakeholder model of Internet governance,ledby CGI.br, which
> comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and
> TechnologyCommunity,private sectorand Civil Society on an equal footing.
>
> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to social
> justice and development, of which an open, stable, and reliable
> Internet is a fundamental pillar.
>
> Signatories:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro
> <diegocanabarro at gmail.com <mailto:diegocanabarro at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Ian is helping Joanna and me in drafting this reduced optimal
>     version. : )
>
>
>     On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
>     <suresh at hserus.net <mailto:suresh at hserus.net>> wrote:
>
>         Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set.
>         --srs (htc one x)
>
>         On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote:
>
>>         Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters.
>>
>>         Louis
>>         - - -
>>
>>         On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter
>>         <ian.peter at ianpeter.com <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>             Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer
>>             and at the same time worse.
>>              
>>             I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any more than
>>             two paragraphs and the chance of it being read is meagre.
>>              
>>             To be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. –
>>             the first paragraph
>>              
>>             We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from
>>             around the world, committed to the development of the
>>             Internet and its use for advancing social justice, would
>>             like to express our strong support for the statement
>>             delivered this week by your Excellency at the 68th
>>             Session of the United Nations General Assembly. 
>>              
>>             (reference the speech if you wish for those who would
>>             like to read more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and
>>             elaborate on it).
>>              
>>             And specifically I dont think we need to talk post
>>             Snowden, and demand apologies from the USA. That ain’t
>>             going to happen.
>>              
>>             Ian Peter
>>
>
>         ____________________________________________________________
>         You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>              governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>         <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>         To be removed from the list, visit:
>              http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>         For all other list information and functions, see:
>              http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>         To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>              http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>         Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     Diego R. Canabarro
>     http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 
>
>     --
>     diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br <http://ufrgs.br>
>     diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu <http://pubpol.umass.edu>
>     MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com <http://gmail.com>
>     Skype: diegocanabarro
>     Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 <tel:%2B55-51-9244-3425> (Brasil) /
>     +1-413-362-0133 <tel:%2B1-413-362-0133> (USA)
>     --
>
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>          governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>     <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>     To be removed from the list, visit:
>          http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>     For all other list information and functions, see:
>          http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>     To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>          http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> -- 
>
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> @joana_varon
> PGP 0x016B8E73
>
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130926/8be976de/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Sep 26 07:41:00 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 17:11:00 +0530
Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re:
 [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTqgPypHqOL00bnT=z9TcjwAfnnsQC_notps-D3pDMHHig@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+EjHYo4cRODBe6=RD0EBUotwU8NA6uqpU1a9PosQUM5rtigAw@mail.gmail.com> <CALTAiTpkET769_uCc2qqDZP_z8Oh8jqHyqaUT0tBqbLiwM13_Q@mail.gmail.com> <CALTAiTp_HDi57ZO75rHDebd9rUAmN_1nK_X7KH7oNmv+m6V93g@mail.gmail.com> <14159ed1660.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <CALTAiTqgPypHqOL00bnT=z9TcjwAfnnsQC_notps-D3pDMHHig@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <52441D4C.9010906@itforchange.net>


On Thursday 26 September 2013 04:57 PM, Joana Varon wrote:
>
> Dear Parminder,
>
> Considering the support from the others, this is as far as we could go:
>
> 4. Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model for 
> Internet governance lead by CGI.br.
>
> Im happy you see CGI model as the whole model to be extended to the world.
>

Joana,

That is *not* the main point of difference. I am fine if we dont say 
that CGI model is extended outwards..... No problem. My main point is , 
why dont we mention marco civil process as well as an important part of 
Brazilian model.... That completes the model, and this bottom process of 
law drafting is unique. I mention this becuase there seem to be some 
confusion that I am basically insisting the "CGI model should be 
extended world wide part' - I would like to but that is not the part I 
am insisting to be retained.... I just asking for Marco Cicil process to 
be included in the Brazilian model that we commend in part 4...

parminder

> And we can chat a lot about it. Indeed, its a very good starting 
> point. But it still have its problems, as every innovative way of deal 
> with things. In fact, this letter has also the goal to straighten CGI 
> political power as endorsing it as a legitim  intent. So, for the 
> purpose if this and for wider consensus lets stay at this point, ok? 
> The part of marco civil is already mentioned in previous paragraphs.
>
> We shall publish it now at BB for collecting signatures as time is 
> passing by. Will come up with a link asap. Hope u could help with the 
> outreach.
>
> Thanks once again for all the inputs, collaboration and insights.
>
> Best.
>
> Joana
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 26, 2013 1:00 PM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <suresh at hserus.net 
> <mailto:suresh at hserus.net>> wrote:
>
>     The text is fine as it is.
>
>     Do any other members of the caucus feel strongly about changing
>     point 4?
>
>     --srs (htc one x)
>
>     On 26 September 2013 4:00:48 PM Joana Varon wrote:
>
>>     Ops, just saw Parminder's emails with direct suggestions. So
>>     could we go for:
>>
>>     4. Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model
>>     for Internet governance lead by CGI.br.
>>
>>
>>     On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Joana Varon
>>     <joana at varonferraz.com <mailto:joana at varonferraz.com>> wrote:
>>
>>         Hi Louis and Parminder,
>>
>>         Until now you were the only ones that didnt agree fully with
>>         the texto, due to paragraph 4. From what I've got:
>>
>>         - Parminder has a stronger take that THE Brazilian model
>>         should be extended to the world.
>>
>>         - Louis said that we should remove that mention on the text.
>>
>>         Before we start drafting the text, the issue about of
>>         multilateral vs multistakeholderism was raised and we came to
>>         a conclusion that though its not the time to criticize this
>>         specific point of Dilma's speech, we should reinforce our
>>         support for developing models for a multistakeholder approach
>>         on IG, also having CGI experiences as a inspiration.
>>
>>         Having in mind that for a broader endorsement we need to
>>         reach this middle ground, would you be fine with the actual
>>         version or want to submit changes in the language that don't
>>         affect this (middle ground) meaning? Thanks a lot for the
>>         understanding.
>>
>>         best
>>
>>         joana
>>
>>
>>
>>         On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Louis Pouzin (well)
>>         <pouzin at well.com <mailto:pouzin at well.com>> wrote:
>>
>>             IMHO it would be better without parag 4.
>>             Cheers, Louis
>>
>>             btw, for those not living there, local brazilian time is
>>             UTC-3
>>             - - -
>>
>>             On 26 September 2013 7:14:17 AM Joana Varon wrote:
>>
>>>                 Dear all,
>>>
>>>                 Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing
>>>                 the pad now to avoid more crazy joined editing
>>>                 processes. Thanks for all the contributions.
>>>
>>>                 Let's receive final comments about very punctual
>>>                 changes or major disagreements and gaps until
>>>                 tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 am (Brazilian time). Then
>>>                 collect endorsements through out the day.
>>>
>>>                 *Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday
>>>                 night, let's say 22:00, also Brazilian time*. So
>>>                 Carlos can deliver it in hand to President Dilma. *
>>>                 *
>>>
>>>                 thanks once again,
>>>
>>>                 joana
>>>
>>>                 *Letter from**International C**ivil
>>>                 Society**Organizations****to President Dilma
>>>                 Rousseff in support of her **statement at **the 68th
>>>                 Session of the **UNGA *
>>>
>>>
>>>                 Your Excellency,
>>>
>>>                 We, the undersigned organizations and individuals
>>>                 from around the world, committed to the development
>>>                 of the Internetand its use for advancing social and
>>>                 economic justice, would like to express our strong
>>>                 support forthe statement delivered this week by your
>>>                 Excellency at the 68th Session ofthe United Nations
>>>                 General Assembly. We commend you for taking a
>>>                 leading roleon these issuesand would like to:
>>>
>>>                 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on
>>>                 the occasion, in clear accordance with the Brazilian
>>>                 Internet Steering Committee/'/s//Principles for the
>>>                 Governance and Use of the Internet.
>>>
>>>                 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of
>>>                 the Brazilian Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco
>>>                 Civil da Internet) in a way that upholds these
>>>                 principles.
>>>                 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing
>>>                 disapproval and demanding explanations from the USA
>>>                 about the procedures of illegal interception of
>>>                 information and data, framing it as a grave
>>>                 violation of human rights and of civil liberties
>>>
>>>                 4.//Reinforce our support for an extension into
>>>                 broader spheres of Internet Governance of
>>>                 theexperiences from theBrazilian multistakeholder
>>>                 model of Internet governance,ledby CGI.br, which
>>>                 comprises representatives from Government,
>>>                 Scientific and TechnologyCommunity,private sectorand
>>>                 Civil Society on an equal footing.
>>>
>>>                 We express our deep appreciation for your serious
>>>                 commitment to social justice and development, of
>>>                 which an open, stable, and reliable Internet is a
>>>                 fundamental pillar.
>>>
>>>                 Signatories:
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>         -- 
>>         -- 
>>
>>         Joana Varon Ferraz
>>         @joana_varon
>>         PGP 0x016B8E73
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     -- 
>>     -- 
>>
>>     Joana Varon Ferraz
>>     @joana_varon
>>     PGP 0x016B8E73
>>
>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130926/212d9e68/attachment.htm>

From deborah at accessnow.org  Mon Sep  2 12:45:37 2013
From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown)
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 12:45:37 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] WSIS+10 High Level Event Multistakeholder
 Preparatory Platform launched
In-Reply-To: <4BB8F025-9DA1-49E0-A57D-B91A75C287BB@ciroap.org>
References: <4BB8F025-9DA1-49E0-A57D-B91A75C287BB@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <CALU7RQYHWZ08tX7kWKyFHEheNVcWcaA0V1OCJjF=Wi2iDOn5Cw@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks for circulating this Jeremy. I wanted to flag that the deadline for
submitting the two forms is 20 September, so in just under 3 weeks time.
[At the bottom of the first page of each word doc the following is
written: Please note that formal submission should be sent to the
wsis-info at itu.int not later than 20 September 2013. "]

From joana at varonferraz.com  Thu Sep 26 08:18:56 2013
From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 14:18:56 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] [time sensitive] call for endorsements for a letter to
 president Dilma: support on her speach at UNGA
Message-ID: <CALTAiTocf9WEVUq4fVF15BTNgRFekhm29rxeqsybd2a5LHPWPQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

From ca at cafonso.ca  Thu Sep 26 08:41:13 2013
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:41:13 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] [letter to Dilma Rousseff] merging threads from IGC
 and BB
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK1rQVEavEDCJtovniEcxZd9SsQGKRM1Yq=9U0065_KHTQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTrO=KuiuutE4qkGx07MAEKgok+Tx9a2=A4vRj0m49uAew@mail.gmail.com> <CACpVkK1rQVEavEDCJtovniEcxZd9SsQGKRM1Yq=9U0065_KHTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <52442B69.8060408@cafonso.ca>

Hi, today Rio's "O Globo", one of the three main conservative opposition
newspapers (which form part of what we use to call "the party of the
pro-coup press", or PIG for its initials in Portuguese) brings a strong
editorial in favor of Dilma's speech at the UN, emphasizing its support
in favor of net neutrality as presented by Rousseff, as well as in favor
of bringing the discussion of an international framework of Internet
rights to every multilateral fora.

The newspaper is part of the powerful vertical concern called "Globo
Outfit" (Organizações Globo) which controls the main TV and radio
networks and even part of film production in Brazil, a near-monopoly à
la Murdoch. So, this coming from the conservative press puts strong
additional pressure in favor of this crucial component of Marco Civil.

It is relevant to note that Globo, which once owned the largest cable TV
network in the country, knwon simply as "Net", has recently sold control
of this service to Carlos Slim's Claro of Mexico -- so this might
explain its explicit position, as a content provider, in favor of net
neutrality now, as Net is a leading broadband provider in the main cities.

"O Estado de São Paulo", another member of the PIG, has also been for a
while defending our vision of the MC in editorials as well.

The transnational oligopoly of telecommunications companies here (Claro
Mexico, Telefónica de España, Telecom Italia, Oi/Portugal Telcom, and
GVT/Vivendi) seems quite isolated now on its insistence in inserting
violations of net neutrality in the MC. But we cannot underestimate its
lobbying power in Congress.

Interestingly enough, the president agrees with us on removing an MC
paragraph which might lead to takedown of content without due legal
process if someone argues it might violate intellectual property rights,
thus in practice imposing on service providers a sort of arbitrary IP
police power. This was inserted in the MC by big media lobbyists, by the
way.

Interestingly rough times here, folks :)

abraços fraternos

--c.a.

On 09/25/2013 11:04 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
> Agreed as well, Joana. Another information that may be important is that
> Dilma mentioned today that she does not believe that the UN should be
> involved in all Internet governance issues.The UN should be responsible for
> making sure that the Internet is not militarized. Diego just mentioned that
> he heard something along this lines in an interview over the radio and I
> thought it was a relevant.
> 
> I take the opportunity to invite you to a debate being co-organized by the
> Center for Technology and Society of FGV and DiploFoundation about the role
> of Brazil in the IG regime. Diego and I will be sharing a few thoughts on
> issues such as impact of the NSA revelations to Brazil-US relations, to the
> national regulatory/technical landscape and to Brazil's positions on global
> IG. There will be opportunity for comments and questions. It will be
> tomorrow (Thursday) at 13:00 GMT.
> http://www.diplomacy.edu/calendar/webinar-brazil-leading-new-revolution-global-digital-policy
> 
> Best wishes
> 

From ca at cafonso.ca  Thu Sep 26 08:44:27 2013
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:44:27 -0300
Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re:
 [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
In-Reply-To: <CAA0O_-QGvqykxPpXAmGxw5G89d3ZbbAJ3bFkVfYqw=zdwENLRA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTqsSn+b4P679+emZ5AG8cDVzOr8tDrHEt=iNZ1i5sOfeg@mail.gmail.com> <CAA0O_-QGvqykxPpXAmGxw5G89d3ZbbAJ3bFkVfYqw=zdwENLRA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <52442C2B.1020606@cafonso.ca>

I agree! I think we will be able to deliver the letter to the prez on
Friday. This will be a fantastic milestone on our part.

Let's go and sign it, folks!

fraternal regards

--c.a.

On 09/25/2013 11:15 PM, Veridiana Alimonti wrote:
> Dear Joana and all,
> 
> the letter is concise, pointing important issues without losing the general
> line of support. Very good!
> 
> 
> 
> 2013/9/25 Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com>
> 
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad now to avoid
>> more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for all the contributions.
>>
>> Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or major
>> disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 am (Brazilian time).
>> Then collect endorsements through out the day.
>>
>> *Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's say 22:00,
>> also Brazilian time*. So Carlos can deliver it in hand to President
>> Dilma. *
>> *
>>
>> thanks once again,
>>
>> joana
>>
>> *Letter from** International C**ivil Society** Organizations** **to
>> President Dilma Rousseff in support of her **statement at **the 68th
>> Session of the **UNGA *
>>
>>
>> Your Excellency,
>>
>> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world,
>> committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing
>> social and economic justice, would like to express our strong support forthe statement delivered this week by your
>> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. We
>> commend you for taking a leading role on these issues and would like to:
>>
>> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in clear
>> accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee*'*s* *Principles
>> for the Governance and Use of the Internet.
>>
>> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian Draft
>> Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that upholds
>> these principles.
>>
>> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and demanding
>> explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal interception of
>> information and data, framing it as a grave violation of human rights and
>> of civil liberties
>>
>> 4.* *Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of
>> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian
>> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which
>> comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and TechnologyCommunity,
>> private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing.
>>
>> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to social
>> justice and development, of which an open, stable, and reliable Internet is
>> a fundamental pillar.
>>
>> Signatories:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro <
>> diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ian is helping Joanna and me in drafting this reduced optimal version. : )
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <
>>> suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set.
>>>> --srs (htc one x)
>>>>
>>>> On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" ** wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters.
>>>>
>>>> Louis
>>>> - - -
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and at the same
>>>>> time worse.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any more than two paragraphs
>>>>> and the chance of it being read is meagre.
>>>>>
>>>>> To be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. – the first
>>>>> paragraph
>>>>>
>>>>> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world,
>>>>> committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing
>>>>> social justice, would like to express our strong support for the
>>>>> statement delivered this week by your Excellency at the 68th Session of
>>>>>  the United Nations General Assembly.
>>>>>
>>>>> (reference the speech if you wish for those who would like to read
>>>>> more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and elaborate on it).
>>>>>
>>>>> And specifically I dont think we need to talk post Snowden, and demand
>>>>> apologies from the USA. That ain’t going to happen.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ian Peter
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Diego R. Canabarro
>>> http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597
>>>
>>> --
>>> diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br
>>> diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu
>>> MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com
>>> Skype: diegocanabarro
>>> Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA)
>>> --
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>>
>> Joana Varon Ferraz
>> @joana_varon
>> PGP 0x016B8E73
>>
>>
>>
> 

From amedinagomez at gmail.com  Thu Sep 26 08:46:01 2013
From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=F3mez?=)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 07:46:01 -0500
Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re:
 [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
In-Reply-To: <52442C2B.1020606@cafonso.ca>
References: <CALTAiTqsSn+b4P679+emZ5AG8cDVzOr8tDrHEt=iNZ1i5sOfeg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAA0O_-QGvqykxPpXAmGxw5G89d3ZbbAJ3bFkVfYqw=zdwENLRA@mail.gmail.com>
	<52442C2B.1020606@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <CAM-_sgjyb9HZ89bOZFdLmm_DhoDO8xuf97qVWD-S=2VOy-gsHQ@mail.gmail.com>

Sign . +1


2013/9/26 Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca>

> I agree! I think we will be able to deliver the letter to the prez on
> Friday. This will be a fantastic milestone on our part.
>
> Let's go and sign it, folks!
>
> fraternal regards
>
> --c.a.
>
> On 09/25/2013 11:15 PM, Veridiana Alimonti wrote:
> > Dear Joana and all,
> >
> > the letter is concise, pointing important issues without losing the
> general
> > line of support. Very good!
> >
> >
> >
> > 2013/9/25 Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com>
> >
> >> Dear all,
> >>
> >> Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad now to
> avoid
> >> more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for all the contributions.
> >>
> >> Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or major
> >> disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 am (Brazilian
> time).
> >> Then collect endorsements through out the day.
> >>
> >> *Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's say 22:00,
> >> also Brazilian time*. So Carlos can deliver it in hand to President
> >> Dilma. *
> >> *
> >>
> >> thanks once again,
> >>
> >> joana
> >>
> >> *Letter from** International C**ivil Society** Organizations** **to
> >> President Dilma Rousseff in support of her **statement at **the 68th
> >> Session of the **UNGA *
> >>
> >>
> >> Your Excellency,
> >>
> >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world,
> >> committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing
> >> social and economic justice, would like to express our strong support
> forthe statement delivered this week by your
> >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly.
> We
> >> commend you for taking a leading role on these issues and would like to:
> >>
> >> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in
> clear
> >> accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee*'*s*
> *Principles
> >> for the Governance and Use of the Internet.
> >>
> >> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian Draft
> >> Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that upholds
> >> these principles.
> >>
> >> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and demanding
> >> explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal interception
> of
> >> information and data, framing it as a grave violation of human rights
> and
> >> of civil liberties
> >>
> >> 4.* *Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of
> >> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian
> >> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which
> >> comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and
> TechnologyCommunity,
> >> private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing.
> >>
> >> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to social
> >> justice and development, of which an open, stable, and reliable
> Internet is
> >> a fundamental pillar.
> >>
> >> Signatories:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro <
> >> diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Ian is helping Joanna and me in drafting this reduced optimal version.
> : )
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <
> >>> suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>  Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set.
> >>>> --srs (htc one x)
> >>>>
> >>>> On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" ** wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters.
> >>>>
> >>>> Louis
> >>>> - - -
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com
> >wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and at the
> same
> >>>>> time worse.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any more than two
> paragraphs
> >>>>> and the chance of it being read is meagre.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> To be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. – the first
> >>>>> paragraph
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the
> world,
> >>>>> committed to the development of the Internet and its use for
> advancing
> >>>>> social justice, would like to express our strong support for the
> >>>>> statement delivered this week by your Excellency at the 68th Session
> of
> >>>>>  the United Nations General Assembly.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (reference the speech if you wish for those who would like to read
> >>>>> more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and elaborate on it).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And specifically I dont think we need to talk post Snowden, and
> demand
> >>>>> apologies from the USA. That ain’t going to happen.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ian Peter
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>>>
> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >>>>
> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Diego R. Canabarro
> >>> http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br
> >>> diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu
> >>> MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com
> >>> Skype: diegocanabarro
> >>> Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA)
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >>> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>>
> >>> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >>>
> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> --
> >>
> >> Joana Varon Ferraz
> >> @joana_varon
> >> PGP 0x016B8E73
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130926/8235ec4a/attachment.htm>

From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org  Thu Sep 26 08:47:01 2013
From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:47:01 +0300
Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re:
 [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
In-Reply-To: <CAM-_sgjyb9HZ89bOZFdLmm_DhoDO8xuf97qVWD-S=2VOy-gsHQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTqsSn+b4P679+emZ5AG8cDVzOr8tDrHEt=iNZ1i5sOfeg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA0O_-QGvqykxPpXAmGxw5G89d3ZbbAJ3bFkVfYqw=zdwENLRA@mail.gmail.com>
 <52442C2B.1020606@cafonso.ca>
 <CAM-_sgjyb9HZ89bOZFdLmm_DhoDO8xuf97qVWD-S=2VOy-gsHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130926124701.GE4900@thorion.it.jyu.fi>

+1

On Sep 26 07:46, Antonio Medina Gómez (amedinagomez at gmail.com) wrote:

> Sign . +1
> 
> 
> 2013/9/26 Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca>
> 
> > I agree! I think we will be able to deliver the letter to the prez on
> > Friday. This will be a fantastic milestone on our part.
> >
> > Let's go and sign it, folks!
> >
> > fraternal regards
> >
> > --c.a.
> >
> > On 09/25/2013 11:15 PM, Veridiana Alimonti wrote:
> > > Dear Joana and all,
> > >
> > > the letter is concise, pointing important issues without losing the
> > general
> > > line of support. Very good!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2013/9/25 Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com>
> > >
> > >> Dear all,
> > >>
> > >> Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad now to
> > avoid
> > >> more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for all the contributions.
> > >>
> > >> Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or major
> > >> disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 am (Brazilian
> > time).
> > >> Then collect endorsements through out the day.
> > >>
> > >> *Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's say 22:00,
> > >> also Brazilian time*. So Carlos can deliver it in hand to President
> > >> Dilma. *
> > >> *
> > >>
> > >> thanks once again,
> > >>
> > >> joana
> > >>
> > >> *Letter from** International C**ivil Society** Organizations** **to
> > >> President Dilma Rousseff in support of her **statement at **the 68th
> > >> Session of the **UNGA *
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Your Excellency,
> > >>
> > >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world,
> > >> committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing
> > >> social and economic justice, would like to express our strong support
> > forthe statement delivered this week by your
> > >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly.
> > We
> > >> commend you for taking a leading role on these issues and would like to:
> > >>
> > >> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in
> > clear
> > >> accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee*'*s*
> > *Principles
> > >> for the Governance and Use of the Internet.
> > >>
> > >> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian Draft
> > >> Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that upholds
> > >> these principles.
> > >>
> > >> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and demanding
> > >> explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal interception
> > of
> > >> information and data, framing it as a grave violation of human rights
> > and
> > >> of civil liberties
> > >>
> > >> 4.* *Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of
> > >> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian
> > >> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which
> > >> comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and
> > TechnologyCommunity,
> > >> private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing.
> > >>
> > >> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to social
> > >> justice and development, of which an open, stable, and reliable
> > Internet is
> > >> a fundamental pillar.
> > >>
> > >> Signatories:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro <
> > >> diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Ian is helping Joanna and me in drafting this reduced optimal version.
> > : )
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <
> > >>> suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>  Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set.
> > >>>> --srs (htc one x)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" ** wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Louis
> > >>>> - - -
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com
> > >wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and at the
> > same
> > >>>>> time worse.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any more than two
> > paragraphs
> > >>>>> and the chance of it being read is meagre.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> To be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. – the first
> > >>>>> paragraph
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the
> > world,
> > >>>>> committed to the development of the Internet and its use for
> > advancing
> > >>>>> social justice, would like to express our strong support for the
> > >>>>> statement delivered this week by your Excellency at the 68th Session
> > of
> > >>>>>  the United Nations General Assembly.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> (reference the speech if you wish for those who would like to read
> > >>>>> more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and elaborate on it).
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> And specifically I dont think we need to talk post Snowden, and
> > demand
> > >>>>> apologies from the USA. That ain’t going to happen.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Ian Peter
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________
> > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > >>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > >>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
> > >>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> > >>>>
> > >>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
> > >>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> > >>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Diego R. Canabarro
> > >>> http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br
> > >>> diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu
> > >>> MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com
> > >>> Skype: diegocanabarro
> > >>> Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA)
> > >>> --
> > >>>
> > >>> ____________________________________________________________
> > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > >>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > >>> To be removed from the list, visit:
> > >>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> > >>>
> > >>> For all other list information and functions, see:
> > >>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> > >>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> > >>>
> > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> --
> > >>
> > >> Joana Varon Ferraz
> > >> @joana_varon
> > >> PGP 0x016B8E73
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Thu Sep 26 08:57:27 2013
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 18:27:27 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] [letter to Dilma Rousseff] merging
 threads from IGC and BB
In-Reply-To: <994E46CA-5369-4EF9-A576-C81577AF2D9A@ciroap.org>
References: <CALTAiTrO=KuiuutE4qkGx07MAEKgok+Tx9a2=A4vRj0m49uAew@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK1rQVEavEDCJtovniEcxZd9SsQGKRM1Yq=9U0065_KHTQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4D7F2645-19C9-48F0-9407-9FF9C3D34B04@ciroap.org>
	<52441B2B.7040105@itforchange.net>
	<994E46CA-5369-4EF9-A576-C81577AF2D9A@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHAnZor7QDs6YXcTY3K8r8jfv5NX29=T6C2ZxLSZkcrBXA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

I was very happy with the compromise initially found for point number 4 but
will not be able to support the letter if this is replaced by the shorter
version as this refers to multistakeholderism only in the Brazilian context
and thus does  not in any way assuage the concerns I have expressed
earlier, esp since the intro of the statement contains blanket support for
Dilma's speech. I would therefore really appreciate if we can go back to
the earlier text. If not, I will be extremely sad not to be able to support
this important and valuable statement. Really deeply sorry about that.

Thanks for your understanding.

Best,
Anja
On Sep 26, 2013 5:07 PM, "Jeremy Malcolm" <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> On 26/09/2013, at 7:31 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> Joana's deadline for proposing amendments to the statement is not over
> yet, and the statement is changing right now..
>
> Putting up an earlier version for sign on causes a great amount of
> confusion to the process...
>
>
> Sorry, I was acting on instructions to put it up early because consensus
> had already been reached, but then the thread suddenly reactivated and
> point 4 changed... anyway point 4 is now "Reinforce our support for the
> Brazilian multistakeholder model for Internet governance lead by CGI.br<http://cgi.br/>",
> is that correct?
>
> --
>
> *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
>
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub
> |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130926/8b42045e/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Thu Sep 26 09:01:43 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:01:43 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] [letter to Dilma Rousseff] merging
 threads from IGC and BB
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHAnZor7QDs6YXcTY3K8r8jfv5NX29=T6C2ZxLSZkcrBXA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTrO=KuiuutE4qkGx07MAEKgok+Tx9a2=A4vRj0m49uAew@mail.gmail.com> <CACpVkK1rQVEavEDCJtovniEcxZd9SsQGKRM1Yq=9U0065_KHTQ@mail.gmail.com> <4D7F2645-19C9-48F0-9407-9FF9C3D34B04@ciroap.org> <52441B2B.7040105@itforchange.net> <994E46CA-5369-4EF9-A576-C81577AF2D9A@ciroap.org> <CAJqNAHAnZor7QDs6YXcTY3K8r8jfv5NX29=T6C2ZxLSZkcrBXA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <65631139-CA14-48E6-B90E-4677CAB67CFF@ciroap.org>

On 26/09/2013, at 8:57 AM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in> wrote:
> I was very happy with the compromise initially found for point number 4 but will not be able to support the letter if this is replaced by the shorter version as this refers to multistakeholderism only in the Brazilian context and thus does  not in any way assuage the concerns I have expressed earlier, esp since the intro of the statement contains blanket support for Dilma's speech. I would therefore really appreciate if we can go back to the earlier text. If not, I will be extremely sad not to be able to support this important and valuable statement. Really deeply sorry about that.
> 

Would both you and Parminder and others be happy if it were "Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model for Internet governance as led in Brazil by CGI.br"?

Otherwise, it looks as though we will lose some endorsements either with the old formulation or the new one.

-- 
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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130926/e7f607e1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130926/e7f607e1/attachment.sig>

From genekimmelman at gmail.com  Thu Sep 26 09:03:31 2013
From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:03:31 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] [letter to Dilma Rousseff] merging
 threads from IGC and BB
In-Reply-To: <65631139-CA14-48E6-B90E-4677CAB67CFF@ciroap.org>
References: <CALTAiTrO=KuiuutE4qkGx07MAEKgok+Tx9a2=A4vRj0m49uAew@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK1rQVEavEDCJtovniEcxZd9SsQGKRM1Yq=9U0065_KHTQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4D7F2645-19C9-48F0-9407-9FF9C3D34B04@ciroap.org>
	<52441B2B.7040105@itforchange.net>
	<994E46CA-5369-4EF9-A576-C81577AF2D9A@ciroap.org>
	<CAJqNAHAnZor7QDs6YXcTY3K8r8jfv5NX29=T6C2ZxLSZkcrBXA@mail.gmail.com>
	<65631139-CA14-48E6-B90E-4677CAB67CFF@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <CA+4KnA-9vR7jhFS5jrZeRrSkgsQKEeNsiYoxLbE6i2D+M1sHuQ@mail.gmail.com>

This looks like a wise compromise that takes nothing away from the thrust
of the letter


On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> On 26/09/2013, at 8:57 AM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in> wrote:
>
> I was very happy with the compromise initially found for point number 4
> but will not be able to support the letter if this is replaced by the
> shorter version as this refers to multistakeholderism only in the Brazilian
> context and thus does  not in any way assuage the concerns I have expressed
> earlier, esp since the intro of the statement contains blanket support for
> Dilma's speech. I would therefore really appreciate if we can go back to
> the earlier text. If not, I will be extremely sad not to be able to support
> this important and valuable statement. Really deeply sorry about that.
>
>
> Would both you and Parminder and others be happy if it were "Reinforce our
> support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model for Internet governance *
> as* led *in Brazil* by CGI.br <http://cgi.br/>"?
>
> Otherwise, it looks as though we will lose some endorsements either with
> the old formulation or the new one.
>
> --
>
> *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
>
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub
> |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130926/43bdd0a6/attachment.htm>

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Thu Sep 26 09:03:43 2013
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 18:33:43 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] [letter to Dilma Rousseff] merging
 threads from IGC and BB
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHAnZor7QDs6YXcTY3K8r8jfv5NX29=T6C2ZxLSZkcrBXA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTrO=KuiuutE4qkGx07MAEKgok+Tx9a2=A4vRj0m49uAew@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK1rQVEavEDCJtovniEcxZd9SsQGKRM1Yq=9U0065_KHTQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4D7F2645-19C9-48F0-9407-9FF9C3D34B04@ciroap.org>
	<52441B2B.7040105@itforchange.net>
	<994E46CA-5369-4EF9-A576-C81577AF2D9A@ciroap.org>
	<CAJqNAHAnZor7QDs6YXcTY3K8r8jfv5NX29=T6C2ZxLSZkcrBXA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHBj41-Gz1_gPvPshVCzkMCEqMm77M1cX7H4HWjfAbgapw@mail.gmail.com>

My apologies, I am following this on my phone and got a little lost in the
emails. I think the final text for para 4 was proposed by Joana, not
Parminder - sorry for getting that wrong. My concerns remain the same,
however.

Best,
Anja
On Sep 26, 2013 6:27 PM, "Anja Kovacs" <anja at internetdemocracy.in> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I was very happy with the compromise initially found for point number 4
> but will not be able to support the letter if this is replaced by the
> shorter version as this refers to multistakeholderism only in the Brazilian
> context and thus does  not in any way assuage the concerns I have expressed
> earlier, esp since the intro of the statement contains blanket support for
> Dilma's speech. I would therefore really appreciate if we can go back to
> the earlier text. If not, I will be extremely sad not to be able to support
> this important and valuable statement. Really deeply sorry about that.
>
> Thanks for your understanding.
>
> Best,
> Anja
> On Sep 26, 2013 5:07 PM, "Jeremy Malcolm" <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>
>> On 26/09/2013, at 7:31 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>
>> Joana's deadline for proposing amendments to the statement is not over
>> yet, and the statement is changing right now..
>>
>> Putting up an earlier version for sign on causes a great amount of
>> confusion to the process...
>>
>>
>> Sorry, I was acting on instructions to put it up early because consensus
>> had already been reached, but then the thread suddenly reactivated and
>> point 4 changed... anyway point 4 is now "Reinforce our support for the
>> Brazilian multistakeholder model for Internet governance lead by CGI.br<http://cgi.br/>",
>> is that correct?
>>
>>     --
>>
>> *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
>>
>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge
>> hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>>
>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>>
>> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
>> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>>
>> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
>> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130926/e2b5c258/attachment.htm>

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Thu Sep 26 09:08:44 2013
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:08:44 +0200
Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff  Re:
 [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTqsSn+b4P679+emZ5AG8cDVzOr8tDrHEt=iNZ1i5sOfeg@mail.g
 mail.com>
References: <CALTAiTqsSn+b4P679+emZ5AG8cDVzOr8tDrHEt=iNZ1i5sOfeg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <mailman.25.1642081798.12520.bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130926/2871820b/attachment.htm>

From deborah at accessnow.org  Mon Sep  2 13:52:48 2013
From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown)
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 13:52:48 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Call for sign on CWG-Internet statement2 (Was Call
 for comments/signatures: Draft Statement on Rejection of Proposal to Open
 CWG- Internet)
In-Reply-To: <CE4774BF.2E134%andrew@gp-digital.org>
References: <FD5C32C9-AB0D-4839-A7CE-E48891FE5A74@ella.com>
	<CE4774BF.2E134%andrew@gp-digital.org>
Message-ID: <CALU7RQaUf=EAo05Z3H8P_SKyRMH30YGrb7wCJyotoLevFAq0rw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

This is a gentle reminder that the statement on the ITU Council's rejection
of proposals to open participation in the Council Working Group on
International Internet-Related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet) is
closing soon. Since I didn't previously specify a time/timezone, can we say
10am GMT 3 September as the cut off?

Here's the link to statement: http://bestbits.net/cwg-internet-2/

Thanks to all who have supported the statement so far! If anyone is
interested in helping out with outreach on the statement, please feel free
to follow up on- or off-list.

Best,
Deborah



On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 5:24 AM, Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org>wrote:

> That's exactly what happened - and the confirmation e-mail got stuck in my
> spam filter
> Andrew Puddephatt, Director
> Global Partners Digital
> Development House, 56-64 Leonard St, EC2A 4LT, UK
> Office 44 (0)207 549 0350
> Mobile: +44 (0)771 339 9597
> andrew at g <mailto:andrew at global-partners.co.uk>p-digital.org
>   www.global-partners.co.uk <http://www.global-partners.co.uk/>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 31/08/2013 08:13, "Avri Doria" <avri at ella.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >On 30 Aug 2013, at 15:24, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
> >
> >> when I press the endorsement button it hangs.
> >
> >
> >i have seen that behavior too.
> >
> >i think it hangs until you respond to the email check.
> >
> >it does seem a mis-feature.
> >
> >avri
> >
>
>


-- 
Deborah Brown
Senior Policy Analyst
Access | AccessNow.org
E. deborah at accessnow.org
@deblebrown
PGP 0x5EB4727D
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130902/689f09f9/attachment.htm>

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Thu Sep 26 09:12:04 2013
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 18:42:04 +0530
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] [letter to Dilma Rousseff] merging
 threads from IGC and BB
In-Reply-To: <65631139-CA14-48E6-B90E-4677CAB67CFF@ciroap.org>
References: <CALTAiTrO=KuiuutE4qkGx07MAEKgok+Tx9a2=A4vRj0m49uAew@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK1rQVEavEDCJtovniEcxZd9SsQGKRM1Yq=9U0065_KHTQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4D7F2645-19C9-48F0-9407-9FF9C3D34B04@ciroap.org>
	<52441B2B.7040105@itforchange.net>
	<994E46CA-5369-4EF9-A576-C81577AF2D9A@ciroap.org>
	<CAJqNAHAnZor7QDs6YXcTY3K8r8jfv5NX29=T6C2ZxLSZkcrBXA@mail.gmail.com>
	<65631139-CA14-48E6-B90E-4677CAB67CFF@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHDe+=3E=KgByyuhArzzkNf0rtZJ46uXYSTYYejj6Ga0HQ@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks for your efforts, Jeremy, but our concern is with the absence of a
reference to multistakeholderism at the global level, and that remains.

Anja
On Sep 26, 2013 6:32 PM, "Jeremy Malcolm" <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> On 26/09/2013, at 8:57 AM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in> wrote:
>
> I was very happy with the compromise initially found for point number 4
> but will not be able to support the letter if this is replaced by the
> shorter version as this refers to multistakeholderism only in the Brazilian
> context and thus does  not in any way assuage the concerns I have expressed
> earlier, esp since the intro of the statement contains blanket support for
> Dilma's speech. I would therefore really appreciate if we can go back to
> the earlier text. If not, I will be extremely sad not to be able to support
> this important and valuable statement. Really deeply sorry about that.
>
>
> Would both you and Parminder and others be happy if it were "Reinforce our
> support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model for Internet governance *
> as* led *in Brazil* by CGI.br <http://cgi.br/>"?
>
> Otherwise, it looks as though we will lose some endorsements either with
> the old formulation or the new one.
>
> --
>
> *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
>
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub
> |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130926/76641778/attachment.htm>

From genekimmelman at gmail.com  Thu Sep 26 09:21:21 2013
From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:21:21 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] [letter to Dilma Rousseff] merging
 threads from IGC and BB
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHDe+=3E=KgByyuhArzzkNf0rtZJ46uXYSTYYejj6Ga0HQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTrO=KuiuutE4qkGx07MAEKgok+Tx9a2=A4vRj0m49uAew@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK1rQVEavEDCJtovniEcxZd9SsQGKRM1Yq=9U0065_KHTQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4D7F2645-19C9-48F0-9407-9FF9C3D34B04@ciroap.org>
	<52441B2B.7040105@itforchange.net>
	<994E46CA-5369-4EF9-A576-C81577AF2D9A@ciroap.org>
	<CAJqNAHAnZor7QDs6YXcTY3K8r8jfv5NX29=T6C2ZxLSZkcrBXA@mail.gmail.com>
	<65631139-CA14-48E6-B90E-4677CAB67CFF@ciroap.org>
	<CAJqNAHDe+=3E=KgByyuhArzzkNf0rtZJ46uXYSTYYejj6Ga0HQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+4KnA8UnMhX2Q3st-MGZcbfyZK0zCw7f60kQmO1-EZxtfFVoA@mail.gmail.com>

Anja, do you have language?  Are you suggesting something like: "Reinforce
our support for the multistakeholder for global internet governance, and
for Brazil's version of multistakeholderism as led by CGI.br."


On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in>wrote:

> Thanks for your efforts, Jeremy, but our concern is with the absence of a
> reference to multistakeholderism at the global level, and that remains.
>
> Anja
> On Sep 26, 2013 6:32 PM, "Jeremy Malcolm" <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>
>> On 26/09/2013, at 8:57 AM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in> wrote:
>>
>> I was very happy with the compromise initially found for point number 4
>> but will not be able to support the letter if this is replaced by the
>> shorter version as this refers to multistakeholderism only in the Brazilian
>> context and thus does  not in any way assuage the concerns I have expressed
>> earlier, esp since the intro of the statement contains blanket support for
>> Dilma's speech. I would therefore really appreciate if we can go back to
>> the earlier text. If not, I will be extremely sad not to be able to support
>> this important and valuable statement. Really deeply sorry about that.
>>
>>
>> Would both you and Parminder and others be happy if it were "Reinforce
>> our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model for Internet
>> governance *as* led *in Brazil* by CGI.br <http://cgi.br/>"?
>>
>> Otherwise, it looks as though we will lose some endorsements either with
>> the old formulation or the new one.
>>
>>     --
>>
>> *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
>>
>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge
>> hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>>
>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>>
>> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
>> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>>
>> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
>> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130926/ee819636/attachment.htm>

From avri at acm.org  Thu Sep 26 09:22:20 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:22:20 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] [letter to Dilma Rousseff] merging
 threads from IGC and BB
In-Reply-To: <65631139-CA14-48E6-B90E-4677CAB67CFF@ciroap.org>
References: <CALTAiTrO=KuiuutE4qkGx07MAEKgok+Tx9a2=A4vRj0m49uAew@mail.gmail.com> <CACpVkK1rQVEavEDCJtovniEcxZd9SsQGKRM1Yq=9U0065_KHTQ@mail.gmail.com> <4D7F2645-19C9-48F0-9407-9FF9C3D34B04@ciroap.org> <52441B2B.7040105@itforchange.net> <994E46CA-5369-4EF9-A576-C81577AF2D9A@ciroap.org> <CAJqNAHAnZor7QDs6YXcTY3K8r8jfv5NX29=T6C2ZxLSZkcrBXA@mail.gmail.com> <65631139-CA14-48E6-B90E-4677CAB67CFF@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <C49C9E62-82C4-4EB3-AA8F-67855A6B2FBD@acm.org>

Hi,

If the official text on the Best Bits site were changed to no longer endorse the Governmental/Congressional process then I will support signing.   

If as Anja asks it were to reinforce its support of multistakeholder governance going forward, then I will be happy to endorse signing

However, since some people are already signing it, not sure how it can be changed.

So as I stands I recommend against signing.  If we do sign, someone somewhere is going to throw it back in our faces that we supported government driven and controlled processes in this case.  They will be right to argue that we are satisfied with a low level of participation that can be ignored when not convenient or when money talks - as it appears to have done in the Brazilian congressional process.

avri


On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:01, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:

> On 26/09/2013, at 8:57 AM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in> wrote:
>> I was very happy with the compromise initially found for point number 4 but will not be able to support the letter if this is replaced by the shorter version as this refers to multistakeholderism only in the Brazilian context and thus does  not in any way assuage the concerns I have expressed earlier, esp since the intro of the statement contains blanket support for Dilma's speech. I would therefore really appreciate if we can go back to the earlier text. If not, I will be extremely sad not to be able to support this important and valuable statement. Really deeply sorry about that.
>> 
> 
> Would both you and Parminder and others be happy if it were "Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model for Internet governance as led in Brazil by CGI.br"?
> 
> Otherwise, it looks as though we will lose some endorsements either with the old formulation or the new one.
> 
> -- 
> 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
> 
> 
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
> 
> 
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
> 
> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
> 
> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
> 
> 


From joana at varonferraz.com  Thu Sep 26 09:23:14 2013
From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:23:14 +0200
Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re:
 [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
In-Reply-To: <20130926130901.4CF743F49D1@a2knetwork.org>
References: <CALTAiTqsSn+b4P679+emZ5AG8cDVzOr8tDrHEt=iNZ1i5sOfeg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130926130901.4CF743F49D1@a2knetwork.org>
Message-ID: <CALTAiTqHXLdob3_MWw113w4k-P868pkuwTFAxB-=ZSbAqmbkZg@mail.gmail.com>

That was the goal, Jefsey. Anja is not happy at all? I though that bringing
the support of the principle of multistakeholderism (instead of
multilateralism) we would be fine. A deeper approach would take us away
from consensus in such a short time.

And Avri, we are doing all this exactly in support of the recent status of
marco civil, which ensures the principles that we have been defending
 through out the whole process (including net neutrality) and to reinforce
that the democratic collaborative process of the consultation shall be
taking into account now that the draft is in Congress.

Unfortunatelly, we cannot start making more changes as people are already
endorsing it. Im really sorry for the ones who couldnt agree with the last
changes. It is always very difficult to make everyone completely happy. I
believe that Diego and I have tried to do our best to understand your
points and bring your considerations in the final adjustments. We can
always do better next time.

So... lets sign and share,people! ;)

all the best

joana




On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:08 PM, JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:

>  Excellent wording. Please do not change a single word in point 4. We do
> not care about the Brazilia model per se, we do care about a national model
> being nationally supported and endorsed by its governement and industry to
> the point to become disruptive at international level and at the head of
> state layer.
>
> What is to be extended is not the Brazilian model, but the experience
> obtained from the Brazilean introduction of a consensual model.
>
> Please add among signatories:
> - J-F C. MORFIN, Intlnet (http://intlnet.org )
> jfc
>
>
> At 03:44 26/09/2013, Joana Varon wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad now to avoid
> more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for all the contributions.
>
> Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or major
> disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 am (Brazilian time).
> Then collect endorsements through out the day.
>
> *Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's say 22:00,
> also Brazilian time*. So Carlos can deliver it in hand to President
> Dilma. *
> *
> thanks once again,
>
> joana
>
> *Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to President Dilma
> Rousseff in support of her statement at the 68th Session of the UNGA
> *
>
> Your Excellency,
>
> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world,
> committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing
> social and economic justice, would like to express our strong support for
> the statement delivered this week by your Excellency at the 68th Session of
> the United Nations General Assembly. We commend you for taking a leading
> role on these issues and would like to:
>
> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in clear
> accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee*'*s* *Principles
> for the Governance and Use of the Internet.
>
> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian Draft
> Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that upholds
> these principles.
>
> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and demanding
> explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal interception of
> information and data, framing it as a grave violation of human rights and
> of civil liberties
>
> 4.* *Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of
> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder
> model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which comprises
> representatives from Government, Scientific and Technology Community,
> private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing.
>
> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to social
> justice and development, of which an open, stable, and reliable Internet is
> a fundamental pillar.
>
> Signatories:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro <
> diegocanabarro at gmail.com > wrote: Ian is helping Joanna and me in
> drafting this reduced optimal version. : )
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <
> suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>
>  Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set. --srs (htc one
> x) On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote:
>
> Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters. Louis - - - On Thu, Sep
> 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com > wrote:
>
>  Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and at the same
> time worse.   I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any more than two
> paragraphs and the chance of it being read is meagre.   To be honest, I
> think no more than this is necessary. – the first paragraph   We, the
> undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, committed
> to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing social
> justice, would like to express our strong support for the statement
> delivered this week by your Excellency at the 68th Session of the United
> Nations General Assembly.   (reference the speech if you wish for those
> who would like to read more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and
> elaborate on it).   And specifically I dont think we need to talk post
> Snowden, and demand apologies from the USA. That ain’t going to happen.   Ian
> Peter
>
> ____________________________________________________________ You received
> this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and
> functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit
> your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email:
> http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
>  -- Diego R. Canabarro  http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 -- diego.canabarro
> [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN: diegocanabarro [at]
> gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro
> Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA)
> -- ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
>
> --
> --
>
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> @joana_varon
> PGP 0x016B8E73
>
>
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt"
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>



-- 
-- 

Joana Varon Ferraz
@joana_varon
PGP 0x016B8E73
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130926/6e0b6fcd/attachment.htm>

From genekimmelman at gmail.com  Thu Sep 26 09:26:44 2013
From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:26:44 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] [letter to Dilma Rousseff] merging
 threads from IGC and BB
In-Reply-To: <C49C9E62-82C4-4EB3-AA8F-67855A6B2FBD@acm.org>
References: <CALTAiTrO=KuiuutE4qkGx07MAEKgok+Tx9a2=A4vRj0m49uAew@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK1rQVEavEDCJtovniEcxZd9SsQGKRM1Yq=9U0065_KHTQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4D7F2645-19C9-48F0-9407-9FF9C3D34B04@ciroap.org>
	<52441B2B.7040105@itforchange.net>
	<994E46CA-5369-4EF9-A576-C81577AF2D9A@ciroap.org>
	<CAJqNAHAnZor7QDs6YXcTY3K8r8jfv5NX29=T6C2ZxLSZkcrBXA@mail.gmail.com>
	<65631139-CA14-48E6-B90E-4677CAB67CFF@ciroap.org>
	<C49C9E62-82C4-4EB3-AA8F-67855A6B2FBD@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CA+4KnA8ZYMDM27H71HSO6fALexiT8R-spuXvyJPEwN0f-Wankw@mail.gmail.com>

In this world, money always talks; democracy is at best messy; we need to
be able to act quickly in response to policy opportunities, or we limit our
own ability to influence political processes -- so compromise languague is
necessary to bring a broad global network together; and we must also be
clever -- politics will always interfere with even the most wonderful
democratic processes and legislation can change up to the last minute, so
we need to be EQUALLY prepared to withdraw or adjust our support for
efforts that go awry.


On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> If the official text on the Best Bits site were changed to no longer
> endorse the Governmental/Congressional process then I will support signing.
>
> If as Anja asks it were to reinforce its support of multistakeholder
> governance going forward, then I will be happy to endorse signing
>
> However, since some people are already signing it, not sure how it can be
> changed.
>
> So as I stands I recommend against signing.  If we do sign, someone
> somewhere is going to throw it back in our faces that we supported
> government driven and controlled processes in this case.  They will be
> right to argue that we are satisfied with a low level of participation that
> can be ignored when not convenient or when money talks - as it appears to
> have done in the Brazilian congressional process.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:01, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
> > On 26/09/2013, at 8:57 AM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in>
> wrote:
> >> I was very happy with the compromise initially found for point number 4
> but will not be able to support the letter if this is replaced by the
> shorter version as this refers to multistakeholderism only in the Brazilian
> context and thus does  not in any way assuage the concerns I have expressed
> earlier, esp since the intro of the statement contains blanket support for
> Dilma's speech. I would therefore really appreciate if we can go back to
> the earlier text. If not, I will be extremely sad not to be able to support
> this important and valuable statement. Really deeply sorry about that.
> >>
> >
> > Would both you and Parminder and others be happy if it were "Reinforce
> our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model for Internet
> governance as led in Brazil by CGI.br"?
> >
> > Otherwise, it looks as though we will lose some endorsements either with
> the old formulation or the new one.
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
> >
> > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge
> hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
> >
> >
> > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
> >
> > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless
> necessary.
> >
> > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended
> to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see
> http://jere.my/l/8m.
> >
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130926/e92a7188/attachment.htm>

From joana at varonferraz.com  Thu Sep 26 09:28:28 2013
From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:28:28 +0200
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] [letter to Dilma Rousseff] merging
 threads from IGC and BB
In-Reply-To: <C49C9E62-82C4-4EB3-AA8F-67855A6B2FBD@acm.org>
References: <CALTAiTrO=KuiuutE4qkGx07MAEKgok+Tx9a2=A4vRj0m49uAew@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACpVkK1rQVEavEDCJtovniEcxZd9SsQGKRM1Yq=9U0065_KHTQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <4D7F2645-19C9-48F0-9407-9FF9C3D34B04@ciroap.org> <52441B2B.7040105@itforchange.net>
 <994E46CA-5369-4EF9-A576-C81577AF2D9A@ciroap.org> <CAJqNAHAnZor7QDs6YXcTY3K8r8jfv5NX29=T6C2ZxLSZkcrBXA@mail.gmail.com>
 <65631139-CA14-48E6-B90E-4677CAB67CFF@ciroap.org> <C49C9E62-82C4-4EB3-AA8F-67855A6B2FBD@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CALTAiTqNML=Qr9q4RRDNWCLyqqBYBMeQ2eb1Z-R=Kpx=eG3M1A@mail.gmail.com>

Avri and Anja,
could you quickly make very punctual suggetions for addressing these two
points of concern??
Its very important to have IGC, APC and your respective organizations
supporting it


On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> If the official text on the Best Bits site were changed to no longer
> endorse the Governmental/Congressional process then I will support signing.
>
> If as Anja asks it were to reinforce its support of multistakeholder
> governance going forward, then I will be happy to endorse signing
>
> However, since some people are already signing it, not sure how it can be
> changed.
>
> So as I stands I recommend against signing.  If we do sign, someone
> somewhere is going to throw it back in our faces that we supported
> government driven and controlled processes in this case.  They will be
> right to argue that we are satisfied with a low level of participation that
> can be ignored when not convenient or when money talks - as it appears to
> have done in the Brazilian congressional process.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:01, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
> > On 26/09/2013, at 8:57 AM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in>
> wrote:
> >> I was very happy with the compromise initially found for point number 4
> but will not be able to support the letter if this is replaced by the
> shorter version as this refers to multistakeholderism only in the Brazilian
> context and thus does  not in any way assuage the concerns I have expressed
> earlier, esp since the intro of the statement contains blanket support for
> Dilma's speech. I would therefore really appreciate if we can go back to
> the earlier text. If not, I will be extremely sad not to be able to support
> this important and valuable statement. Really deeply sorry about that.
> >>
> >
> > Would both you and Parminder and others be happy if it were "Reinforce
> our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model for Internet
> governance as led in Brazil by CGI.br"?
> >
> > Otherwise, it looks as though we will lose some endorsements either with
> the old formulation or the new one.
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
> >
> > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge
> hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
> >
> >
> > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
> >
> > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless
> necessary.
> >
> > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended
> to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see
> http://jere.my/l/8m.
> >
> >
>
>


-- 
-- 

Joana Varon Ferraz
@joana_varon
PGP 0x016B8E73
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130926/d9396240/attachment.htm>

From avri at acm.org  Thu Sep 26 09:30:26 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:30:26 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] [letter to Dilma Rousseff] merging
 threads from IGC and BB
In-Reply-To: <CA+4KnA8ZYMDM27H71HSO6fALexiT8R-spuXvyJPEwN0f-Wankw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTrO=KuiuutE4qkGx07MAEKgok+Tx9a2=A4vRj0m49uAew@mail.gmail.com> <CACpVkK1rQVEavEDCJtovniEcxZd9SsQGKRM1Yq=9U0065_KHTQ@mail.gmail.com> <4D7F2645-19C9-48F0-9407-9FF9C3D34B04@ciroap.org> <52441B2B.7040105@itforchange.net> <994E46CA-5369-4EF9-A576-C81577AF2D9A@ciroap.org> <CAJqNAHAnZor7QDs6YXcTY3K8r8jfv5NX29=T6C2ZxLSZkcrBXA@mail.gmail.com> <65631139-CA14-48E6-B90E-4677CAB67CFF@ciroap.org> <C49C9E62-82C4-4EB3-AA8F-67855A6B2FBD@acm.org> <CA+4KnA8ZYMDM27H71HSO6fALexiT8R-spuXvyJPEwN0f-Wankw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C04FA69D-CC28-40A7-A4A0-82458451E57B@acm.org>

Hi,

I agree.  

That is why I was willing to support the version that was posted as final yesterday that praised the content without praising the process.

avri


On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:26, Gene Kimmelman wrote:

> In this world, money always talks; democracy is at best messy; we need to be able to act quickly in response to policy opportunities, or we limit our own ability to influence political processes -- so compromise languague is necessary to bring a broad global network together; and we must also be clever -- politics will always interfere with even the most wonderful democratic processes and legislation can change up to the last minute, so we need to be EQUALLY prepared to withdraw or adjust our support for efforts that go awry.
> 
> 
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> If the official text on the Best Bits site were changed to no longer endorse the Governmental/Congressional process then I will support signing.
> 
> If as Anja asks it were to reinforce its support of multistakeholder governance going forward, then I will be happy to endorse signing
> 
> However, since some people are already signing it, not sure how it can be changed.
> 
> So as I stands I recommend against signing.  If we do sign, someone somewhere is going to throw it back in our faces that we supported government driven and controlled processes in this case.  They will be right to argue that we are satisfied with a low level of participation that can be ignored when not convenient or when money talks - as it appears to have done in the Brazilian congressional process.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:01, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> 
> > On 26/09/2013, at 8:57 AM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in> wrote:
> >> I was very happy with the compromise initially found for point number 4 but will not be able to support the letter if this is replaced by the shorter version as this refers to multistakeholderism only in the Brazilian context and thus does  not in any way assuage the concerns I have expressed earlier, esp since the intro of the statement contains blanket support for Dilma's speech. I would therefore really appreciate if we can go back to the earlier text. If not, I will be extremely sad not to be able to support this important and valuable statement. Really deeply sorry about that.
> >>
> >
> > Would both you and Parminder and others be happy if it were "Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model for Internet governance as led in Brazil by CGI.br"?
> >
> > Otherwise, it looks as though we will lose some endorsements either with the old formulation or the new one.
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
> >
> > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
> >
> >
> > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
> >
> > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
> >
> > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
> >
> >
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Thu Sep 26 09:34:28 2013
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:34:28 -0400
Subject: [governance] [bestbits] [letter to Dilma Rousseff] merging
 threads from IGC and BB
In-Reply-To: <C04FA69D-CC28-40A7-A4A0-82458451E57B@acm.org>
References: <CALTAiTrO=KuiuutE4qkGx07MAEKgok+Tx9a2=A4vRj0m49uAew@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK1rQVEavEDCJtovniEcxZd9SsQGKRM1Yq=9U0065_KHTQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4D7F2645-19C9-48F0-9407-9FF9C3D34B04@ciroap.org>
	<52441B2B.7040105@itforchange.net>
	<994E46CA-5369-4EF9-A576-C81577AF2D9A@ciroap.org>
	<CAJqNAHAnZor7QDs6YXcTY3K8r8jfv5NX29=T6C2ZxLSZkcrBXA@mail.gmail.com>
	<65631139-CA14-48E6-B90E-4677CAB67CFF@ciroap.org>
	<C49C9E62-82C4-4EB3-AA8F-67855A6B2FBD@acm.org>
	<CA+4KnA8ZYMDM27H71HSO6fALexiT8R-spuXvyJPEwN0f-Wankw@mail.gmail.com>
	<C04FA69D-CC28-40A7-A4A0-82458451E57B@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAfZOORm1z_VBo8wt857_udVO1WLPNaMeihrrfNvMCrPRQ@mail.gmail.com>

Pls, Avri, refer to CA and my email


On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I agree.
>
> That is why I was willing to support the version that was posted as final
> yesterday that praised the content without praising the process.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:26, Gene Kimmelman wrote:
>
> > In this world, money always talks; democracy is at best messy; we need
> to be able to act quickly in response to policy opportunities, or we limit
> our own ability to influence political processes -- so compromise languague
> is necessary to bring a broad global network together; and we must also be
> clever -- politics will always interfere with even the most wonderful
> democratic processes and legislation can change up to the last minute, so
> we need to be EQUALLY prepared to withdraw or adjust our support for
> efforts that go awry.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > If the official text on the Best Bits site were changed to no longer
> endorse the Governmental/Congressional process then I will support signing.
> >
> > If as Anja asks it were to reinforce its support of multistakeholder
> governance going forward, then I will be happy to endorse signing
> >
> > However, since some people are already signing it, not sure how it can
> be changed.
> >
> > So as I stands I recommend against signing.  If we do sign, someone
> somewhere is going to throw it back in our faces that we supported
> government driven and controlled processes in this case.  They will be
> right to argue that we are satisfied with a low level of participation that
> can be ignored when not convenient or when money talks - as it appears to
> have done in the Brazilian congressional process.
> >
> > avri
> >
> >
> > On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:01, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> >
> > > On 26/09/2013, at 8:57 AM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in>
> wrote:
> > >> I was very happy with the compromise initially found for point number
> 4 but will not be able to support the letter if this is replaced by the
> shorter version as this refers to multistakeholderism only in the Brazilian
> context and thus does  not in any way assuage the concerns I have expressed
> earlier, esp since the intro of the statement contains blanket support for
> Dilma's speech. I would therefore really appreciate if we can go back to
> the earlier text. If not, I will be extremely sad not to be able to support
> this important and valuable statement. Really deeply sorry about that.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Would both you and Parminder and others be happy if it were "Reinforce
> our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model for Internet
> governance as led in Brazil by CGI.br"?
> > >
> > > Otherwise, it looks as though we will lose some endorsements either
> with the old formulation or the new one.
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge
> hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
> > >
> > >
> > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
> > >
> > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless
> necessary.
> > >
> > > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
*Carolina Rossini*
*Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
Open Technology Institute
*New America Foundation*
//
http://carolinarossini.net/
+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130926/42244b0c/attachment.htm>

From avri at acm.org  Thu Sep 26 10:03:38 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 10:03:38 -0400
Subject: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres.
 Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHBz1ij6K2v3b_5-mqJL2in0CS-jx=Qwn7Op+s_V_Uo+Jg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTqsSn+b4P679+emZ5AG8cDVzOr8tDrHEt=iNZ1i5sOfeg@mail.gmail.com> <E1VPBIo-0004tG-PJ@igcaucus.org> <20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch> <6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org> <CAJqNAHBz1ij6K2v3b_5-mqJL2in0CS-jx=Qwn7Op+s_V_Uo+Jg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org>


+1 to Anja's point.

with this change I will recommend that it be signed by IGC and groups I am a member of,  and will sign it myself on the bestbits site

From Carolina
> Pls, Avri, refer to CA and my email

But since

> not that it will change at this point, but it would be good to be sure we have your language

Not sure why we are still trying.

Without a statement supporting a well formed multistakeholder model, I do not want to contribute to a statement that seems to me to approve the way Governments currently work.

re: 

> "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br",


Prefer the previous 4.

avri


On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:51, Anja Kovacs wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Not sure which version you mean, Norbert, but if it is the one in which point 4 starts as follows:
> 
> "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br",
> 
> My answer is yes, we would support that.
> 
> Thanks,
> Anja 
> 
> 
> On 26 September 2013 19:15, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> Hi
> 
> Yes, i would, I did,  accept that, as it balances support to the Marco Civil with support for the multistakeholder governance.
> 
> When 4 was dropped it put the emphasis on approving the process of the past as opposed to suggesting a way to improve in the future.
> 
> That works for me.
> 
> avri
> 
> On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:25, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> 
> > [with IGC coordinator hat on]
> >
> > Suppose the drafters of the letter were willing to backtrack to this
> > version, would the IGC then be able to endorse the letter?
> >
> > Avri and Anja, do I understand correctly that your objections would
> > be moot in this case?
> >
> > Parminder, are you firmly objecting to this version of point 4, or would
> > the shortened version just have been strongly preferable from your
> > perspective?
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Norbert
> >
> >
> >>
> 
> 
> >> Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to President
> >> Dilma Rousseff in support of her statement at the 68th Session of the
> >> UNGA
> >>
> >>
> >> Your Excellency,
> >>
> >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the
> >> world, committed to the development of the Internet and its use for
> >> advancing social and economic justice, would like to express our
> >> strong support for the statement delivered this week by your
> >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General
> >> Assembly. We commend you for taking a leading role on these issues
> >> and would like to:
> >>
> >> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in
> >> clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee's
> >> Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet.
> >>
> >> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian
> >> Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that
> >> upholds these principles.
> 
> 
> >> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in
> >> expressing disapproval and demanding explanations from the USA about
> >> the procedures of illegal interception of  information and data,
> >> framing it as a grave violation of human rights and of civil liberties
> >>
> >> 4. Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of
> >> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian
> >> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which
> >> comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and Technology
> >> Community, private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing.
> >>
> >> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to
> >> social justice and development, of which an open, stable, and
> >> reliable Internet is a fundamental pillar.
> >>
> >> Signatories:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro
> >> <diegocanabarro at gmail.com > wrote: Ian is helping Joanna and me in
> >> drafting this reduced optimal version. : ) On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at
> >> 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set. --srs (htc
> >> one x) On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote:
> >> Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters. Louis - - - On Thu,
> >> Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com > wrote:
> >>
> >> Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and at the
> >> same time worse.   I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any more
> >> than two paragraphs and the chance of it being read is meagre.   To
> >> be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. – the first
> >> paragraph   We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from
> >> around the world, committed to the development of the Internet and
> >> its use for advancing social justice, would like to express our
> >> strong support for the statement delivered this week by your
> >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General
> >> Assembly.   (reference the speech if you wish for those who would
> >> like to read more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and elaborate on
> >> it).   And specifically I dont think we need to talk post Snowden,
> >> and demand apologies from the USA. That ain’t going to happen.   Ian
> >> Peter ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list,
> >> visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list
> >> information and functions, see:
> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to
> >> find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate
> >> this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 --
> >> diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN:
> >> diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell #
> >> +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) --
> >> ____________________________________________________________ You
> >> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list,
> >> visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list
> >> information and functions, see:
> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to
> >> find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate
> >> this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> --
> >>
> >> Joana Varon Ferraz
> >> @joana_varon
> >> PGP 0x016B8E73
> >>
> >>
> >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> >> Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt"
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> >> To be removed from the list, visit:
> >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >>
> >> For all other list information and functions, see:
> >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >>
> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
> 
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From joana at varonferraz.com  Thu Sep 26 10:08:54 2013
From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:08:54 +0200
Subject: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres.
 Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
In-Reply-To: <4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org>
References: <CALTAiTqsSn+b4P679+emZ5AG8cDVzOr8tDrHEt=iNZ1i5sOfeg@mail.gmail.com>
 <E1VPBIo-0004tG-PJ@igcaucus.org> <20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch>
 <6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org> <CAJqNAHBz1ij6K2v3b_5-mqJL2in0CS-jx=Qwn7Op+s_V_Uo+Jg@mail.gmail.com>
 <4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CALTAiTr=DO-PzbYOdEorLgr4hCMQFoLNp7Gp=FHWt_Xkm2S1qA@mail.gmail.com>

Ok. so here is what we will do.

1) Item 4 will be changed to:
"Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of Internet
Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder
model of Internet
governance, led by CGI.br",

2) Jeremy and I will send an email noting it to all the people who already
endorsed, noting this change and giving them the posibility to withdraw
their support (which I think will be unlikely). Well, thats not the ideal
process to do that. But, we will be happy to have ICG, APC, etc  supporting
the statement and more important, we got your points on the dangerous of
the current version.


OK????



On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

>
> +1 to Anja's point.
>
> with this change I will recommend that it be signed by IGC and groups I am
> a member of,  and will sign it myself on the bestbits site
>
> From Carolina
> > Pls, Avri, refer to CA and my email
>
> But since
>
> > not that it will change at this point, but it would be good to be sure
> we have your language
>
> Not sure why we are still trying.
>
> Without a statement supporting a well formed multistakeholder model, I do
> not want to contribute to a statement that seems to me to approve the way
> Governments currently work.
>
> re:
>
> > "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of Internet
> Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder model of
> Internet governance, led by CGI.br",
>
>
> Prefer the previous 4.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:51, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Not sure which version you mean, Norbert, but if it is the one in which
> point 4 starts as follows:
> >
> > "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of Internet
> Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder model of
> Internet governance, led by CGI.br",
> >
> > My answer is yes, we would support that.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Anja
> >
> >
> > On 26 September 2013 19:15, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > Yes, i would, I did,  accept that, as it balances support to the Marco
> Civil with support for the multistakeholder governance.
> >
> > When 4 was dropped it put the emphasis on approving the process of the
> past as opposed to suggesting a way to improve in the future.
> >
> > That works for me.
> >
> > avri
> >
> > On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:25, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> >
> > > [with IGC coordinator hat on]
> > >
> > > Suppose the drafters of the letter were willing to backtrack to this
> > > version, would the IGC then be able to endorse the letter?
> > >
> > > Avri and Anja, do I understand correctly that your objections would
> > > be moot in this case?
> > >
> > > Parminder, are you firmly objecting to this version of point 4, or
> would
> > > the shortened version just have been strongly preferable from your
> > > perspective?
> > >
> > > Greetings,
> > > Norbert
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> >
> >
> > >> Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to President
> > >> Dilma Rousseff in support of her statement at the 68th Session of the
> > >> UNGA
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Your Excellency,
> > >>
> > >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the
> > >> world, committed to the development of the Internet and its use for
> > >> advancing social and economic justice, would like to express our
> > >> strong support for the statement delivered this week by your
> > >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General
> > >> Assembly. We commend you for taking a leading role on these issues
> > >> and would like to:
> > >>
> > >> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in
> > >> clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee's
> > >> Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet.
> > >>
> > >> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian
> > >> Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that
> > >> upholds these principles.
> >
> >
> > >> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in
> > >> expressing disapproval and demanding explanations from the USA about
> > >> the procedures of illegal interception of  information and data,
> > >> framing it as a grave violation of human rights and of civil liberties
> > >>
> > >> 4. Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of
> > >> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian
> > >> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which
> > >> comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and Technology
> > >> Community, private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing.
> > >>
> > >> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to
> > >> social justice and development, of which an open, stable, and
> > >> reliable Internet is a fundamental pillar.
> > >>
> > >> Signatories:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro
> > >> <diegocanabarro at gmail.com > wrote: Ian is helping Joanna and me in
> > >> drafting this reduced optimal version. : ) On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at
> > >> 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set. --srs (htc
> > >> one x) On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote:
> > >> Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters. Louis - - - On Thu,
> > >> Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and at the
> > >> same time worse.   I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any more
> > >> than two paragraphs and the chance of it being read is meagre.   To
> > >> be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. – the first
> > >> paragraph   We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from
> > >> around the world, committed to the development of the Internet and
> > >> its use for advancing social justice, would like to express our
> > >> strong support for the statement delivered this week by your
> > >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General
> > >> Assembly.   (reference the speech if you wish for those who would
> > >> like to read more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and elaborate on
> > >> it).   And specifically I dont think we need to talk post Snowden,
> > >> and demand apologies from the USA. That ain’t going to happen.   Ian
> > >> Peter ____________________________________________________________
> > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list,
> > >> visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list
> > >> information and functions, see:
> > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to
> > >> find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate
> > >> this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 --
> > >> diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN:
> > >> diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell #
> > >> +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) --
> > >> ____________________________________________________________ You
> > >> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list,
> > >> visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list
> > >> information and functions, see:
> > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to
> > >> find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate
> > >> this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> --
> > >>
> > >> Joana Varon Ferraz
> > >> @joana_varon
> > >> PGP 0x016B8E73
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> > >> Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt"
> > >>
> > >> ____________________________________________________________
> > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > >> To be removed from the list, visit:
> > >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> > >>
> > >> For all other list information and functions, see:
> > >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> > >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> > >>
> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> > >
> > > ____________________________________________________________
> > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > > To be removed from the list, visit:
> > >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> > >
> > > For all other list information and functions, see:
> > >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> > >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> > >
> > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Dr. Anja Kovacs
> > The Internet Democracy Project
> >
> > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> > www.internetdemocracy.in
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
-- 

Joana Varon Ferraz
@joana_varon
PGP 0x016B8E73
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130926/9e98f172/attachment.htm>

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Mon Sep  2 14:44:07 2013
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2013 20:44:07 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] APrIGF workshop "Internet governance for human
  rights and democracy" streaming online this Wednesday
In-Reply-To: <52244C36.90002@ciroap.org>
References: <52244C36.90002@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <mailman.26.1642081799.12520.bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130902/93c38ea9/attachment.htm>

From joana at varonferraz.com  Thu Sep 26 10:20:15 2013
From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:20:15 +0200
Subject: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres.
 Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTr=DO-PzbYOdEorLgr4hCMQFoLNp7Gp=FHWt_Xkm2S1qA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTqsSn+b4P679+emZ5AG8cDVzOr8tDrHEt=iNZ1i5sOfeg@mail.gmail.com>
 <E1VPBIo-0004tG-PJ@igcaucus.org> <20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch>
 <6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org> <CAJqNAHBz1ij6K2v3b_5-mqJL2in0CS-jx=Qwn7Op+s_V_Uo+Jg@mail.gmail.com>
 <4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org> <CALTAiTr=DO-PzbYOdEorLgr4hCMQFoLNp7Gp=FHWt_Xkm2S1qA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALTAiTpesNdA1WRk5btKzSCMppVaOMgV+VsWhd38Q6ggFT1zjg@mail.gmail.com>

Changes made: http://bestbits.net/brazil-66-unga/

Email to the current endorsee sent.

This statement is officially totally completely closed now folks.
Please, endorse! ;)

Thanks for your pacience and commitment

joana





On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:

> Ok. so here is what we will do.
>
> 1) Item 4 will be changed to:
> "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of Internet
> Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder model
> of Internet governance, led by CGI.br",
>
> 2) Jeremy and I will send an email noting it to all the people who already
> endorsed, noting this change and giving them the posibility to withdraw
> their support (which I think will be unlikely). Well, thats not the ideal
> process to do that. But, we will be happy to have ICG, APC, etc  supporting
> the statement and more important, we got your points on the dangerous of
> the current version.
>
>
> OK????
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> +1 to Anja's point.
>>
>> with this change I will recommend that it be signed by IGC and groups I
>> am a member of,  and will sign it myself on the bestbits site
>>
>> From Carolina
>> > Pls, Avri, refer to CA and my email
>>
>> But since
>>
>> > not that it will change at this point, but it would be good to be sure
>> we have your language
>>
>> Not sure why we are still trying.
>>
>> Without a statement supporting a well formed multistakeholder model, I do
>> not want to contribute to a statement that seems to me to approve the way
>> Governments currently work.
>>
>> re:
>>
>> > "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of
>> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder
>> model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br",
>>
>>
>> Prefer the previous 4.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:51, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Not sure which version you mean, Norbert, but if it is the one in which
>> point 4 starts as follows:
>> >
>> > "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of
>> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder
>> model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br",
>> >
>> > My answer is yes, we would support that.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Anja
>> >
>> >
>> > On 26 September 2013 19:15, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>> > Hi
>> >
>> > Yes, i would, I did,  accept that, as it balances support to the Marco
>> Civil with support for the multistakeholder governance.
>> >
>> > When 4 was dropped it put the emphasis on approving the process of the
>> past as opposed to suggesting a way to improve in the future.
>> >
>> > That works for me.
>> >
>> > avri
>> >
>> > On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:25, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>> >
>> > > [with IGC coordinator hat on]
>> > >
>> > > Suppose the drafters of the letter were willing to backtrack to this
>> > > version, would the IGC then be able to endorse the letter?
>> > >
>> > > Avri and Anja, do I understand correctly that your objections would
>> > > be moot in this case?
>> > >
>> > > Parminder, are you firmly objecting to this version of point 4, or
>> would
>> > > the shortened version just have been strongly preferable from your
>> > > perspective?
>> > >
>> > > Greetings,
>> > > Norbert
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >>
>> >
>> >
>> > >> Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to President
>> > >> Dilma Rousseff in support of her statement at the 68th Session of the
>> > >> UNGA
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> Your Excellency,
>> > >>
>> > >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the
>> > >> world, committed to the development of the Internet and its use for
>> > >> advancing social and economic justice, would like to express our
>> > >> strong support for the statement delivered this week by your
>> > >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General
>> > >> Assembly. We commend you for taking a leading role on these issues
>> > >> and would like to:
>> > >>
>> > >> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in
>> > >> clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee's
>> > >> Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet.
>> > >>
>> > >> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian
>> > >> Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that
>> > >> upholds these principles.
>> >
>> >
>> > >> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in
>> > >> expressing disapproval and demanding explanations from the USA about
>> > >> the procedures of illegal interception of  information and data,
>> > >> framing it as a grave violation of human rights and of civil
>> liberties
>> > >>
>> > >> 4. Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of
>> > >> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian
>> > >> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which
>> > >> comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and Technology
>> > >> Community, private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing.
>> > >>
>> > >> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to
>> > >> social justice and development, of which an open, stable, and
>> > >> reliable Internet is a fundamental pillar.
>> > >>
>> > >> Signatories:
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro
>> > >> <diegocanabarro at gmail.com > wrote: Ian is helping Joanna and me in
>> > >> drafting this reduced optimal version. : ) On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at
>> > >> 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set. --srs (htc
>> > >> one x) On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote:
>> > >> Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters. Louis - - - On Thu,
>> > >> Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com > wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and at the
>> > >> same time worse.   I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any more
>> > >> than two paragraphs and the chance of it being read is meagre.   To
>> > >> be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. – the first
>> > >> paragraph   We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from
>> > >> around the world, committed to the development of the Internet and
>> > >> its use for advancing social justice, would like to express our
>> > >> strong support for the statement delivered this week by your
>> > >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General
>> > >> Assembly.   (reference the speech if you wish for those who would
>> > >> like to read more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and elaborate on
>> > >> it).   And specifically I dont think we need to talk post Snowden,
>> > >> and demand apologies from the USA. That ain’t going to happen.   Ian
>> > >> Peter ____________________________________________________________
>> > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list,
>> > >> visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list
>> > >> information and functions, see:
>> > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and
>> to
>> > >> find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate
>> > >> this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 --
>> > >> diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN:
>> > >> diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell #
>> > >> +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) --
>> > >> ____________________________________________________________ You
>> > >> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list,
>> > >> visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list
>> > >> information and functions, see:
>> > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and
>> to
>> > >> find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate
>> > >> this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> --
>> > >> --
>> > >>
>> > >> Joana Varon Ferraz
>> > >> @joana_varon
>> > >> PGP 0x016B8E73
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>> > >> Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt"
>> > >>
>> > >> ____________________________________________________________
>> > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> > >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> > >> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> > >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> > >>
>> > >> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> > >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> > >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> > >>
>> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> > >
>> > > ____________________________________________________________
>> > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> > >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> > > To be removed from the list, visit:
>> > >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> > >
>> > > For all other list information and functions, see:
>> > >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> > >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> > >
>> > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> >
>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> >
>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Dr. Anja Kovacs
>> > The Internet Democracy Project
>> >
>> > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>> > www.internetdemocracy.in
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> >
>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> >
>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> --
>
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> @joana_varon
> PGP 0x016B8E73
>
>
>


-- 
-- 

Joana Varon Ferraz
@joana_varon
PGP 0x016B8E73
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130926/701d72dc/attachment.htm>

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Thu Sep 26 10:20:43 2013
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 19:50:43 +0530
Subject: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres.
 Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTr=DO-PzbYOdEorLgr4hCMQFoLNp7Gp=FHWt_Xkm2S1qA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTqsSn+b4P679+emZ5AG8cDVzOr8tDrHEt=iNZ1i5sOfeg@mail.gmail.com>
	<E1VPBIo-0004tG-PJ@igcaucus.org>
	<20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch>
	<6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org>
	<CAJqNAHBz1ij6K2v3b_5-mqJL2in0CS-jx=Qwn7Op+s_V_Uo+Jg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org>
	<CALTAiTr=DO-PzbYOdEorLgr4hCMQFoLNp7Gp=FHWt_Xkm2S1qA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHBjWPf9t-kqUzWdAaVk7UM0DpiYsGcs7Td+S1+bOO2rWA@mail.gmail.com>

Sorry for all the extra work this will cause, but I for one would be very
happy with this compromise.

Many thanks to all of you who worked so hard on this letter and to help us
find common ground until the very end.

Best,
Anja


On 26 September 2013 19:38, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:

> Ok. so here is what we will do.
>
> 1) Item 4 will be changed to:
> "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of Internet
> Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder model
> of Internet governance, led by CGI.br",
>
> 2) Jeremy and I will send an email noting it to all the people who already
> endorsed, noting this change and giving them the posibility to withdraw
> their support (which I think will be unlikely). Well, thats not the ideal
> process to do that. But, we will be happy to have ICG, APC, etc  supporting
> the statement and more important, we got your points on the dangerous of
> the current version.
>
>
> OK????
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> +1 to Anja's point.
>>
>> with this change I will recommend that it be signed by IGC and groups I
>> am a member of,  and will sign it myself on the bestbits site
>>
>> From Carolina
>> > Pls, Avri, refer to CA and my email
>>
>> But since
>>
>> > not that it will change at this point, but it would be good to be sure
>> we have your language
>>
>> Not sure why we are still trying.
>>
>> Without a statement supporting a well formed multistakeholder model, I do
>> not want to contribute to a statement that seems to me to approve the way
>> Governments currently work.
>>
>> re:
>>
>> > "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of
>> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder
>> model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br",
>>
>>
>> Prefer the previous 4.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:51, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Not sure which version you mean, Norbert, but if it is the one in which
>> point 4 starts as follows:
>> >
>> > "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of
>> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder
>> model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br",
>> >
>> > My answer is yes, we would support that.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Anja
>> >
>> >
>> > On 26 September 2013 19:15, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>> > Hi
>> >
>> > Yes, i would, I did,  accept that, as it balances support to the Marco
>> Civil with support for the multistakeholder governance.
>> >
>> > When 4 was dropped it put the emphasis on approving the process of the
>> past as opposed to suggesting a way to improve in the future.
>> >
>> > That works for me.
>> >
>> > avri
>> >
>> > On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:25, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>> >
>> > > [with IGC coordinator hat on]
>> > >
>> > > Suppose the drafters of the letter were willing to backtrack to this
>> > > version, would the IGC then be able to endorse the letter?
>> > >
>> > > Avri and Anja, do I understand correctly that your objections would
>> > > be moot in this case?
>> > >
>> > > Parminder, are you firmly objecting to this version of point 4, or
>> would
>> > > the shortened version just have been strongly preferable from your
>> > > perspective?
>> > >
>> > > Greetings,
>> > > Norbert
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >>
>> >
>> >
>> > >> Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to President
>> > >> Dilma Rousseff in support of her statement at the 68th Session of the
>> > >> UNGA
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> Your Excellency,
>> > >>
>> > >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the
>> > >> world, committed to the development of the Internet and its use for
>> > >> advancing social and economic justice, would like to express our
>> > >> strong support for the statement delivered this week by your
>> > >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General
>> > >> Assembly. We commend you for taking a leading role on these issues
>> > >> and would like to:
>> > >>
>> > >> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in
>> > >> clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee's
>> > >> Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet.
>> > >>
>> > >> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian
>> > >> Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that
>> > >> upholds these principles.
>> >
>> >
>> > >> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in
>> > >> expressing disapproval and demanding explanations from the USA about
>> > >> the procedures of illegal interception of  information and data,
>> > >> framing it as a grave violation of human rights and of civil
>> liberties
>> > >>
>> > >> 4. Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of
>> > >> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian
>> > >> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which
>> > >> comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and Technology
>> > >> Community, private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing.
>> > >>
>> > >> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to
>> > >> social justice and development, of which an open, stable, and
>> > >> reliable Internet is a fundamental pillar.
>> > >>
>> > >> Signatories:
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro
>> > >> <diegocanabarro at gmail.com > wrote: Ian is helping Joanna and me in
>> > >> drafting this reduced optimal version. : ) On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at
>> > >> 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set. --srs (htc
>> > >> one x) On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote:
>> > >> Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters. Louis - - - On Thu,
>> > >> Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com > wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and at the
>> > >> same time worse.   I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any more
>> > >> than two paragraphs and the chance of it being read is meagre.   To
>> > >> be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. – the first
>> > >> paragraph   We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from
>> > >> around the world, committed to the development of the Internet and
>> > >> its use for advancing social justice, would like to express our
>> > >> strong support for the statement delivered this week by your
>> > >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General
>> > >> Assembly.   (reference the speech if you wish for those who would
>> > >> like to read more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and elaborate on
>> > >> it).   And specifically I dont think we need to talk post Snowden,
>> > >> and demand apologies from the USA. That ain’t going to happen.   Ian
>> > >> Peter ____________________________________________________________
>> > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list,
>> > >> visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list
>> > >> information and functions, see:
>> > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and
>> to
>> > >> find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate
>> > >> this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 --
>> > >> diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN:
>> > >> diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell #
>> > >> +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) --
>> > >> ____________________________________________________________ You
>> > >> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list,
>> > >> visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list
>> > >> information and functions, see:
>> > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and
>> to
>> > >> find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate
>> > >> this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> --
>> > >> --
>> > >>
>> > >> Joana Varon Ferraz
>> > >> @joana_varon
>> > >> PGP 0x016B8E73
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>> > >> Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt"
>> > >>
>> > >> ____________________________________________________________
>> > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> > >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> > >> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> > >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> > >>
>> > >> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> > >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> > >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> > >>
>> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> > >
>> > > ____________________________________________________________
>> > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> > >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> > > To be removed from the list, visit:
>> > >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> > >
>> > > For all other list information and functions, see:
>> > >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> > >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> > >
>> > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> >
>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> >
>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Dr. Anja Kovacs
>> > The Internet Democracy Project
>> >
>> > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>> > www.internetdemocracy.in
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> >
>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> >
>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> --
>
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> @joana_varon
> PGP 0x016B8E73
>
>
>


-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130926/af98a21d/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Thu Sep 26 10:21:57 2013
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 10:21:57 -0400
Subject: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres.
 Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHBjWPf9t-kqUzWdAaVk7UM0DpiYsGcs7Td+S1+bOO2rWA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTqsSn+b4P679+emZ5AG8cDVzOr8tDrHEt=iNZ1i5sOfeg@mail.gmail.com>
	<E1VPBIo-0004tG-PJ@igcaucus.org>
	<20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch>
	<6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org>
	<CAJqNAHBz1ij6K2v3b_5-mqJL2in0CS-jx=Qwn7Op+s_V_Uo+Jg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org>
	<CALTAiTr=DO-PzbYOdEorLgr4hCMQFoLNp7Gp=FHWt_Xkm2S1qA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJqNAHBjWPf9t-kqUzWdAaVk7UM0DpiYsGcs7Td+S1+bOO2rWA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAf97jmDD1uaOL_oxAHcp6cGD4w6OrMgkpbdh5mtCS62Kg@mail.gmail.com>

:-))))


On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in>wrote:

> Sorry for all the extra work this will cause, but I for one would be very
> happy with this compromise.
>
> Many thanks to all of you who worked so hard on this letter and to help us
> find common ground until the very end.
>
> Best,
> Anja
>
>
> On 26 September 2013 19:38, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:
>
>> Ok. so here is what we will do.
>>
>> 1) Item 4 will be changed to:
>> "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of Internet
>> Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder model
>> of Internet governance, led by CGI.br",
>>
>> 2) Jeremy and I will send an email noting it to all the people who
>> already endorsed, noting this change and giving them the posibility to
>> withdraw their support (which I think will be unlikely). Well, thats not
>> the ideal process to do that. But, we will be happy to have ICG, APC, etc
>>  supporting the statement and more important, we got your points on the
>> dangerous of the current version.
>>
>>
>> OK????
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> +1 to Anja's point.
>>>
>>> with this change I will recommend that it be signed by IGC and groups I
>>> am a member of,  and will sign it myself on the bestbits site
>>>
>>> From Carolina
>>> > Pls, Avri, refer to CA and my email
>>>
>>> But since
>>>
>>> > not that it will change at this point, but it would be good to be sure
>>> we have your language
>>>
>>> Not sure why we are still trying.
>>>
>>> Without a statement supporting a well formed multistakeholder model, I
>>> do not want to contribute to a statement that seems to me to approve the
>>> way Governments currently work.
>>>
>>> re:
>>>
>>> > "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of
>>> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder
>>> model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br",
>>>
>>>
>>> Prefer the previous 4.
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>>
>>> On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:51, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>>>
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > Not sure which version you mean, Norbert, but if it is the one in
>>> which point 4 starts as follows:
>>> >
>>> > "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of
>>> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder
>>> model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br",
>>> >
>>> > My answer is yes, we would support that.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> > Anja
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 26 September 2013 19:15, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>> > Hi
>>> >
>>> > Yes, i would, I did,  accept that, as it balances support to the Marco
>>> Civil with support for the multistakeholder governance.
>>> >
>>> > When 4 was dropped it put the emphasis on approving the process of the
>>> past as opposed to suggesting a way to improve in the future.
>>> >
>>> > That works for me.
>>> >
>>> > avri
>>> >
>>> > On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:25, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > [with IGC coordinator hat on]
>>> > >
>>> > > Suppose the drafters of the letter were willing to backtrack to this
>>> > > version, would the IGC then be able to endorse the letter?
>>> > >
>>> > > Avri and Anja, do I understand correctly that your objections would
>>> > > be moot in this case?
>>> > >
>>> > > Parminder, are you firmly objecting to this version of point 4, or
>>> would
>>> > > the shortened version just have been strongly preferable from your
>>> > > perspective?
>>> > >
>>> > > Greetings,
>>> > > Norbert
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > >> Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to President
>>> > >> Dilma Rousseff in support of her statement at the 68th Session of
>>> the
>>> > >> UNGA
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Your Excellency,
>>> > >>
>>> > >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the
>>> > >> world, committed to the development of the Internet and its use for
>>> > >> advancing social and economic justice, would like to express our
>>> > >> strong support for the statement delivered this week by your
>>> > >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General
>>> > >> Assembly. We commend you for taking a leading role on these issues
>>> > >> and would like to:
>>> > >>
>>> > >> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in
>>> > >> clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee's
>>> > >> Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian
>>> > >> Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way
>>> that
>>> > >> upholds these principles.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > >> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in
>>> > >> expressing disapproval and demanding explanations from the USA about
>>> > >> the procedures of illegal interception of  information and data,
>>> > >> framing it as a grave violation of human rights and of civil
>>> liberties
>>> > >>
>>> > >> 4. Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of
>>> > >> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian
>>> > >> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which
>>> > >> comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and Technology
>>> > >> Community, private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to
>>> > >> social justice and development, of which an open, stable, and
>>> > >> reliable Internet is a fundamental pillar.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Signatories:
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro
>>> > >> <diegocanabarro at gmail.com > wrote: Ian is helping Joanna and me in
>>> > >> drafting this reduced optimal version. : ) On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at
>>> > >> 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set. --srs (htc
>>> > >> one x) On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote:
>>> > >> Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters. Louis - - - On Thu,
>>> > >> Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com > wrote:
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and at the
>>> > >> same time worse.   I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any
>>> more
>>> > >> than two paragraphs and the chance of it being read is meagre.   To
>>> > >> be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. – the first
>>> > >> paragraph   We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from
>>> > >> around the world, committed to the development of the Internet and
>>> > >> its use for advancing social justice, would like to express our
>>> > >> strong support for the statement delivered this week by your
>>> > >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General
>>> > >> Assembly.   (reference the speech if you wish for those who would
>>> > >> like to read more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and elaborate
>>> on
>>> > >> it).   And specifically I dont think we need to talk post Snowden,
>>> > >> and demand apologies from the USA. That ain’t going to happen.   Ian
>>> > >> Peter ____________________________________________________________
>>> > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list,
>>> > >> visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other
>>> list
>>> > >> information and functions, see:
>>> > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and
>>> to
>>> > >> find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/Translate
>>> > >> this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 --
>>> > >> diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN:
>>> > >> diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell #
>>> > >> +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) --
>>> > >> ____________________________________________________________ You
>>> > >> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list,
>>> > >> visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other
>>> list
>>> > >> information and functions, see:
>>> > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and
>>> to
>>> > >> find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/Translate
>>> > >> this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> --
>>> > >> --
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Joana Varon Ferraz
>>> > >> @joana_varon
>>> > >> PGP 0x016B8E73
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>>> > >> Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt"
>>> > >>
>>> > >> ____________________________________________________________
>>> > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> > >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> > >> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>> > >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> > >>
>>> > >> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>> > >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>> > >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> > >
>>> > > ____________________________________________________________
>>> > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> > >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> > > To be removed from the list, visit:
>>> > >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> > >
>>> > > For all other list information and functions, see:
>>> > >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>> > >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> > >
>>> > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > ____________________________________________________________
>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> >
>>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>>> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> >
>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Dr. Anja Kovacs
>>> > The Internet Democracy Project
>>> >
>>> > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>>> > www.internetdemocracy.in
>>> > ____________________________________________________________
>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>>> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> >
>>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>>> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> >
>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>>
>> Joana Varon Ferraz
>> @joana_varon
>> PGP 0x016B8E73
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in
>



-- 
*Carolina Rossini*
*Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
Open Technology Institute
*New America Foundation*
//
http://carolinarossini.net/
+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130926/7fed3cff/attachment.htm>

From nb at bollow.ch  Thu Sep 26 10:22:33 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:22:33 +0200
Subject: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres.
 Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTr=DO-PzbYOdEorLgr4hCMQFoLNp7Gp=FHWt_Xkm2S1qA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTqsSn+b4P679+emZ5AG8cDVzOr8tDrHEt=iNZ1i5sOfeg@mail.gmail.com>
	<E1VPBIo-0004tG-PJ@igcaucus.org>
	<20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch>
	<6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org>
	<CAJqNAHBz1ij6K2v3b_5-mqJL2in0CS-jx=Qwn7Op+s_V_Uo+Jg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org>
	<CALTAiTr=DO-PzbYOdEorLgr4hCMQFoLNp7Gp=FHWt_Xkm2S1qA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130926162233.29a8cae8@swan.bollow.ch>

Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:

> Ok. so here is what we will do.
> 
> 1) Item 4 will be changed to:
> "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of
> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian
> multistakeholder model of Internet
> governance, led by CGI.br",
> 
> 2) Jeremy and I will send an email noting it to all the people who
> already endorsed, noting this change and giving them the posibility
> to withdraw their support (which I think will be unlikely). Well,
> thats not the ideal process to do that. But, we will be happy to have
> ICG, APC, etc  supporting the statement and more important, we got
> your points on the dangerous of the current version.
> 
> OK????

Sounds good to me, i.e. I'll be happy to both endorse this re-revised
version personally and post a 2nd formal consensus call on the IGC
list, with optimism that it'll go through.

By when do need the definitive decision of IGC? (Since short-notice
consensus calls are problematic, and they get more problematic the
shorter the notice gets, I'd like to give as much time as possible,
even if it means getting up in the middle of the night for finalization
of the process.)

Greetings,
Norbert
 
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
> >
> > +1 to Anja's point.
> >
> > with this change I will recommend that it be signed by IGC and
> > groups I am a member of,  and will sign it myself on the bestbits
> > site
> >
> > From Carolina
> > > Pls, Avri, refer to CA and my email
> >
> > But since
> >
> > > not that it will change at this point, but it would be good to be
> > > sure
> > we have your language
> >
> > Not sure why we are still trying.
> >
> > Without a statement supporting a well formed multistakeholder
> > model, I do not want to contribute to a statement that seems to me
> > to approve the way Governments currently work.
> >
> > re:
> >
> > > "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of
> > > Internet
> > Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder
> > model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br",
> >
> >
> > Prefer the previous 4.
> >
> > avri
> >
> >
> > On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:51, Anja Kovacs wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Not sure which version you mean, Norbert, but if it is the one in
> > > which
> > point 4 starts as follows:
> > >
> > > "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of
> > > Internet
> > Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder
> > model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br",
> > >
> > > My answer is yes, we would support that.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Anja
> > >
> > >
> > > On 26 September 2013 19:15, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > Yes, i would, I did,  accept that, as it balances support to the
> > > Marco
> > Civil with support for the multistakeholder governance.
> > >
> > > When 4 was dropped it put the emphasis on approving the process
> > > of the
> > past as opposed to suggesting a way to improve in the future.
> > >
> > > That works for me.
> > >
> > > avri
> > >
> > > On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:25, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> > >
> > > > [with IGC coordinator hat on]
> > > >
> > > > Suppose the drafters of the letter were willing to backtrack to
> > > > this version, would the IGC then be able to endorse the letter?
> > > >
> > > > Avri and Anja, do I understand correctly that your objections
> > > > would be moot in this case?
> > > >
> > > > Parminder, are you firmly objecting to this version of point 4,
> > > > or
> > would
> > > > the shortened version just have been strongly preferable from
> > > > your perspective?
> > > >
> > > > Greetings,
> > > > Norbert
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > >> Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to
> > > >> President Dilma Rousseff in support of her statement at the
> > > >> 68th Session of the UNGA
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Your Excellency,
> > > >>
> > > >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around
> > > >> the world, committed to the development of the Internet and
> > > >> its use for advancing social and economic justice, would like
> > > >> to express our strong support for the statement delivered this
> > > >> week by your Excellency at the 68th Session of the United
> > > >> Nations General Assembly. We commend you for taking a leading
> > > >> role on these issues and would like to:
> > > >>
> > > >> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the
> > > >> occasion, in clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet
> > > >> Steering Committee's Principles for the Governance and Use of
> > > >> the Internet.
> > > >>
> > > >> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the
> > > >> Brazilian Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da
> > > >> Internet) in a way that upholds these principles.
> > >
> > >
> > > >> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in
> > > >> expressing disapproval and demanding explanations from the USA
> > > >> about the procedures of illegal interception of  information
> > > >> and data, framing it as a grave violation of human rights and
> > > >> of civil liberties
> > > >>
> > > >> 4. Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres
> > > >> of Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian
> > > >> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br,
> > > >> which comprises representatives from Government, Scientific
> > > >> and Technology Community, private sector and Civil Society on
> > > >> an equal footing.
> > > >>
> > > >> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to
> > > >> social justice and development, of which an open, stable, and
> > > >> reliable Internet is a fundamental pillar.
> > > >>
> > > >> Signatories:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro
> > > >> <diegocanabarro at gmail.com > wrote: Ian is helping Joanna and
> > > >> me in drafting this reduced optimal version. : ) On Wed, Sep
> > > >> 25, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
> > > >> <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set. --srs
> > > >> (htc one x) On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin
> > > >> (well)" wrote: Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters.
> > > >> Louis - - - On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter
> > > >> <ian.peter at ianpeter.com > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and at
> > > >> the same time worse.   I think it needs a very substantial
> > > >> edit. Any more than two paragraphs and the chance of it being
> > > >> read is meagre.   To be honest, I think no more than this is
> > > >> necessary. – the first paragraph   We, the undersigned
> > > >> organizations and individuals from around the world, committed
> > > >> to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing
> > > >> social justice, would like to express our strong support for
> > > >> the statement delivered this week by your Excellency at the
> > > >> 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly.
> > > >> (reference the speech if you wish for those who would like to
> > > >> read more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and elaborate on
> > > >> it).   And specifically I dont think we need to talk post
> > > >> Snowden, and demand apologies from the USA. That ain’t going
> > > >> to happen.   Ian Peter
> > > >> ____________________________________________________________
> > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list,
> > > >> visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all
> > > >> other list information and functions, see:
> > > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile
> > > >> and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> > > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email:
> > > >> http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 --
> > > >> diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN:
> > > >> diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell #
> > > >> +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) --
> > > >> ____________________________________________________________
> > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list,
> > > >> visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all
> > > >> other list information and functions, see:
> > > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile
> > > >> and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> > > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email:
> > > >> http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> --
> > > >>
> > > >> Joana Varon Ferraz
> > > >> @joana_varon
> > > >> PGP 0x016B8E73
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> > > >> Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt"
> > > >>
> > > >> ____________________________________________________________
> > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > > >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > > >> To be removed from the list, visit:
> > > >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> > > >>
> > > >> For all other list information and functions, see:
> > > >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> > > >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> > > >>
> > > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> > > >
> > > > ____________________________________________________________
> > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > > >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > > > To be removed from the list, visit:
> > > >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> > > >
> > > > For all other list information and functions, see:
> > > >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> > > >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> > > >
> > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ____________________________________________________________
> > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > > To be removed from the list, visit:
> > >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> > >
> > > For all other list information and functions, see:
> > >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> > >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> > >
> > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Dr. Anja Kovacs
> > > The Internet Democracy Project
> > >
> > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> > > www.internetdemocracy.in
> > > ____________________________________________________________
> > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > > To be removed from the list, visit:
> > >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> > >
> > > For all other list information and functions, see:
> > >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> > >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> > >
> > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
> >
> 
> 


From ellanso at cdt.org  Thu Sep 26 10:25:23 2013
From: ellanso at cdt.org (Emma Llanso)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 10:25:23 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Taking the Transparency Push Global
In-Reply-To: <022301ceba2d$182314d0$48693e70$@gmail.com>
References: <0783c5af752516db406e4edd7d7e996790e.20130925153118@mail65.atl11.rsgsv.net> <7A655500-5F8D-4674-9853-2E061C0657D9@gmail.com> <022301ceba2d$182314d0$48693e70$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <524443D3.2040707@cdt.org>

Hi Michael,

I can only speak from CDT's perspective, but we've been heavily involved 
in the push for transparency about the data the NSA is compelling from 
Internet and telephone companies in the US (and were supportive of GNI's 
outreach to the Freedom Online Coalition governments as well). The US 
companies are currently censored by US law from disclosing information 
about national-security-related requests, and without better information 
about the scope or extent of requests made, or number of users affected, 
all we have to inform public debate about substantive reforms are the 
NSA's assurances that these programs are critical to stopping terrorist 
threats to the US.

A letter 
<https://www.cdt.org/files/pdfs/weneedtoknow-transparency-letter.pdf> to 
Congress that we helped to coordinate asks specifically that companies 
be able to report the number of government requests for info about users 
under specific legal authorities (like PATRIOT 215), the number of 
individuals, accounts, or devices for which info was requested under 
each authority, and the number of requests that sought communications 
content, basic subscriber info, and/or other data -- the idea being that 
pushing for industry-wide consistency in how this information will be 
reported, and requiring the government to release parallel data itself, 
will make it that much harder to game the system.

Of course, the endgame is substantive legal and regulatory reform to 
restrict the NSA in these practices. (If you're interested, we outline 
our concrete reform agenda for the US system in this testimony 
<https://www.cdt.org/files/pdfs/LIBEtestimony24September.pdf> CDT 
recently provided in the EU -- it's a long doc but pages 12-13 summarize 
all the moving pieces.)  I see the transparency push as a key component 
to these advocacy efforts, in terms of organizing proponents of reform, 
ensuring that we have solid facts to help sway those in the middle, and 
to push back on opponents who are willing to accept the NSA's "it's all 
necessary" hand-waving.

Best,
Emma

-- 
Emma J. Llansó
Policy Counsel
Center for Democracy & Technology
1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20006
202-407-8818 | @cendemtech <https://twitter.com/#%21/CenDemTech> | 
@ellanso <https://twitter.com/#%21/ellanso>

On 9/25/13 4:23 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
> Taking the Transparency Push Global
>
> Perhaps someone could enlighten me on this…
>
> I know that pursuing this is a major pre-occupation of various US 
> Internet corps (Google, Facebook etc.) and I can see that getting this 
> made public might help them get off the hook a bit (look how few the 
> requests given the number of users we have/items we process etc.
>
> What I don't understand is why civil society should be interested in 
> this at all since there seem to be an almost infinite number of ways 
> of gaming this (according to various Snowden documents i.e. one 
> reqyest covering all communications between x and xxxistan for the 
> month of January)
>
> Surely CS is concerned with findings ways of managing these practices 
> rather than getting better information on specific items of activity 
> etc.etc.
>
> M
>
> *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net 
> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Carolina
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 25, 2013 10:25 AM
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> *Subject:* [bestbits] Fwd: Taking the Transparency Push Global
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>     *From:* Global Network Initiative
>     <info at globalnetworkinitiative.org
>     <mailto:info at globalnetworkinitiative.org>>
>     *Date:* September 25, 2013, 11:31:28 AM EDT
>     *To:* Carolina <carolina.rossini at gmail.com
>     <mailto:carolina.rossini at gmail.com>>
>     *Subject:* *Taking the Transparency Push Global*
>     *Reply-To:* Global Network Initiative
>     <info at globalnetworkinitiative.org
>     <mailto:info at globalnetworkinitiative.org>>
>
>     News from the Global Network Initiative
>
>     	
>
>     View this email in your browser
>     <http://us5.campaign-archive2.com/?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=46aa5dfc6f&e=d7e996790e>
>
>
>     <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=e362df1f48&e=d7e996790e>
>
>     	
>
>     Facebook
>     <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=67fe639a73&e=d7e996790e>
>
>
>     <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=a1b1502bff&e=d7e996790e>
>
>     	
>
>     Twitter
>     <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=2178b95cdd&e=d7e996790e>
>
>
>     <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=afe80d4a5f&e=d7e996790e>
>
>     	
>
>     Website
>     <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=9ac13c5a06&e=d7e996790e>
>
>
>     <mailto:info at globalnetworkinitiative.org>
>
>     	
>
>     Email <mailto:info at globalnetworkinitiative.org>
>
>     Global Network Initiative - Protecting and Advancing Freedom of
>     Expression and Privacy in Information and Communication
>     Technologies
>     <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=d240aef96c&e=d7e996790e>
>
>
>       GNI Writes to Governments Seeking Surveillance Transparency
>
>     The Global Network Initiative has written to the 21 governments in
>     the Freedom Online Coalition
>     <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=420621a6ab&e=d7e996790e>,
>     asking them to report on the requests they make for electronic
>     communications surveillance and to make it legally possible for
>     companies to report regularly to the public on the government
>     requests that they receive from law enforcement as well as
>     national security authorities.
>
>     Read international news coverage of the letters:
>
>       * Tech group asks 21 countries to disclose surveillance requests
>         <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=568a4500af&e=d7e996790e>
>       * Surveillance du Net : une coalition demande aux gouvernements
>         plus de transparence
>         <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=755e7c4ce5&e=d7e996790e>
>       * GNI向21个 国家政府发出公开信，要求提高信息监控活动的透明度
>         <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=c32c8a2adc&e=d7e996790e>
>
>     <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=44a93081bc&e=d7e996790e>
>
>     	
>
>     Share
>     <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=6f03696f97&e=d7e996790e>
>
>
>     <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=ba8a43950d&e=d7e996790e>
>
>     	
>
>     Tweet
>     <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=77ecf9af01&e=d7e996790e>
>
>
>     <http://us5.forward-to-friend.com/forward?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=46aa5dfc6f&e=d7e996790e>
>
>     	
>
>     Forward to Friend
>     <http://us5.forward-to-friend.com/forward?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=46aa5dfc6f&e=d7e996790e>
>
>
>
>       Multimedia
>
>     <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=ca8f62326a&e=d7e996790e>
>
>     GNI and the Telecommunications Industry Dialogue at the Stockholm
>     Internet Forum Unconference
>     <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=f50d8f95ae&e=d7e996790e>.
>
>
>       More news
>
>       * Presidential and Congressional Steps on Communication
>         Surveillance Programs
>         <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=df4f5787a6&e=d7e996790e>
>       * GNI Comments to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight
>         Board
>         <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=2880ae504f&e=d7e996790e>
>       * Executive Summary of GNI Telecoms report available in Arabic,
>         Chinese, French, Russian and Spanish
>         <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=fc14b178fe&e=d7e996790e>.
>
>     /Copyright © 2013 Global Network Initiative, All rights reserved./
>
>     You are receiving this email because you opted in at our website,
>     or through another method.
>
>     *Our mailing address is:*
>
>     Global Network Initiative
>
>     1634 I St. NW
>
>     Suite 1100
>
>     Washington, Dc 20006
>
>
>     Add us to your address book
>     <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage1.com/vcard?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=8c54375c8a>
>
>     unsubscribe from this list
>     <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage1.com/unsubscribe?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=8c54375c8a&e=d7e996790e&c=46aa5dfc6f>
>     update subscription preferences
>     <http://globalnetworkinitiative.us5.list-manage2.com/profile?u=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&id=8c54375c8a&e=d7e996790e>
>
>
>     Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp
>     <http://www.mailchimp.com/monkey-rewards/?utm_source=freemium_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=monkey_rewards&aid=0783c5af752516db406e4edd7&afl=1>
>


<https://twitter.com/#%21/ellanso>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130926/fa9db8c3/attachment.htm>

From avri at acm.org  Thu Sep 26 10:28:23 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 10:28:23 -0400
Subject: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres.
 Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTr=DO-PzbYOdEorLgr4hCMQFoLNp7Gp=FHWt_Xkm2S1qA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTqsSn+b4P679+emZ5AG8cDVzOr8tDrHEt=iNZ1i5sOfeg@mail.gmail.com> <E1VPBIo-0004tG-PJ@igcaucus.org> <20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch> <6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org> <CAJqNAHBz1ij6K2v3b_5-mqJL2in0CS-jx=Qwn7Op+s_V_Uo+Jg@mail.gmail.com> <4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org> <CALTAiTr=DO-PzbYOdEorLgr4hCMQFoLNp7Gp=FHWt_Xkm2S1qA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F8170BAD-C5E8-4A2A-A451-AA51F78480CF@acm.org>

Hi,

As i said in a private note,

While I find this construction worryingly vague, I am willing to stop recommending against signing.  I would accept a near consensus call on this phrasing

I will probably still not sign myself as I think we need to add a strong and unambiguous statement about ever moving toward well formed methods of multistakeholder governance.  

Thanks for the efforts.

avri



On 26 Sep 2013, at 10:08, Joana Varon wrote:

> Ok. so here is what we will do. 
> 
> 1) Item 4 will be changed to: 
> "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br",
> 
> 2) Jeremy and I will send an email noting it to all the people who already endorsed, noting this change and giving them the posibility to withdraw their support (which I think will be unlikely). Well, thats not the ideal process to do that. But, we will be happy to have ICG, APC, etc  supporting the statement and more important, we got your points on the dangerous of the current version. 
> 
> 
> OK????
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
> +1 to Anja's point.
> 
> with this change I will recommend that it be signed by IGC and groups I am a member of,  and will sign it myself on the bestbits site
> 
> From Carolina
> > Pls, Avri, refer to CA and my email
> 
> But since
> 
> > not that it will change at this point, but it would be good to be sure we have your language
> 
> Not sure why we are still trying.
> 
> Without a statement supporting a well formed multistakeholder model, I do not want to contribute to a statement that seems to me to approve the way Governments currently work.
> 
> re:
> 
> > "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br",
> 
> 
> Prefer the previous 4.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:51, Anja Kovacs wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > Not sure which version you mean, Norbert, but if it is the one in which point 4 starts as follows:
> >
> > "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br",
> >
> > My answer is yes, we would support that.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Anja
> >
> >
> > On 26 September 2013 19:15, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > Yes, i would, I did,  accept that, as it balances support to the Marco Civil with support for the multistakeholder governance.
> >
> > When 4 was dropped it put the emphasis on approving the process of the past as opposed to suggesting a way to improve in the future.
> >
> > That works for me.
> >
> > avri
> >
> > On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:25, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> >
> > > [with IGC coordinator hat on]
> > >
> > > Suppose the drafters of the letter were willing to backtrack to this
> > > version, would the IGC then be able to endorse the letter?
> > >
> > > Avri and Anja, do I understand correctly that your objections would
> > > be moot in this case?
> > >
> > > Parminder, are you firmly objecting to this version of point 4, or would
> > > the shortened version just have been strongly preferable from your
> > > perspective?
> > >
> > > Greetings,
> > > Norbert
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> >
> >
> > >> Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to President
> > >> Dilma Rousseff in support of her statement at the 68th Session of the
> > >> UNGA
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Your Excellency,
> > >>
> > >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the
> > >> world, committed to the development of the Internet and its use for
> > >> advancing social and economic justice, would like to express our
> > >> strong support for the statement delivered this week by your
> > >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General
> > >> Assembly. We commend you for taking a leading role on these issues
> > >> and would like to:
> > >>
> > >> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in
> > >> clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee's
> > >> Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet.
> > >>
> > >> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian
> > >> Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that
> > >> upholds these principles.
> >
> >
> > >> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in
> > >> expressing disapproval and demanding explanations from the USA about
> > >> the procedures of illegal interception of  information and data,
> > >> framing it as a grave violation of human rights and of civil liberties
> > >>
> > >> 4. Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of
> > >> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian
> > >> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which
> > >> comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and Technology
> > >> Community, private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing.
> > >>
> > >> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to
> > >> social justice and development, of which an open, stable, and
> > >> reliable Internet is a fundamental pillar.
> > >>
> > >> Signatories:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro
> > >> <diegocanabarro at gmail.com > wrote: Ian is helping Joanna and me in
> > >> drafting this reduced optimal version. : ) On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at
> > >> 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set. --srs (htc
> > >> one x) On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote:
> > >> Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters. Louis - - - On Thu,
> > >> Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and at the
> > >> same time worse.   I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any more
> > >> than two paragraphs and the chance of it being read is meagre.   To
> > >> be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. – the first
> > >> paragraph   We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from
> > >> around the world, committed to the development of the Internet and
> > >> its use for advancing social justice, would like to express our
> > >> strong support for the statement delivered this week by your
> > >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General
> > >> Assembly.   (reference the speech if you wish for those who would
> > >> like to read more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and elaborate on
> > >> it).   And specifically I dont think we need to talk post Snowden,
> > >> and demand apologies from the USA. That ain’t going to happen.   Ian
> > >> Peter ____________________________________________________________
> > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list,
> > >> visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list
> > >> information and functions, see:
> > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to
> > >> find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate
> > >> this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 --
> > >> diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN:
> > >> diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell #
> > >> +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) --
> > >> ____________________________________________________________ You
> > >> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list,
> > >> visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list
> > >> information and functions, see:
> > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to
> > >> find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate
> > >> this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> --
> > >>
> > >> Joana Varon Ferraz
> > >> @joana_varon
> > >> PGP 0x016B8E73
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> > >> Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt"
> > >>
> > >> ____________________________________________________________
> > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > >> To be removed from the list, visit:
> > >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> > >>
> > >> For all other list information and functions, see:
> > >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> > >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> > >>
> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> > >
> > > ____________________________________________________________
> > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > > To be removed from the list, visit:
> > >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> > >
> > > For all other list information and functions, see:
> > >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> > >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> > >
> > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Dr. Anja Kovacs
> > The Internet Democracy Project
> >
> > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> > www.internetdemocracy.in
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> >
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> -- 
> 
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> @joana_varon
> PGP 0x016B8E73
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From nb at bollow.ch  Thu Sep 26 10:28:23 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:28:23 +0200
Subject: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres.
 Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTpesNdA1WRk5btKzSCMppVaOMgV+VsWhd38Q6ggFT1zjg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTqsSn+b4P679+emZ5AG8cDVzOr8tDrHEt=iNZ1i5sOfeg@mail.gmail.com>
	<E1VPBIo-0004tG-PJ@igcaucus.org>
	<20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch>
	<6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org>
	<CAJqNAHBz1ij6K2v3b_5-mqJL2in0CS-jx=Qwn7Op+s_V_Uo+Jg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org>
	<CALTAiTr=DO-PzbYOdEorLgr4hCMQFoLNp7Gp=FHWt_Xkm2S1qA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALTAiTpesNdA1WRk5btKzSCMppVaOMgV+VsWhd38Q6ggFT1zjg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130926162823.43df5fd3@swan.bollow.ch>

Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:

> Changes made: http://bestbits.net/brazil-66-unga/
> 
> Email to the current endorsee sent.
> 
> This statement is officially totally completely closed now folks.
> Please, endorse! ;)

+1

This re-revised version of the statement is definitely worth a strong
showing of endorsements.

Greetings,
Norbert

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Thu Sep 26 10:43:43 2013
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 10:43:43 -0400
Subject: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres.
 Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
In-Reply-To: <20130926162823.43df5fd3@swan.bollow.ch>
References: <CALTAiTqsSn+b4P679+emZ5AG8cDVzOr8tDrHEt=iNZ1i5sOfeg@mail.gmail.com>
	<E1VPBIo-0004tG-PJ@igcaucus.org>
	<20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch>
	<6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org>
	<CAJqNAHBz1ij6K2v3b_5-mqJL2in0CS-jx=Qwn7Op+s_V_Uo+Jg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org>
	<CALTAiTr=DO-PzbYOdEorLgr4hCMQFoLNp7Gp=FHWt_Xkm2S1qA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALTAiTpesNdA1WRk5btKzSCMppVaOMgV+VsWhd38Q6ggFT1zjg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130926162823.43df5fd3@swan.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAeGAptRG9_q-DzsnpoAUgbbmR2ng2gPZwy1wj=tMguOgg@mail.gmail.com>

Norbert,
CA leaves for Brazilian 8am Friday Brazil time. So, it needs to be soon.
You have around 20 hrs.
C


On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

> Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:
>
> > Changes made: http://bestbits.net/brazil-66-unga/
> >
> > Email to the current endorsee sent.
> >
> > This statement is officially totally completely closed now folks.
> > Please, endorse! ;)
>
> +1
>
> This re-revised version of the statement is definitely worth a strong
> showing of endorsements.
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>



-- 
*Carolina Rossini*
*Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
Open Technology Institute
*New America Foundation*
//
http://carolinarossini.net/
+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130926/c016f99f/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Thu Sep 26 10:44:35 2013
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 10:44:35 -0400
Subject: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres.
 Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAeGAptRG9_q-DzsnpoAUgbbmR2ng2gPZwy1wj=tMguOgg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTqsSn+b4P679+emZ5AG8cDVzOr8tDrHEt=iNZ1i5sOfeg@mail.gmail.com>
	<E1VPBIo-0004tG-PJ@igcaucus.org>
	<20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch>
	<6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org>
	<CAJqNAHBz1ij6K2v3b_5-mqJL2in0CS-jx=Qwn7Op+s_V_Uo+Jg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org>
	<CALTAiTr=DO-PzbYOdEorLgr4hCMQFoLNp7Gp=FHWt_Xkm2S1qA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALTAiTpesNdA1WRk5btKzSCMppVaOMgV+VsWhd38Q6ggFT1zjg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130926162823.43df5fd3@swan.bollow.ch>
	<CAK-FJAeGAptRG9_q-DzsnpoAUgbbmR2ng2gPZwy1wj=tMguOgg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAec5xxy1tWLUt50HQDYgmVZXUCiGTzX0q9B6WhF-0Q=9w@mail.gmail.com>

Actually, less. Since he probably needs to print it and organize it so it
also looks good. If he does that before the Brazilian evening, you have
around 7 hrs.


On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Carolina Rossini <
carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:

> Norbert,
> CA leaves for Brazilian 8am Friday Brazil time. So, it needs to be soon.
> You have around 20 hrs.
> C
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>
>> Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Changes made: http://bestbits.net/brazil-66-unga/
>> >
>> > Email to the current endorsee sent.
>> >
>> > This statement is officially totally completely closed now folks.
>> > Please, endorse! ;)
>>
>> +1
>>
>> This re-revised version of the statement is definitely worth a strong
>> showing of endorsements.
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *Carolina Rossini*
> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
> Open Technology Institute
> *New America Foundation*
> //
> http://carolinarossini.net/
> + 1 6176979389
> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
> skype: carolrossini
> @carolinarossini
>
>


-- 
*Carolina Rossini*
*Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
Open Technology Institute
*New America Foundation*
//
http://carolinarossini.net/
+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130926/bc12b060/attachment.htm>

From joana at varonferraz.com  Thu Sep 26 10:51:06 2013
From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:51:06 +0200
Subject: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres.
 Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAec5xxy1tWLUt50HQDYgmVZXUCiGTzX0q9B6WhF-0Q=9w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTqsSn+b4P679+emZ5AG8cDVzOr8tDrHEt=iNZ1i5sOfeg@mail.gmail.com>
 <E1VPBIo-0004tG-PJ@igcaucus.org> <20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch>
 <6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org> <CAJqNAHBz1ij6K2v3b_5-mqJL2in0CS-jx=Qwn7Op+s_V_Uo+Jg@mail.gmail.com>
 <4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org> <CALTAiTr=DO-PzbYOdEorLgr4hCMQFoLNp7Gp=FHWt_Xkm2S1qA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALTAiTpesNdA1WRk5btKzSCMppVaOMgV+VsWhd38Q6ggFT1zjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130926162823.43df5fd3@swan.bollow.ch> <CAK-FJAeGAptRG9_q-DzsnpoAUgbbmR2ng2gPZwy1wj=tMguOgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK-FJAec5xxy1tWLUt50HQDYgmVZXUCiGTzX0q9B6WhF-0Q=9w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALTAiTohz6OvDJYwsviR-V1ZjW-H1S-ZHEO6d3QAJwia5qwGEg@mail.gmail.com>

The deadline we have previously set it tonight 22:00 Brazilian time

;)


On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Carolina Rossini <
carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:

> Actually, less. Since he probably needs to print it and organize it so it
> also looks good. If he does that before the Brazilian evening, you have
> around 7 hrs.
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Carolina Rossini <
> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Norbert,
>> CA leaves for Brazilian 8am Friday Brazil time. So, it needs to be soon.
>> You have around 20 hrs.
>> C
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>>
>>> Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Changes made: http://bestbits.net/brazil-66-unga/
>>> >
>>> > Email to the current endorsee sent.
>>> >
>>> > This statement is officially totally completely closed now folks.
>>> > Please, endorse! ;)
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> This re-revised version of the statement is definitely worth a strong
>>> showing of endorsements.
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>> Norbert
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Carolina Rossini*
>> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
>> Open Technology Institute
>> *New America Foundation*
>> //
>> http://carolinarossini.net/
>> + 1 6176979389
>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
>> skype: carolrossini
>> @carolinarossini
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Carolina Rossini*
> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
> Open Technology Institute
> *New America Foundation*
> //
> http://carolinarossini.net/
> + 1 6176979389
> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
> skype: carolrossini
> @carolinarossini
>
>


-- 
-- 

Joana Varon Ferraz
@joana_varon
PGP 0x016B8E73
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130926/80af020b/attachment.htm>

From joana at varonferraz.com  Mon Sep  2 19:49:13 2013
From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon)
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 20:49:13 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] WSIS+10 High Level Event Multistakeholder
 Preparatory Platform launched
In-Reply-To: <CALU7RQYHWZ08tX7kWKyFHEheNVcWcaA0V1OCJjF=Wi2iDOn5Cw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4BB8F025-9DA1-49E0-A57D-B91A75C287BB@ciroap.org> <CALU7RQYHWZ08tX7kWKyFHEheNVcWcaA0V1OCJjF=Wi2iDOn5Cw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALTAiToRj8qEq5R=7qh8Q7+VGspCpm=5c0v6_Tm7B3exo+c1EA@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Deborah and Jeremy for highlighting this.

It seams all the documents are meant to be sent by one organization. Having
that in mind, I would suggest:

For the document on outcome docs of WSIS+10, I guess a joint submission
from BB could be richer, meanly because, as Jeremy mentioned, it includes
ICT4D themes about which, at least for me, I wouldn't have much to say.

For the second document, I tend to think that we could gain more space if
we make multiple submissions. But we could coordinate so we ensure that, on
the second one, about organization of the meeting, all the topics we want
to cover are dealt with and that there is a diversity of speakers from
civil society. Does it sound feasible?

cheers

joana

-

Joana Varon Ferraz
@joana_varon
PGP 0x016B8E73

On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Deborah Brown <deborah at accessnow.org> wrote:

> Thanks for circulating this Jeremy. I wanted to flag that the deadline for
> submitting the two forms is 20 September, so in just under 3 weeks time.
> [At the bottom of the first page of each word doc the following is
> written: Please note that formal submission should be sent to the
> wsis-info at itu.int not later than 20 September 2013. "]
>
> From a quick read it looks like the first form will feed into the two
> outcome documents of the WSIS+10 Sharm el-Sheikh meeting (the WSIS+10
> Statement on Implementation of WSIS Outcomes and the WSIS+10 Vision for
> WSIS Beyond 2015 under mandates of the participating Agencies) and the
> second form relates to the organization of the meeting itself (themes,
> speakers, workshops).
>
> Per Jeremy's question, is there any interest in collaborating on a
> submission? I thought it would be good to pose this again to the list now
> that we know of the relatively short time frame.
>
> Best,
> Deborah
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>wrote:
>
>> Belatedly, the Multistakeholder Preparatory Platform for the 2014 WSIS+10
>> High Level Event has just been launched online.  This is for taking stock
>> of the implementation of the WSIS outcomes, and developing targets and
>> Indicators for an open and inclusive information/knowledge society for all
>> beyond 2015.  The website is:
>>
>> http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/mpp/
>>
>> Through this process, stakeholders will seek to develop multistakeholder
>> consensus on two outcome documents for the WSIS+10 event.  To make a
>> submission you can download Word documents that are on the above site -
>> online forms will be available soon.  A deadline is not yet, so far as I
>> can see, specified.
>>
>> Some individuals and organisations will be interested in sending their
>> own submissions.  I'm less sure about whether there is value or interest in
>> doing a joint submission.  Certainly, this falls outside Internet
>> governance per se and includes broader ICT4D themes.  But we can discuss
>> whether there is enough mutual interest in collaborating on a submission.
>>
>>     --
>>
>> *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
>>
>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge
>> hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>>
>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>>
>> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
>> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>>
>> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
>> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Deborah Brown
> Senior Policy Analyst
> Access | AccessNow.org
> E. deborah at accessnow.org
> @deblebrown
> PGP 0x5EB4727D
>



-- 

-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130902/4483c3eb/attachment.htm>

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Thu Sep 26 11:01:20 2013
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 17:01:20 +0200
Subject: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres.
  Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTr=DO-PzbYOdEorLgr4hCMQFoLNp7Gp=FHWt_Xkm2S1qA@mail.g
 mail.com>
References: <CALTAiTqsSn+b4P679+emZ5AG8cDVzOr8tDrHEt=iNZ1i5sOfeg@mail.gmail.com>
 <E1VPBIo-0004tG-PJ@igcaucus.org>
 <20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch>
 <6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org>
 <CAJqNAHBz1ij6K2v3b_5-mqJL2in0CS-jx=Qwn7Op+s_V_Uo+Jg@mail.gmail.com>
 <4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org>
 <CALTAiTr=DO-PzbYOdEorLgr4hCMQFoLNp7Gp=FHWt_Xkm2S1qA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <mailman.27.1642081799.12520.bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130926/9374f7ed/attachment.htm>

From avri at acm.org  Thu Sep 26 11:07:00 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 11:07:00 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Policy request Input for the IGF
Message-ID: <381486F3-8F8B-4D54-A79A-67AF6B5FCB25@acm.org>



http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/request-for-public-input-shaping-the-discussions

Request for public input - Shaping the discussions			
Dear IGF Community Members,

We are asking for your input to help shape the IGF discussions in a meaningful way. You may recall that the Working Group on Improvements to the IGF in its report identified the development of tangible outcomes as a way for the IGF to continue to perform successfully its intended role of addressing issues related to public policy in a bottom-up, multistakeholder fashion. The Working Group stated that "to focus discussions, the preparation process of each IGF should formulate a set of policy questions to be considered at the IGF, as part of the overall discussion. The results of the debates on these questions, with special focus on public policy perspectives and aimed at capacity-building, should be stated in the outcome documentation".

This recommendation  provides an excellent opportunity for the IGF community to engage in the process of shaping and formulating the questions that will guide the discussions during the various main and focus sessions. Reflecting on the IGF's mandate for inclusion and transparency, the IGF Secretariat is soliciting the community's views on the type of public policy questions that should be addressed and discussed at this year's IGF main/focus sessions. 

Each stakeholder -- individual or organisation -- is asked to submit no more than three (3) questions for each (or one) of the following sessions:

- Building Bridges: The role of governments in multistakeholder cooperation;
- Internet Governance principles;
- Principles of multistakeholder cooperation;
- Legal and other frameworks: spam, hacking and cybercrime;
- Internet as an engine for growth and sustainable development; 
- Human rights, freedom of expression, free flow of information on the Internet;
- Taking stock/Emerging Issues.

Please note that the deadline for submitting your questions is 9 October. Questions should be sent to igf at unog.ch.

From nb at bollow.ch  Thu Sep 26 11:13:11 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 17:13:11 +0200
Subject: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres.
 Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTohz6OvDJYwsviR-V1ZjW-H1S-ZHEO6d3QAJwia5qwGEg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTqsSn+b4P679+emZ5AG8cDVzOr8tDrHEt=iNZ1i5sOfeg@mail.gmail.com>
	<E1VPBIo-0004tG-PJ@igcaucus.org>
	<20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch>
	<6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org>
	<CAJqNAHBz1ij6K2v3b_5-mqJL2in0CS-jx=Qwn7Op+s_V_Uo+Jg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org>
	<CALTAiTr=DO-PzbYOdEorLgr4hCMQFoLNp7Gp=FHWt_Xkm2S1qA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALTAiTpesNdA1WRk5btKzSCMppVaOMgV+VsWhd38Q6ggFT1zjg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130926162823.43df5fd3@swan.bollow.ch>
	<CAK-FJAeGAptRG9_q-DzsnpoAUgbbmR2ng2gPZwy1wj=tMguOgg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK-FJAec5xxy1tWLUt50HQDYgmVZXUCiGTzX0q9B6WhF-0Q=9w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALTAiTohz6OvDJYwsviR-V1ZjW-H1S-ZHEO6d3QAJwia5qwGEg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130926171311.689ccfeb@swan.bollow.ch>

Am Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:51:06 +0200
schrieb Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com>:

> The deadline we have previously set it tonight 22:00 Brazilian time
> 
> ;)

CA later posted the following though:

:: Hmmm... the deadline is tonight, but I've just got my plane ticket to
:: Brasilia and should leave for the airport by 08:30 AM BR time
:: tomorrow (Friday) morning, so we still have a few more hours time --
:: I just need time to print it and put the doc in a nice envelope, it
:: would not be good ritual practice to give the prez a memory stick :)

So maybe the deadline for submitting and confirming the endorsement at
the BestBits site could be pushed to say 06:00 am Brazil time?
(That is 9am UTC, and 18.00 in Japan where I am right now.)

If this is feasible, then I'll set the IGC consensus call deadline
for any further objections to 8am UTC -- still short notice but much
less problematic than 8 hours earlier, as the extra hours will mean
that a much larger proportion of the Caucus members will have checked
their mail in time for being able to check the text of the proposed
letter, and for being able to object if they come to the conclusion
that for some reason IGC should absolutely not endorse.

Greetings,
Norbert




> 
> 
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Carolina Rossini <
> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Actually, less. Since he probably needs to print it and organize it
> > so it also looks good. If he does that before the Brazilian
> > evening, you have around 7 hrs.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Carolina Rossini <
> > carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Norbert,
> >> CA leaves for Brazilian 8am Friday Brazil time. So, it needs to be
> >> soon. You have around 20 hrs.
> >> C
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > Changes made: http://bestbits.net/brazil-66-unga/
> >>> >
> >>> > Email to the current endorsee sent.
> >>> >
> >>> > This statement is officially totally completely closed now
> >>> > folks. Please, endorse! ;)
> >>>
> >>> +1
> >>>
> >>> This re-revised version of the statement is definitely worth a
> >>> strong showing of endorsements.
> >>>
> >>> Greetings,
> >>> Norbert
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> *Carolina Rossini*
> >> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
> >> Open Technology Institute
> >> *New America Foundation*
> >> //
> >> http://carolinarossini.net/
> >> + 1 6176979389
> >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
> >> skype: carolrossini
> >> @carolinarossini
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > *Carolina Rossini*
> > *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
> > Open Technology Institute
> > *New America Foundation*
> > //
> > http://carolinarossini.net/
> > + 1 6176979389
> > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
> > skype: carolrossini
> > @carolinarossini
> >
> >
> 
> 


From ca at cafonso.ca  Thu Sep 26 12:03:11 2013
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 13:03:11 -0300
Subject: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres.
 Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
In-Reply-To: <20130926171311.689ccfeb@swan.bollow.ch>
References: <CALTAiTqsSn+b4P679+emZ5AG8cDVzOr8tDrHEt=iNZ1i5sOfeg@mail.gmail.com>	<E1VPBIo-0004tG-PJ@igcaucus.org>	<20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch>	<6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org>	<CAJqNAHBz1ij6K2v3b_5-mqJL2in0CS-jx=Qwn7Op+s_V_Uo+Jg@mail.gmail.com>	<4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org>	<CALTAiTr=DO-PzbYOdEorLgr4hCMQFoLNp7Gp=FHWt_Xkm2S1qA@mail.gmail.com>	<CALTAiTpesNdA1WRk5btKzSCMppVaOMgV+VsWhd38Q6ggFT1zjg@mail.gmail.com>	<20130926162823.43df5fd3@swan.bollow.ch>	<CAK-FJAeGAptRG9_q-DzsnpoAUgbbmR2ng2gPZwy1wj=tMguOgg@mail.gmail.com>	<CAK-FJAec5xxy1tWLUt50HQDYgmVZXUCiGTzX0q9B6WhF-0Q=9w@mail.gmail.com>	<CALTAiTohz6OvDJYwsviR-V1ZjW-H1S-ZHEO6d3QAJwia5qwGEg@mail.gmail.com> <20130926171311.689ccfeb@swan.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <52445ABF.2030609@cafonso.ca>

Only problem is that the signatures will have to be posted by that
deadline or will not be printed...

--c.a.

On 09/26/2013 12:13 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> Am Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:51:06 +0200
> schrieb Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com>:
> 
>> The deadline we have previously set it tonight 22:00 Brazilian time
>>
>> ;)
> 
> CA later posted the following though:
> 
> :: Hmmm... the deadline is tonight, but I've just got my plane ticket to
> :: Brasilia and should leave for the airport by 08:30 AM BR time
> :: tomorrow (Friday) morning, so we still have a few more hours time --
> :: I just need time to print it and put the doc in a nice envelope, it
> :: would not be good ritual practice to give the prez a memory stick :)
> 
> So maybe the deadline for submitting and confirming the endorsement at
> the BestBits site could be pushed to say 06:00 am Brazil time?
> (That is 9am UTC, and 18.00 in Japan where I am right now.)
> 
> If this is feasible, then I'll set the IGC consensus call deadline
> for any further objections to 8am UTC -- still short notice but much
> less problematic than 8 hours earlier, as the extra hours will mean
> that a much larger proportion of the Caucus members will have checked
> their mail in time for being able to check the text of the proposed
> letter, and for being able to object if they come to the conclusion
> that for some reason IGC should absolutely not endorse.
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Carolina Rossini <
>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, less. Since he probably needs to print it and organize it
>>> so it also looks good. If he does that before the Brazilian
>>> evening, you have around 7 hrs.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Carolina Rossini <
>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Norbert,
>>>> CA leaves for Brazilian 8am Friday Brazil time. So, it needs to be
>>>> soon. You have around 20 hrs.
>>>> C
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Changes made: http://bestbits.net/brazil-66-unga/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Email to the current endorsee sent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This statement is officially totally completely closed now
>>>>>> folks. Please, endorse! ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>> This re-revised version of the statement is definitely worth a
>>>>> strong showing of endorsements.
>>>>>
>>>>> Greetings,
>>>>> Norbert
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> *Carolina Rossini*
>>>> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
>>>> Open Technology Institute
>>>> *New America Foundation*
>>>> //
>>>> http://carolinarossini.net/
>>>> + 1 6176979389
>>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
>>>> skype: carolrossini
>>>> @carolinarossini
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *Carolina Rossini*
>>> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
>>> Open Technology Institute
>>> *New America Foundation*
>>> //
>>> http://carolinarossini.net/
>>> + 1 6176979389
>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
>>> skype: carolrossini
>>> @carolinarossini
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> 

From nb at bollow.ch  Thu Sep 26 12:11:01 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 18:11:01 +0200
Subject: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres.
 Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
In-Reply-To: <52445ABF.2030609@cafonso.ca>
References: <CALTAiTqsSn+b4P679+emZ5AG8cDVzOr8tDrHEt=iNZ1i5sOfeg@mail.gmail.com>
	<E1VPBIo-0004tG-PJ@igcaucus.org>
	<20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch>
	<6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org>
	<CAJqNAHBz1ij6K2v3b_5-mqJL2in0CS-jx=Qwn7Op+s_V_Uo+Jg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org>
	<CALTAiTr=DO-PzbYOdEorLgr4hCMQFoLNp7Gp=FHWt_Xkm2S1qA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALTAiTpesNdA1WRk5btKzSCMppVaOMgV+VsWhd38Q6ggFT1zjg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130926162823.43df5fd3@swan.bollow.ch>
	<CAK-FJAeGAptRG9_q-DzsnpoAUgbbmR2ng2gPZwy1wj=tMguOgg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAK-FJAec5xxy1tWLUt50HQDYgmVZXUCiGTzX0q9B6WhF-0Q=9w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALTAiTohz6OvDJYwsviR-V1ZjW-H1S-ZHEO6d3QAJwia5qwGEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130926171311.689ccfeb@swan.bollow.ch>
	<52445ABF.2030609@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <20130926181101.2fc9f8ff@swan.bollow.ch>

Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:

> Only problem is that the signatures will have to be posted by that
> deadline or will not be printed...

Ok in that case we'll have to stick to the midnight UTC deadline for
trying to resolve the concern that Parminder has just raised, and for
any further objections.

Greetings,
Norbert
 
> On 09/26/2013 12:13 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> > Am Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:51:06 +0200
> > schrieb Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com>:
> > 
> >> The deadline we have previously set it tonight 22:00 Brazilian time
> >>
> >> ;)
> > 
> > CA later posted the following though:
> > 
> > :: Hmmm... the deadline is tonight, but I've just got my plane
> > ticket to :: Brasilia and should leave for the airport by 08:30 AM
> > BR time :: tomorrow (Friday) morning, so we still have a few more
> > hours time -- :: I just need time to print it and put the doc in a
> > nice envelope, it :: would not be good ritual practice to give the
> > prez a memory stick :)
> > 
> > So maybe the deadline for submitting and confirming the endorsement
> > at the BestBits site could be pushed to say 06:00 am Brazil time?
> > (That is 9am UTC, and 18.00 in Japan where I am right now.)
> > 
> > If this is feasible, then I'll set the IGC consensus call deadline
> > for any further objections to 8am UTC -- still short notice but much
> > less problematic than 8 hours earlier, as the extra hours will mean
> > that a much larger proportion of the Caucus members will have
> > checked their mail in time for being able to check the text of the
> > proposed letter, and for being able to object if they come to the
> > conclusion that for some reason IGC should absolutely not endorse.
> > 
> > Greetings,
> > Norbert
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Carolina Rossini <
> >> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Actually, less. Since he probably needs to print it and organize
> >>> it so it also looks good. If he does that before the Brazilian
> >>> evening, you have around 7 hrs.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Carolina Rossini <
> >>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Norbert,
> >>>> CA leaves for Brazilian 8am Friday Brazil time. So, it needs to
> >>>> be soon. You have around 20 hrs.
> >>>> C
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Changes made: http://bestbits.net/brazil-66-unga/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Email to the current endorsee sent.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This statement is officially totally completely closed now
> >>>>>> folks. Please, endorse! ;)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +1
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This re-revised version of the statement is definitely worth a
> >>>>> strong showing of endorsements.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Greetings,
> >>>>> Norbert
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> *Carolina Rossini*
> >>>> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
> >>>> Open Technology Institute
> >>>> *New America Foundation*
> >>>> //
> >>>> http://carolinarossini.net/
> >>>> + 1 6176979389
> >>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
> >>>> skype: carolrossini
> >>>> @carolinarossini
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> *Carolina Rossini*
> >>> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
> >>> Open Technology Institute
> >>> *New America Foundation*
> >>> //
> >>> http://carolinarossini.net/
> >>> + 1 6176979389
> >>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
> >>> skype: carolrossini
> >>> @carolinarossini
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> > 
> > 


From joao.caribe at me.com  Thu Sep 26 12:21:17 2013
From: joao.caribe at me.com (=?utf-8?Q? Jo=C3=A3o_Carlos_R._Carib=C3=A9 ?=)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 13:21:17 -0300
Subject: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres. Rousseff Re:
 [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
In-Reply-To: <52442C2B.1020606@cafonso.ca>
References:  <CALTAiTqsSn+b4P679+emZ5AG8cDVzOr8tDrHEt=iNZ1i5sOfeg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA0O_-QGvqykxPpXAmGxw5G89d3ZbbAJ3bFkVfYqw=zdwENLRA@mail.gmail.com>
 <52442C2B.1020606@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <3F9AC591-3814-4BAB-9125-859FB14971B8@me.com>

Is great to see the enthusiasm of an Internet veteran like Carlos Alfonso, I'm joining the group, I want to participate more. What is happening now in Brazil in digital policies this delightfully surprising.

Congratulations for all involved in this letter.
_
João Carlos Caribé
(021) 8761 1967
(021) 4042 7727
Skype joaocaribe
Enviado via iPad

> Em 26/09/2013, às 09:44, "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca> escreveu:
> 
> I agree! I think we will be able to deliver the letter to the prez on
> Friday. This will be a fantastic milestone on our part.
> 
> Let's go and sign it, folks!
> 
> fraternal regards
> 
> --c.a.
> 
>> On 09/25/2013 11:15 PM, Veridiana Alimonti wrote:
>> Dear Joana and all,
>> 
>> the letter is concise, pointing important issues without losing the general
>> line of support. Very good!
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 2013/9/25 Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com>
>> 
>>> Dear all,
>>> 
>>> Please, find a reduced version below. We are closing the pad now to avoid
>>> more crazy joined editing processes. Thanks for all the contributions.
>>> 
>>> Let's receive final comments about very punctual changes or major
>>> disagreements and gaps until tomorrow (Thursday) 9:00 am (Brazilian time).
>>> Then collect endorsements through out the day.
>>> 
>>> *Deadline for signatures will be this Thursday night, let's say 22:00,
>>> also Brazilian time*. So Carlos can deliver it in hand to President
>>> Dilma. *
>>> *
>>> 
>>> thanks once again,
>>> 
>>> joana
>>> 
>>> *Letter from** International C**ivil Society** Organizations** **to
>>> President Dilma Rousseff in support of her **statement at **the 68th
>>> Session of the **UNGA *
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Your Excellency,
>>> 
>>> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world,
>>> committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing
>>> social and economic justice, would like to express our strong support forthe statement delivered this week by your
>>> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. We
>>> commend you for taking a leading role on these issues and would like to:
>>> 
>>> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in clear
>>> accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee*'*s* *Principles
>>> for the Governance and Use of the Internet.
>>> 
>>> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian Draft
>>> Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that upholds
>>> these principles.
>>> 
>>> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and demanding
>>> explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal interception of
>>> information and data, framing it as a grave violation of human rights and
>>> of civil liberties
>>> 
>>> 4.* *Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of
>>> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian
>>> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which
>>> comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and TechnologyCommunity,
>>> private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing.
>>> 
>>> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to social
>>> justice and development, of which an open, stable, and reliable Internet is
>>> a fundamental pillar.
>>> 
>>> Signatories:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro <
>>> diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Ian is helping Joanna and me in drafting this reduced optimal version. : )
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <
>>>> suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set.
>>>>> --srs (htc one x)
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" ** wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Louis
>>>>> - - -
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and at the same
>>>>>> time worse.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any more than two paragraphs
>>>>>> and the chance of it being read is meagre.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> To be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. – the first
>>>>>> paragraph
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world,
>>>>>> committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing
>>>>>> social justice, would like to express our strong support for the
>>>>>> statement delivered this week by your Excellency at the 68th Session of
>>>>>> the United Nations General Assembly.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> (reference the speech if you wish for those who would like to read
>>>>>> more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and elaborate on it).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> And specifically I dont think we need to talk post Snowden, and demand
>>>>>> apologies from the USA. That ain’t going to happen.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ian Peter
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>> 
>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>> 
>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Diego R. Canabarro
>>>> http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br
>>>> diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu
>>>> MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com
>>>> Skype: diegocanabarro
>>>> Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA)
>>>> --
>>>> 
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>> 
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>> 
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> --
>>> 
>>> Joana Varon Ferraz
>>> @joana_varon
>>> PGP 0x016B8E73
>> 

From gurstein at gmail.com  Thu Sep 26 12:40:46 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:40:46 -0700
Subject: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres.
 Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTohz6OvDJYwsviR-V1ZjW-H1S-ZHEO6d3QAJwia5qwGEg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTqsSn+b4P679+emZ5AG8cDVzOr8tDrHEt=iNZ1i5sOfeg@mail.gmail.com> <E1VPBIo-0004tG-PJ@igcaucus.org> <20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch> <6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org> <CAJqNAHBz1ij6K2v3b_5-mqJL2in0CS-jx=Qwn7Op+s_V_Uo+Jg@mail.gmail.com> <4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org> <CALTAiTr=DO-PzbYOdEorLgr4hCMQFoLNp7Gp=FHWt_Xkm2S1qA@mail.gmail.com> <CALTAiTpesNdA1WRk5btKzSCMppVaOMgV+VsWhd38Q6ggFT1zjg@mail.gmail.com> <20130926162823.43df5fd3@swan.bollow.ch> <CAK-FJAeGAptRG9_q-DzsnpoAUgbbmR2ng2gPZwy1wj=tMguOgg@mail.gmail.com> <CAK-FJAec5xxy1tWLUt50HQDYgmVZXUCiGTzX0q9B6WhF-0Q=9w@mail.gmail.com> <CALTAiTohz6OvDJYwsviR-V1ZjW-H1S-ZHEO6d3QAJwia5qwGEg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <02ce01cebad7$2f372080$8da56180$@gmail.com>

Amazing, from the time I was finally able to fall asleep (I'm still jet
lagged) at 3.00 am to when I just now woke up (8 am) a major controversy
arose and was amicably resolved 50 messages later :) (and reverting to a
compromise position to which I had the pleasure of contributing some 8 or so
hours earlier. :)

 

And I'm delighted to be able to endorse (and circulate to the Community
Informatics community for endorsement) this revised version which includes,
as I think appropriate an endorsement of the Brazil MS experience (and
practice) as a potential model for broader national and global application. 

 

For those unfamiliar with the specifics of the model perhaps it would be
useful if someone from CGI could point us to some documents which elaborate
on it and its history or provide us with a usable summary and description.

 

M 

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Joana Varon
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 7:51 AM
To: Carolina Rossini
Cc: Norbert Bollow; IGC; &lt bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt
Subject: Re: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres.
Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN

 

The deadline we have previously set it tonight 22:00 Brazilian time

 

;)

 

On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Carolina Rossini
<carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:

Actually, less. Since he probably needs to print it and organize it so it
also looks good. If he does that before the Brazilian evening, you have
around 7 hrs.

 

On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Carolina Rossini
<carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:

Norbert,

CA leaves for Brazilian 8am Friday Brazil time. So, it needs to be soon.

You have around 20 hrs. 

C

 

On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:

> Changes made: http://bestbits.net/brazil-66-unga/
>
> Email to the current endorsee sent.
>
> This statement is officially totally completely closed now folks.
> Please, endorse! ;)

+1

This re-revised version of the statement is definitely worth a strong
showing of endorsements.

Greetings,
Norbert





 

-- 

Carolina Rossini 

Project Director, Latin America Resource Center

Open Technology Institute

New America Foundation

//

 <http://carolinarossini.net/> http://carolinarossini.net/

+ 1 6176979389
* <mailto:carolina.rossini at gmail.com> carolina.rossini at gmail.com*

skype: carolrossini

@carolinarossini

 





 

-- 

Carolina Rossini 

Project Director, Latin America Resource Center

Open Technology Institute

New America Foundation

//

 <http://carolinarossini.net/> http://carolinarossini.net/

+ 1 6176979389
* <mailto:carolina.rossini at gmail.com> carolina.rossini at gmail.com*

skype: carolrossini

@carolinarossini

 





 

-- 
-- 

Joana Varon Ferraz
@joana_varon
PGP 0x016B8E73

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130926/f2a2f88b/attachment.htm>

From anriette at apc.org  Thu Sep 26 12:53:27 2013
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 18:53:27 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] African IGF recommendations: participation in policy
 processes
Message-ID: <52446687.6050507@apc.org>

Dear all

Attached are the recommendations that emerged from a 1.5 day pre-event
on inclusive, participative and transparent ICT policy processes in Africa.

I also attach the event programme for your information.

Thanks to all who participated and who contributed through facilitating,
documenting and sharing their experience and ideas.

Anriette

PS - These are not the recommendations of the African IGF, but they are
included in large part in the African IGF 2013 recommendations. These
will be shared shortly.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: AfIGF13_pre-event_Policy_process_Recommendations_Final_24092013 .pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 115252 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130926/62799014/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Africa IGF2013_APC_ pre-event_program_20092013.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 31232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130926/62799014/attachment.doc>

From bkmitra at gmail.com  Thu Sep 26 14:55:53 2013
From: bkmitra at gmail.com (Bijoy Mitra)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 18:55:53 -0000
Subject: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres.
 Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN
In-Reply-To: CALTAiTpesNdA1WRk5btKzSCMppVaOMgV+VsWhd38Q6ggFT1zjg@mail.gmail.com
References: <CALTAiTqsSn+b4P679+emZ5AG8cDVzOr8tDrHEt=iNZ1i5sOfeg@mail.gmail.com>
 <E1VPBIo-0004tG-PJ@igcaucus.org> <20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch>
 <6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org> <CAJqNAHBz1ij6K2v3b_5-mqJL2in0CS-jx=Qwn7Op+s_V_Uo+Jg@mail.gmail.com>
 <4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org> <CALTAiTr=DO-PzbYOdEorLgr4hCMQFoLNp7Gp=FHWt_Xkm2S1qA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALTAiTpesNdA1WRk5btKzSCMppVaOMgV+VsWhd38Q6ggFT1zjg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <-3863637625176964965@unknownmsgid>

------------------------------
*From:* "Joana Varon" <joana at varonferraz.com>
*To:* "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org>
*CC:* "IGC" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, "< bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>"
<bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
*Sent:* September 26, 2013 7:50 PM
*Subject:* Re: DMP} Re: [Final draft for final comments] Letter to Pres.
Rousseff Re: [bestbits] [governance] Dilma Rousseff's speech at UN

Changes made: http://bestbits.net/brazil-66-unga/

Email to the current endorsee sent.

This statement is officially totally completely closed now folks.
Please, endorse! ;)

Thanks for your pacience and commitment

joana





On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:

> Ok. so here is what we will do.
>
> 1) Item 4 will be changed to:
> "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of Internet
> Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder model
> of Internet governance, led by CGI.br",
>
> 2) Jeremy and I will send an email noting it to all the people who already
> endorsed, noting this change and giving them the posibility to withdraw
> their support (which I think will be unlikely). Well, thats not the ideal
> process to do that. But, we will be happy to have ICG, APC, etc  supporting
> the statement and more important, we got your points on the dangerous of
> the current version.
>
>
> OK????
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> +1 to Anja's point.
>>
>> with this change I will recommend that it be signed by IGC and groups I
>> am a member of,  and will sign it myself on the bestbits site
>>
>> From Carolina
>> > Pls, Avri, refer to CA and my email
>>
>> But since
>>
>> > not that it will change at this point, but it would be good to be sure
>> we have your language
>>
>> Not sure why we are still trying.
>>
>> Without a statement supporting a well formed multistakeholder model, I do
>> not want to contribute to a statement that seems to me to approve the way
>> Governments currently work.
>>
>> re:
>>
>> > "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of
>> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder
>> model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br",
>>
>>
>> Prefer the previous 4.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:51, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Not sure which version you mean, Norbert, but if it is the one in which
>> point 4 starts as follows:
>> >
>> > "Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of
>> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian multistakeholder
>> model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br",
>> >
>> > My answer is yes, we would support that.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Anja
>> >
>> >
>> > On 26 September 2013 19:15, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>> > Hi
>> >
>> > Yes, i would, I did,  accept that, as it balances support to the Marco
>> Civil with support for the multistakeholder governance.
>> >
>> > When 4 was dropped it put the emphasis on approving the process of the
>> past as opposed to suggesting a way to improve in the future.
>> >
>> > That works for me.
>> >
>> > avri
>> >
>> > On 26 Sep 2013, at 09:25, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>> >
>> > > [with IGC coordinator hat on]
>> > >
>> > > Suppose the drafters of the letter were willing to backtrack to this
>> > > version, would the IGC then be able to endorse the letter?
>> > >
>> > > Avri and Anja, do I understand correctly that your objections would
>> > > be moot in this case?
>> > >
>> > > Parminder, are you firmly objecting to this version of point 4, or
>> would
>> > > the shortened version just have been strongly preferable from your
>> > > perspective?
>> > >
>> > > Greetings,
>> > > Norbert
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >>
>> >
>> >
>> > >> Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to President
>> > >> Dilma Rousseff in support of her statement at the 68th Session of the
>> > >> UNGA
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> Your Excellency,
>> > >>
>> > >> We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the
>> > >> world, committed to the development of the Internet and its use for
>> > >> advancing social and economic justice, would like to express our
>> > >> strong support for the statement delivered this week by your
>> > >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General
>> > >> Assembly. We commend you for taking a leading role on these issues
>> > >> and would like to:
>> > >>
>> > >> 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in
>> > >> clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee's
>> > >> Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet.
>> > >>
>> > >> 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian
>> > >> Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that
>> > >> upholds these principles.
>> >
>> >
>> > >> 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in
>> > >> expressing disapproval and demanding explanations from the USA about
>> > >> the procedures of illegal interception of  information and data,
>> > >> framing it as a grave violation of human rights and of civil
>> liberties
>> > >>
>> > >> 4. Reinforce our support for an extension into broader spheres of
>> > >> Internet Governance of the experiences from the Brazilian
>> > >> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, led by CGI.br, which
>> > >> comprises representatives from Government, Scientific and Technology
>> > >> Community, private sector and Civil Society on an equal footing.
>> > >>
>> > >> We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to
>> > >> social justice and development, of which an open, stable, and
>> > >> reliable Internet is a fundamental pillar.
>> > >>
>> > >> Signatories:
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro
>> > >> <diegocanabarro at gmail.com > wrote: Ian is helping Joanna and me in
>> > >> drafting this reduced optimal version. : ) On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at
>> > >> 10:33 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> Agree. Stick to the first paragraph and we are all set. --srs (htc
>> > >> one x) On 26 September 2013 6:14:04 AM "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote:
>> > >> Agree with Ian. This parag is all that matters. Louis - - - On Thu,
>> > >> Sep 26, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com > wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> Ive just looked again at this and it is getting longer and at the
>> > >> same time worse.   I think it needs a very substantial edit. Any more
>> > >> than two paragraphs and the chance of it being read is meagre.   To
>> > >> be honest, I think no more than this is necessary. – the first
>> > >> paragraph   We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from
>> > >> around the world, committed to the development of the Internet and
>> > >> its use for advancing social justice, would like to express our
>> > >> strong support for the statement delivered this week by your
>> > >> Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General
>> > >> Assembly.   (reference the speech if you wish for those who would
>> > >> like to read more, but dont repeat it, interpret it, and elaborate on
>> > >> it).   And specifically I dont think we need to talk post Snowden,
>> > >> and demand apologies from the USA. That ain’t going to happen.   Ian
>> > >> Peter ____________________________________________________________
>> > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list,
>> > >> visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list
>> > >> information and functions, see:
>> > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and
>> to
>> > >> find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate
>> > >> this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 --
>> > >> diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN:
>> > >> diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell #
>> > >> +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) --
>> > >> ____________________________________________________________ You
>> > >> received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list,
>> > >> visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list
>> > >> information and functions, see:
>> > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and
>> to
>> > >> find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate
>> > >> this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> --
>> > >> --
>> > >>
>> > >> Joana Varon Ferraz
>> > >> @joana_varon
>> > >> PGP 0x016B8E73
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>> > >> Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt"
>> > >>
>> > >> ____________________________________________________________
>> > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> > >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> > >> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> > >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> > >>
>> > >> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> > >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> > >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> > >>
>> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> > >
>> > > ____________________________________________________________
>> > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> > >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> > > To be removed from the list, visit:
>> > >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> > >
>> > > For all other list information and functions, see:
>> > >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> > >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> > >
>> > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> >
>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> >
>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Dr. Anja Kovacs
>> > The Internet Democracy Project
>> >
>> > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>> > www.internetdemocracy.in
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> >
>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> >
>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> --
>
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> @joana_varon
> PGP 0x016B8E73
>
>
>


-- 
-- 

Joana Varon Ferraz
@joana_varon
PGP 0x016B8E73
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130926/655460a2/attachment.htm>

From dbu at donnybu.com  Thu Sep 26 18:26:23 2013
From: dbu at donnybu.com (Donny B.U.)
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 05:26:23 +0700
Subject: [bestbits] IGF Visa
In-Reply-To: <CE69E633.47D4F%shahzad@bytesforall.pk>
References: <4088A7E9-D14A-4EEA-BC39-541B674DC62B@ciroap.org>
	<CE69E633.47D4F%shahzad@bytesforall.pk>
Message-ID: <CAJOH5-x1VuxcQ+XzZ0g+q8SR5uRG6ojX9MS-Cp4jHhiQVwo6WQ@mail.gmail.com>

dear shazad,

the un official letter invitation from igf actually the one that you
will received by email after you registered at intgovforum.org
sorry for short reply.

you can reach me anytime via email dbu at donnybu.com

-dbu-


On Thursday, September 26, 2013, Shahzad Ahmad wrote:

> Folks,
>
> How is the visa situation for you for the IGF?
>
> In Pakistan, we are facing numerous problems and apparently local embassy
> is not informed by Indonesian Government about this event.
>
> We are in contact with visaigf2013 at gmail.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'visaigf2013 at gmail.com');> but queries from there are also confusing. To
> get a visa invitation, they need following:
>
> - Photo copy of passport
> *- A UN official letter invitation from IGF *
> - Itinerary
>
> Anyone know, where you get the *"UN Official Letter Invitation from IGF" *to
> be able to get IGF visa invitation letter from the IGF secretariat that is
> a requirement for the Indonesian Embassy here. This was never a requirement
> in the past.
>
> I know Donny must be very busy but this is something which may be
> escalated to IGF secretariat for help as other may also have been facing
> similar difficulties.
>
> Best wishes and regards
> Shahzad
>
>

-- 
e: dbu at donnybu.com | t: @donnybu | f: donnybu | w: donnybu.com | p:
+62818930932
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130927/3f036bb0/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Sep  3 00:35:50 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2013 10:05:50 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Web We Want Small Grants
Message-ID: <52256726.70105@itforchange.net>

FYI

The Web We Want Small Grants round for 2013 has been announced, with three
different categories of grants.

Rapid Response (deadline: open, rolling) Micro-grants designed to help when
you face an unexpected crisis or strategic opportunity that demands more
resources fast.

Surveillance Action Research (deadline: open and rolling until September 30)
These grants will enable national groups or coalitions to investigate their
own country's surveillance policies, laws and practices. Funds are available
for action research to provide solid evidence to underpin your own local
advocacy, media work and campaigning. The results of the country research
will also be published under your group's name in a special report on global
surveillance.

Capacity Building and Outreach (deadline: September 9) Capacity Building and
Outreach funds are available to groups in selected African and Asian
countries to run workshops or training sessions that will increase
understanding of the value of an open, free, and universally accessible
internet and the policies needed to advance it.
Grants could be used to run interactive workshops or training sessions,
and/or to host a participatory dialogue on what actions or policy changes
are most important in your country; or in other ways that you suggest to us
based on your needs. Resource materials, including the Web Index report
cards on how effectively countries around the world are using the Web, will
be supplied to help you plan training and awareness-raising sessions.

More details about the grants and how to apply are on the Web We Want
website. in English, French and Spanish.

English  -http://webwewant.org/2013-grant-funding-round
French -
http://webwewant.org/fr/programme-de-petites-subventions-web-we-want
Spanish -
http://webwewant.org/es/programa-de-subvenciones-menores-de-web-we-want
--

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130903/782758b1/attachment.htm>

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Fri Sep 27 08:59:19 2013
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 14:59:19 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Letter to President - Review [was - 2nd FORMAL CONSENSUS
 CALL  Re: Letter to Pr, etc].
In-Reply-To: <5244E7F6.1080905@itforchange.net>
  <20130927045315.798e3e81@swan.bollow.ch>
References: <CALTAiTqsSn+b4P679+emZ5AG8cDVzOr8tDrHEt=iNZ1i5sOfeg@mail.gmail.com>
 <E1VPBIo-0004tG-PJ@igcaucus.org>
 <20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch>
 <6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org>
 <CAJqNAHBz1ij6K2v3b_5-mqJL2in0CS-jx=Qwn7Op+s_V_Uo+Jg@mail.gmail.com>
 <4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org>
 <CALTAiTr=DO-PzbYOdEorLgr4hCMQFoLNp7Gp=FHWt_Xkm2S1qA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALTAiTpesNdA1WRk5btKzSCMppVaOMgV+VsWhd38Q6ggFT1zjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130926164146.18621c7f@swan.bollow.ch>
 <20130927034133.06855ef9@swan.bollow.ch>
 <5244E7F6.1080905@itforchange.net>
 <CALTAiTqsSn+b4P679+emZ5AG8cDVzOr8tDrHEt=iNZ1i5sOfeg@mail.gmail.com>
 <E1VPBIo-0004tG-PJ@igcaucus.org>
 <20130926152511.033afaba@swan.bollow.ch>
 <6BB592BF-A366-4552-A9C1-CD52293965F1@acm.org>
 <CAJqNAHBz1ij6K2v3b_5-mqJL2in0CS-jx=Qwn7Op+s_V_Uo+Jg@mail.gmail.com>
 <4B1A4C02-F8D0-4443-88E7-9D5BB753E74B@acm.org>
 <CALTAiTr=DO-PzbYOdEorLgr4hCMQFoLNp7Gp=FHWt_Xkm2S1qA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALTAiTpesNdA1WRk5btKzSCMppVaOMgV+VsWhd38Q6ggFT1zjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130926164146.18621c7f@swan.bollow.ch>
 <20130927034133.06855ef9@swan.bollow.ch>
 <5244E7F6.1080905@itforchange.net>
 <20130927045315.798e3e81@swan.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <mailman.28.1642081799.12520.bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130927/3693e118/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Fri Sep 27 09:47:54 2013
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 09:47:54 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Have a nice day NSA
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAeKXBXaknomnULvcpr73pkXGARMpMDJhO_bSqOr3ZCjZA@mail.gmail.com>

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/27/opinion/have-a-nice-day-nsa.html?hp

-- 
*Carolina Rossini*
*Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
Open Technology Institute
*New America Foundation*
//
http://carolinarossini.net/
+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130927/9d3e949a/attachment.htm>

From ca at cafonso.ca  Fri Sep 27 17:03:09 2013
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 18:03:09 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] Proof of delivery
Message-ID: <1B6946D9-F5BF-48A5-BE6B-479B3DEBF399@cafonso.ca>



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: photo.JPG
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 53690 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130927/62736175/attachment.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------



sent from a dumbphone

From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Sep 27 17:50:36 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 03:20:36 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proof of delivery
In-Reply-To: <D2DB0933-14CD-4FBB-9956-70BB7EB9BF81@cafonso.ca>
References: <D2DB0933-14CD-4FBB-9956-70BB7EB9BF81@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <5245FDAC.2090702@itforchange.net>

Thanks Carlos

I would think that Dilma's UN speech marks a somewhat historic moment in 
global IG. Also historic is the wide support from global civil society 
for her speech.

Dilma's speech is historic in marking Brazil's return to the very 
forefront of progressive politics in global governance of the Internet. 
This will begin to considerably shift the landscape. A new focal point 
of progressive leadership was badly needed to disrupt the artificially 
created and sustained bipolarity between the 'freedom loving' US allies 
on one side and you-know-what China, Russia et al on the other (and 
everyone else be damned). Brazil is likely to (re)emerge as that focal 
point.

The widespread civil society support to Dilma's speech was rather 
spontaneous, and somewhat unexpected. It too could in itself mark a 
historic turn - of civil society returning to the real politics of 
global governance arena, after having resided in somewhat rarefied and 
unreal atmospherics for quite some time, especially since the end of the 
WSIS.

We will preserve this picture as marking those historic points :). (I 
agree that Carlos suit completely outshines Dilma's normally impeccable 
attire :) )

parminder


On Saturday 28 September 2013 02:31 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> sent from a dumbphone

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130928/4564e23d/attachment.htm>

From joana at varonferraz.com  Fri Sep 27 19:00:08 2013
From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon)
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 01:00:08 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proof of delivery
In-Reply-To: <5245FDAC.2090702@itforchange.net>
References: <D2DB0933-14CD-4FBB-9956-70BB7EB9BF81@cafonso.ca> <5245FDAC.2090702@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CALTAiTqO_mpXgghSPDVyMxU_zjFLrjxPygGXystSMuM-3DkXhg@mail.gmail.com>

:) Lovelly. Thanks, Carlos.
And thank you all for the ideas, commitment and understanding.
Looking forward for any reactions/comments.
happy cheers
joana


-- 

Joana Varon Ferraz
@joana_varon
PGP 0x016B8E73



On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 11:50 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

>  Thanks Carlos
>
> I would think that Dilma's UN speech marks a somewhat historic moment in
> global IG. Also historic is the wide support from global civil society for
> her speech.
>
> Dilma's speech is historic in marking Brazil's return to the very
> forefront of progressive politics in global governance of the Internet.
> This will begin to considerably shift the landscape. A new focal point of
> progressive leadership was badly needed to disrupt the artificially created
> and sustained bipolarity between the 'freedom loving' US allies on one side
> and you-know-what China, Russia et al on the other (and everyone else be
> damned). Brazil is likely to (re)emerge as that focal point.
>
> The widespread civil society support to Dilma's speech was rather
> spontaneous, and somewhat unexpected. It too could in itself mark a
> historic turn - of civil society returning to the real politics of global
> governance arena, after having resided in somewhat rarefied and unreal
> atmospherics for quite some time, especially since the end of the WSIS.
>
> We will preserve this picture as marking those historic points :). (I
> agree that Carlos suit completely outshines Dilma's normally impeccable
> attire :) )
>
> parminder
>
>
>  On Saturday 28 September 2013 02:31 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>
>
>
> sent from a dumbphone
>
>
>


--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130928/db69e86f/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Sat Sep 28 12:24:45 2013
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina)
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:24:45 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Our statement gets to the Br media!
Message-ID: <D2FD8A18-8C63-44A5-812B-529C4B9DC957@gmail.com>

http://www.convergenciadigital.uol.br/
Dilma ganha apoio internacional por criticar EUA e defender Internet 

Sent from my iPhone
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130928/4f627fe4/attachment.htm>

From ca at cafonso.ca  Sat Sep 28 12:27:08 2013
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 13:27:08 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] reporting to base...
Message-ID: <5247035C.3040606@cafonso.ca>

Dear people,

First of all, thank you for the lively dialogue and the support for the
letter to President Rousseff.

She was quite happy to receive a congrats letter from CGI.br on her UN
speech, and thrilled when I handed our letter telling her it was signed
by more than 50 national and international CSOs in support of her
statement at the UN. And we managed to do it in two days!

Getting a warm hug from this valiant woman is no small thing, so I am
still recovering from that crucial meeting.

Attached is the PDF version of our document as delivered to her in print.

I have to mention that in her discourse on Friday (the occasion was the
launching of the new Portal Brasil -- brasil.gov.br --, still in beta)
she taught us  that, in relation to e-gov processes, each one of us
should be just the same individual, while the government is many
instances and different bureaucratic processes, and tends to treat us as
different people every time we need different services.

So, Rousseff said, the government ought to recognize this and treat each
citizen as the same individual who does not need to go through strenuous
specific procedures in order to obtain online government services. This
is the design philosophy of the new Portal Brasil.

Besides top ministers, the whole technical staff of Portal Brasil was at
the meeting.

fraternal regards

--c.a.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: letter_ISOs_dilma_rousseff_20130926.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 104141 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130928/37ae0a21/attachment.pdf>

From ca at cafonso.ca  Sat Sep 28 12:29:53 2013
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 13:29:53 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] Our statement gets to the Br media!
In-Reply-To: <D2FD8A18-8C63-44A5-812B-529C4B9DC957@gmail.com>
References: <D2FD8A18-8C63-44A5-812B-529C4B9DC957@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <52470401.90107@cafonso.ca>

Hi dear Carol, the right link is this:

http://convergenciadigital.uol.com.br/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?infoid=35003&sid=4#.UkcDoLOm1q8

Although there was a literal press army at the event, I did not know
they would take this. Fantastic!

[]s fraternos

--c.a.

On 09/28/2013 01:24 PM, Carolina wrote:
> http://www.convergenciadigital.uol.br/
> Dilma ganha apoio internacional por criticar EUA e defender Internet 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 

From gurstein at gmail.com  Sat Sep 28 12:47:20 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 09:47:20 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] Our statement gets to the Br media!
In-Reply-To: <52470401.90107@cafonso.ca>
References: <D2FD8A18-8C63-44A5-812B-529C4B9DC957@gmail.com> <52470401.90107@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <0a7d01cebc6a$66aa5fc0$33ff1f40$@gmail.com>

Here via GoogleTranslate is a translation of the statement (perhaps one of our Portuguese speaking colleagues might like to correct this for broader circulation.

M

Dilma wins international support for criticizing U.S. and defend Internet

Luis Osvaldo Grossmann ::
Digital Convergence :: 27.09.2013 ::

When claiming espionage and defend the Internet open, neutral and multi-stakeholder governance in his speech at the UN , Dilma Rousseff garnered attention and allies . In a letter to be delivered on Friday , 27/9 , 58 organizations from 14 countries , including the United States , expressing " strong support " to the words of the president .

In the letter , which can also be signed online ( bestbits.net/brazil-66-unga ) , institutions like consummers International , Electronic Frontier Foundation , Amnesty International , WWW Foundation , Nupef , Free Software Association and FGV " uplift " that Dilma has " taken a leadership role in these matters ."

" We endorse fully the five principles set out in clear agreement with the principles hallmarks of governance and use of the Internet in Brazil , we emphasize the importance of adopting the Marco Civil Internet , laud the courage to disapprove Brazil and charge U.S. explanations on interception illegal data and information, " the letter says.

In case, Dilma listed freedom of expression , privacy multilateral governance , cultural diversity and network neutrality . How did you describe on his Twitter the 'father ' of the Internet in Brazil , and a member of CGI , Demi Getschko " Dilma practically read the Decalogue of the CGI in the opening of the UN " .

Also according to what he told President Dilma on Tuesday in New York , the document , which also has individual subscriptions , argues that the Brazilian model of governance , similar to the Internet Management Committee in Brazil , " is extended to wider spheres . "

See the full text of the ' letter of international organizations of civil society to President Dilma Rousseff to support the speech at the 68th session of the General Assembly of the United Nations ' :

" We, the undersigned organizations and individuals around the world , committed to the development of the Internet and advances in its use for social and economic justice , we would like to express our strong support for the speech made this week by his Excellency the 68th session of the Assembly general of the United Nations . We praise you for taking a leadership role on these issues and would like to :

1. Fully endorse the five principles set out at the time , in clear agreement with the principles of the Brazilian Steering Committee for the governance and use of the Internet ;

2 . To underscore the importance of timely adoption of the Marco Civil Internet in the way that supports these principles and endorse the innovative and democratic process by which it was designed . "

3 . Praise the courage of Brazil expressing disapproval and U.S. demand explanations on the procedures of unlawful interception of information and data , framing them as a serious violation of human rights and civil liberties ;

4 . Strengthen our support for the extension to wider spheres of governance of the Internet experience of Brazilian multistakeholder model of governance, led by CGI.br.

We express our deep appreciation for their serious commitment to social justice and development , including an open Internet , stable and reliable is a cornerstone . "

Read the document : http://bestbits.net/brazil-66-unga/

-----Original Message-----
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso
Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 9:30 AM
To: Carolina; <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>; Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Our statement gets to the Br media!

Hi dear Carol, the right link is this:

http://convergenciadigital.uol.com.br/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?infoid=35003&sid=4#.UkcDoLOm1q8

Although there was a literal press army at the event, I did not know they would take this. Fantastic!

[]s fraternos

--c.a.

On 09/28/2013 01:24 PM, Carolina wrote:
> http://www.convergenciadigital.uol.br/
> Dilma ganha apoio internacional por criticar EUA e defender Internet
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 


From erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu  Sat Sep 28 14:06:34 2013
From: erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu (JOSEFSSON Erik)
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 20:06:34 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Vote on Monday! Snowden-Sakharov
Message-ID: <BFB8C54A55E15345AD245DB3CCC03538082FFBD9@EMAILBRUSV21.ep.parl.union.eu>

Dear all,

It takes time for the political machinery in the European Parliament to
process Snowden's revelations.

If you want to help speed that process up, please consider to tweet,
mail and blog about the nomination of Snowden for the Sakharov Prize.

*The decisive vote on candidates is on Monday 30 September.**
*
Article19 article:
http://www.article19.org/join-the-debate.php/111/view/

DFRI letter to MEPs:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.user-groups.dfri/765

Private tweet:
https://twitter.com/erikjosefsson/status/383502328407400449

Best regards.

//Erik


-- 
Erik Josefsson
Advisor on Internet Policies
Greens/EFA Group
<http://www.greens-efa.eu/36-details/josefsson-erik-138.html>
GSM: *+32484082063*
BXL: PHS 04C075 TEL: +3222832667
SBG: WIC M03005 TEL: +33388173776
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130928/74d551da/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 897 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130928/74d551da/attachment.sig>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Sep  3 12:46:58 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2013 22:16:58 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] IGF plus
In-Reply-To: <52244A96.5060702@ciroap.org>
References: <CE429C24.2DD22%andrew@gp-digital.org> <521CDF2E.7000705@itforchange.net> <52244A96.5060702@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <52261282.5070305@itforchange.net>

Jeremy

My impression was that just a draft of the programhas been put forward 
and it has still to go through discussions and approval of the group 
before finalisation.. Is my impression right?

On the presumption that it is yet only a draft - I really  think we 
should have at least a full half session on what really is 
multistakeholderism. And that subject alone. I really am not sure what 
most people here think it is . There is this silence zone around its 
theory and practice. I have raised the question often. I think if there 
is one difference that groups like IT for Change have with many other 
groups in the IG space, it is about an understanding of MSism... And 
while there can be real political differences, I dont see why we should 
have such technical differences, just on the meaning and understanding 
of terms. Lets try to thrash it out forever. And we can start this 
discussion here itself, on this list. Importantly, I saw strong support 
on this list for a specific discussion on what is MSism. I think these 
views should be respected.

I also want the session on ITU plus WSIS 10 to rather on Public policy 
making on global IG.... The responses to questionaire issued by the WG 
on enhanced cooperation by ISOC, ICC, and many developing countries cite 
OECD as one important place where global Internet policy making takes 
place. At least now can we take it that indeed a lot of Internet policy 
making takes place in OECD. (See the posting today on the IGC list 
declaring a project implementing - globally - some parts of the OECD 
Principles for Internet Policy Making). why do we only keep asking 
questions of UN based Internet policy processes, and not from places 
where some real policy making takes place.... We should discuss OECD's 
*global* Internet policy making processes as well. And if we want the 
IEG (Informal Experts Group) as the standard model by which ITU whould 
do its Internet related polciy work, why do we hesitate to tell OECD 
that it should use the same model, and none else.... What I suggesting 
here is - Name this session - Where does global Internet policy making 
take place, how, and what should CS do.

Thirdly, despite repeated appeals, I dont know why are we not ready to 
to name session three directly as NSA or Snowden issue (something stated 
a little better). The world thinks that global IG has changed forever 
because of what Snowden has told us about NSA.... That is not just the 
regular surveillance issue, that we have been talking in all IGFs and 
should keep doing. There is a clear Snowden impact on the global 
Internet - a huge impact. And we need to specifically discuss what this 
impact is, and how US has to be confronted in its (still largely 
unapologetic) global surveillance. That is a specific issue. And Again I 
saw great support for discussing this particular issue at length, but in 
the current draft this issue seem to be hidden as about one sixth of a 
session, that too without mentioning the main actors, NSA, US gov and 
Snowden.

thanks. parminder


On Monday 02 September 2013 01:51 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 28/08/2013, at 3:17 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>> Fully support this. Lets give one full day to this...
>
> (Sorry for the delayed response, I've been travelling until my return 
> to the office today.)  We don't have one full day available for this 
> at the Best Bits meeting, unless we take out other things that people 
> want to do, but I've added this as a sub-item to the draft agenda for 
> Bali for the Day 1 morning, under the rather broad heading "Global 
> Internet governance principles, enhanced cooperation and the IGF".
>
> Since you (and Valeria) are nominated as facilitators of that session, 
> you can guide us in suggesting the appropriate emphasis between 
> sub-topics for discussion.  Most surely, we could spend a full week 
> rather than two days if we were to cover everything in the depth it 
> deserves.
>
> I'll also follow up directly with the two of you (and the steering 
> committee, and separately the other nominated facilitators) about 
> this.  Meanwhile I'm working on getting the registration system going, 
> and Access are working on crowd funding for those who need support to 
> participate.
>
> -- 
>
> *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
>
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge 
> hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/> | 
> 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.
>
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For 
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130903/22493bef/attachment.htm>

From katitza at eff.org  Sat Sep 28 19:25:39 2013
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 19:25:39 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] reporting to base...
In-Reply-To: <5247035C.3040606@cafonso.ca>
References: <5247035C.3040606@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <52476573.9050601@eff.org>

sounds like a unique ID for egovt purposes! :D

On 9/28/13 12:27 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
> So, Rousseff said, the government ought to recognize this and treat each
> citizen as the same individual who does not need to go through strenuous
> specific procedures in order to obtain online government services. This
> is the design philosophy of the new Portal Brasil.


-- 
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom
of speech since 1990

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 527 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130928/6efeb513/attachment.sig>

From nb at bollow.ch  Sat Sep 28 19:58:08 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 01:58:08 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] reporting to base...
In-Reply-To: <5247035C.3040606@cafonso.ca>
References: <5247035C.3040606@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <20130929015808.6cf47fe4@swan.bollow.ch>

Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:

> Attached is the PDF version of our document as delivered to her in
> print.

Thanks!

Attached now to
http://igcaucus.org/letter-international-civil-society-organizations-president-dilma-rousseff-support-her-statement-68th

Greetings,
Norbert

From ca at cafonso.ca  Sat Sep 28 22:00:00 2013
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 23:00:00 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] reporting to base...
In-Reply-To: <52476573.9050601@eff.org>
References: <5247035C.3040606@cafonso.ca> <52476573.9050601@eff.org>
Message-ID: <2C064A3B-7254-4070-A8A8-A79A31E7A183@cafonso.ca>

No, we already have that for decades in BR (it is called CPF). The new Portal is an attempt to streamline online federal services.

sent from a dumbphone

> On 28/09/2013, at 20:25, Katitza Rodriguez <katitza at eff.org> wrote:
> 
> sounds like a unique ID for egovt purposes! :D
> 
>> On 9/28/13 12:27 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>> So, Rousseff said, the government ought to recognize this and treat each
>> citizen as the same individual who does not need to go through strenuous
>> specific procedures in order to obtain online government services. This
>> is the design philosophy of the new Portal Brasil.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Katitza Rodriguez
> International Rights Director
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> katitza at eff.org
> katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)
> 
> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom
> of speech since 1990
> 

From gurstein at gmail.com  Sun Sep 29 11:46:42 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 08:46:42 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] After Snowden Leaks, Countries Want Digital Privacy
 Enshrined in Human Rights Treaty
Message-ID: <00b301cebd2b$186c09a0$49441ce0$@gmail.com>

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/09/26/article_17_surveillance_u
pdate_countries_want_digital_privacy_in_the_iccpr.html


From joana at varonferraz.com  Sun Sep 29 17:07:10 2013
From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon)
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 23:07:10 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Our statement gets to the Br media!
In-Reply-To: <0a7d01cebc6a$66aa5fc0$33ff1f40$@gmail.com>
References: <D2FD8A18-8C63-44A5-812B-529C4B9DC957@gmail.com>
 <52470401.90107@cafonso.ca> <0a7d01cebc6a$66aa5fc0$33ff1f40$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALTAiTphpm5x-fow9GdbUcBemrNngc8xC9mnjthU8B1mhqq9WA@mail.gmail.com>

Nice one!

Carlos, the reporter in case, also know as "ruivo", was previously briefed
by the email I've sent him, Ccing you, remember?
I think we shall take this strategy (always reaching friendly press
representatives in advance) in mind for our major outreach activities.

cheers

joana

-- 

Joana Varon Ferraz
@joana_varon
PGP 0x016B8E73


On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 6:47 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>wrote:

> Here via GoogleTranslate is a translation of the statement (perhaps one of
> our Portuguese speaking colleagues might like to correct this for broader
> circulation.
>
> M
>
> Dilma wins international support for criticizing U.S. and defend Internet
>
> Luis Osvaldo Grossmann ::
> Digital Convergence :: 27.09.2013 ::
>
> When claiming espionage and defend the Internet open, neutral and
> multi-stakeholder governance in his speech at the UN , Dilma Rousseff
> garnered attention and allies . In a letter to be delivered on Friday ,
> 27/9 , 58 organizations from 14 countries , including the United States ,
> expressing " strong support " to the words of the president .
>
> In the letter , which can also be signed online (
> bestbits.net/brazil-66-unga ) , institutions like consummers
> International , Electronic Frontier Foundation , Amnesty International ,
> WWW Foundation , Nupef , Free Software Association and FGV " uplift " that
> Dilma has " taken a leadership role in these matters ."
>
> " We endorse fully the five principles set out in clear agreement with the
> principles hallmarks of governance and use of the Internet in Brazil , we
> emphasize the importance of adopting the Marco Civil Internet , laud the
> courage to disapprove Brazil and charge U.S. explanations on interception
> illegal data and information, " the letter says.
>
> In case, Dilma listed freedom of expression , privacy multilateral
> governance , cultural diversity and network neutrality . How did you
> describe on his Twitter the 'father ' of the Internet in Brazil , and a
> member of CGI , Demi Getschko " Dilma practically read the Decalogue of the
> CGI in the opening of the UN " .
>
> Also according to what he told President Dilma on Tuesday in New York ,
> the document , which also has individual subscriptions , argues that the
> Brazilian model of governance , similar to the Internet Management
> Committee in Brazil , " is extended to wider spheres . "
>
> See the full text of the ' letter of international organizations of civil
> society to President Dilma Rousseff to support the speech at the 68th
> session of the General Assembly of the United Nations ' :
>
> " We, the undersigned organizations and individuals around the world ,
> committed to the development of the Internet and advances in its use for
> social and economic justice , we would like to express our strong support
> for the speech made this week by his Excellency the 68th session of the
> Assembly general of the United Nations . We praise you for taking a
> leadership role on these issues and would like to :
>
> 1. Fully endorse the five principles set out at the time , in clear
> agreement with the principles of the Brazilian Steering Committee for the
> governance and use of the Internet ;
>
> 2 . To underscore the importance of timely adoption of the Marco Civil
> Internet in the way that supports these principles and endorse the
> innovative and democratic process by which it was designed . "
>
> 3 . Praise the courage of Brazil expressing disapproval and U.S. demand
> explanations on the procedures of unlawful interception of information and
> data , framing them as a serious violation of human rights and civil
> liberties ;
>
> 4 . Strengthen our support for the extension to wider spheres of
> governance of the Internet experience of Brazilian multistakeholder model
> of governance, led by CGI.br.
>
> We express our deep appreciation for their serious commitment to social
> justice and development , including an open Internet , stable and reliable
> is a cornerstone . "
>
> Read the document : http://bestbits.net/brazil-66-unga/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:
> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso
> Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 9:30 AM
> To: Carolina; <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>; Civil Society Internet
> Governance Caucus - IGC
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Our statement gets to the Br media!
>
> Hi dear Carol, the right link is this:
>
>
> http://convergenciadigital.uol.com.br/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?infoid=35003&sid=4#.UkcDoLOm1q8
>
> Although there was a literal press army at the event, I did not know they
> would take this. Fantastic!
>
> []s fraternos
>
> --c.a.
>
> On 09/28/2013 01:24 PM, Carolina wrote:
> > http://www.convergenciadigital.uol.br/
> > Dilma ganha apoio internacional por criticar EUA e defender Internet
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
>
>


--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130929/f45bf080/attachment.htm>

From deborah at accessnow.org  Mon Sep 30 11:17:32 2013
From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown)
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 11:17:32 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] WSIS MPP Submissions deadline extended to 30 September
 2013 (Midnight Geneva time).
Message-ID: <CALU7RQad=OoxMbZ7i93XT_nXCg-TxuY4eM453P5-p57_AfD21A@mail.gmail.com>

It seems that the deadline has been further extended to 30 September 2013
(Midnight Geneva time), so in a few hours from now:
http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/mpp/
Cheers,
Deborah


On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Anne Jellema <anne at webfoundation.org>wrote:

> Just found this on the website, http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/mpp/
> cheers
> A
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130930/32be43e3/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Sep  3 12:57:36 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2013 22:27:36 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] IGF plus
In-Reply-To: <52261282.5070305@itforchange.net>
References: <CE429C24.2DD22%andrew@gp-digital.org> <521CDF2E.7000705@itforchange.net> <52244A96.5060702@ciroap.org> <52261282.5070305@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <52261500.1070905@itforchange.net>


On Tuesday 03 September 2013 10:16 PM, parminder wrote:
> Jeremy
>
> My impression was that just a draft of the programhas been put forward 
> and it has still to go through discussions and approval of the group 
> before finalisation.. Is my impression right?
>
> On the presumption that it is yet only a draft - I really  think we 
> should have at least a full half session on what really is 
> multistakeholderism. And that subject alone. I really am not sure what 
> most people here think it is . There is this silence zone around its 
> theory and practice. I have raised the question often. I think if 
> there is one difference that groups like IT for Change have with many 
> other groups in the IG space, it is about an understanding of MSism... 
> And while there can be real political differences, I dont see why we 
> should have such technical differences, just on the meaning and 
> understanding of terms. Lets try to thrash it out forever. And we can 
> start this discussion here itself, on this list. Importantly, I saw 
> strong support on this list for a specific discussion on what is 
> MSism. I think these views should be respected.
>
> I also want the session on ITU plus WSIS 10 to rather on Public policy 
> making on global IG.... The responses to questionaire issued by the WG 
> on enhanced cooperation by ISOC, ICC, and many developing countries

sorry, i meant developed countries

> cite OECD as one important place where global Internet policy making 
> takes place. At least now can we take it that indeed a lot of Internet 
> policy making takes place in OECD. (See the posting today on the IGC 
> list declaring a project implementing - globally - some parts of the 
> OECD Principles for Internet Policy Making). why do we only keep 
> asking questions of UN based Internet policy processes, and not from 
> places where some real policy making takes place.... We should discuss 
> OECD's *global* Internet policy making processes as well. And if we 
> want the IEG (Informal Experts Group) as the standard model by which 
> ITU whould do its Internet related polciy work, why do we hesitate to 
> tell OECD that it should use the same model, and none else.... What I 
> suggesting here is - Name this session - Where does global Internet 
> policy making take place, how, and what should CS do.
>
> Thirdly, despite repeated appeals, I dont know why are we not ready to 
> to name session three directly as NSA or Snowden issue (something 
> stated a little better). The world thinks that global IG has changed 
> forever because of what Snowden has told us about NSA.... That is not 
> just the regular surveillance issue, that we have been talking in all 
> IGFs and should keep doing. There is a clear Snowden impact on the 
> global Internet - a huge impact. And we need to specifically discuss 
> what this impact is, and how US has to be confronted in its (still 
> largely unapologetic) global surveillance. That is a specific issue. 
> And Again I saw great support for discussing this particular issue at 
> length, but in the current draft this issue seem to be hidden as about 
> one sixth of a session, that too without mentioning the main actors, 
> NSA, US gov and Snowden.
>
> thanks. parminder
>
>
> On Monday 02 September 2013 01:51 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> On 28/08/2013, at 3:17 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Fully support this. Lets give one full day to this...
>>
>> (Sorry for the delayed response, I've been travelling until my return 
>> to the office today.)  We don't have one full day available for this 
>> at the Best Bits meeting, unless we take out other things that people 
>> want to do, but I've added this as a sub-item to the draft agenda for 
>> Bali for the Day 1 morning, under the rather broad heading "Global 
>> Internet governance principles, enhanced cooperation and the IGF".
>>
>> Since you (and Valeria) are nominated as facilitators of that 
>> session, you can guide us in suggesting the appropriate emphasis 
>> between sub-topics for discussion.  Most surely, we could spend a 
>> full week rather than two days if we were to cover everything in the 
>> depth it deserves.
>>
>> I'll also follow up directly with the two of you (and the steering 
>> committee, and separately the other nominated facilitators) about 
>> this.  Meanwhile I'm working on getting the registration system 
>> going, and Access are working on crowd funding for those who need 
>> support to participate.
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> *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
>>
>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement 
>> knowledge hub 
>> |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>>
>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org 
>> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/> | 
>> 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.
>>
>> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
>> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For 
>> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>>
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130903/1418bd46/attachment.htm>

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Tue Sep  3 15:48:47 2013
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 01:18:47 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] IGF plus
In-Reply-To: <52261500.1070905@itforchange.net>
References: <CE429C24.2DD22%andrew@gp-digital.org>
	<521CDF2E.7000705@itforchange.net>
	<52244A96.5060702@ciroap.org>
	<52261282.5070305@itforchange.net>
	<52261500.1070905@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHBKOC7ystAAsND4TZPtOTkyT833RiY2BFx_QvCOexQnqQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Parminder and all,

I wanted to chip in and share my thinking on two issues.

1. I believe it is very important that the ITU and WSIS+10 are kept in the
agenda as explicit, focused agenda items, and that we spend some time
discussing and planning for the processes around them. To my mind, these
are among the most important places where states at present are already
trying to play out their views on enhanced cooperation in practice, with
rather important consequences for civil society (I wrote about this earlier
here:http://beta.internetdemocracy.in/2013/07/pawns-in-a-governments-game/).
In general, they are also two processes that are likely to have a real
outcome for Internet governance. It is important that civil society is
aware and informed, and that at least some of us are also closely involved
(the ITU also happens to be the process around which Best Bits came into
its own, and I think it would be foolish of us to now retreat from whatever
little inroads or impact we have made).

2. The reason I proposed to Jeremy that we make the first day one long
session (with perhaps a discussion of EC, ITU and WSIS in the morning and
of multistakeholderism in the afternoon) is because I believe that the
question of how we see multistakeholderism is sharpened by our engagements
in these concrete policy fora and how we plan to move forward in them,
while at the same time our engagement with these fora is of course also to
some extent determined by the visions and views we have when we enter them.
In that sense I think that by contextualising the discussion on MS within
those debates, the chances that we move forward are far greater, if not in
terms of coming to a joint position, then at least in terms of
understanding we all take the positions that we take.

One of the specific aims of Best Bits is that it should aid civil society
not only in having important discussions, but also in getting concrete work
done. By framing the agenda for our two days in Bali in the above manner,
we can maximise our outcomes on both counts.

Best regards,
Anja


On 3 September 2013 22:27, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

>
> On Tuesday 03 September 2013 10:16 PM, parminder wrote:
>
> Jeremy
>
> My impression was that just a draft of the program has been put forward
> and it has still to go through discussions and approval of the group before
> finalisation.. Is my impression right?
>
> On the presumption that it is yet only a draft - I really  think we should
> have at least a full half session on what really is multistakeholderism.
> And that subject alone. I really am not sure what most people here think it
> is . There is this silence zone around its theory and practice. I have
> raised the question often. I think if there is one difference that groups
> like IT for Change have with many other groups in the IG space, it is about
> an understanding of MSism... And while there can be real political
> differences, I dont see why we should have such technical differences, just
> on the meaning and understanding of terms. Lets try to thrash it out
> forever. And we can start this discussion here itself, on this list.
> Importantly, I saw strong support on this list for a specific discussion on
> what is MSism. I think these views should be respected.
>
> I also want the session on ITU plus WSIS 10 to rather on Public policy
> making on global IG.... The responses to questionaire issued by the WG on
> enhanced cooperation by ISOC, ICC, and many developing countries
>
>
> sorry, i meant developed countries
>
>  cite OECD as one important place where global Internet policy making
> takes place. At least now can we take it that indeed a lot of Internet
> policy making takes place in OECD. (See the posting today on the IGC list
> declaring a project implementing - globally - some parts of the OECD
> Principles for Internet Policy Making). why do we only keep asking
> questions of UN based Internet policy processes, and not from places where
> some real policy making takes place.... We should discuss OECD's *global*
> Internet policy making processes as well. And if we want the IEG (Informal
> Experts Group) as the standard model by which ITU whould do its Internet
> related polciy work, why do we hesitate to tell OECD that it should use the
> same model, and none else.... What I suggesting here is - Name this session
> - Where does global Internet policy making take place, how, and what should
> CS do.
>
> Thirdly, despite repeated appeals, I dont know why are we not ready to to
> name session three directly as NSA or Snowden issue (something stated a
> little better). The world thinks that global IG has changed forever because
> of what Snowden has told us about NSA.... That is not just the regular
> surveillance issue, that we have been talking in all IGFs and should keep
> doing. There is a clear Snowden impact on the global Internet - a huge
> impact. And we need to specifically discuss what this impact is, and how US
> has to be confronted in its (still largely unapologetic) global
> surveillance. That is a specific issue. And Again I saw great support for
> discussing this particular issue at length, but in the current draft this
> issue seem to be hidden as about one sixth of a session, that too without
> mentioning the main actors, NSA, US gov and Snowden.
>
> thanks. parminder
>
>
>  On Monday 02 September 2013 01:51 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
>  On 28/08/2013, at 3:17 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net><parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:
>
>  Fully support this. Lets give one full day to this...
>
>
>  (Sorry for the delayed response, I've been travelling until my return to
> the office today.)  We don't have one full day available for this at the
> Best Bits meeting, unless we take out other things that people want to do,
> but I've added this as a sub-item to the draft agenda for Bali for the Day
> 1 morning, under the rather broad heading "Global Internet governance
> principles, enhanced cooperation and the IGF".
>
> Since you (and Valeria) are nominated as facilitators of that session, you
> can guide us in suggesting the appropriate emphasis between sub-topics for
> discussion.  Most surely, we could spend a full week rather than two days
> if we were to cover everything in the depth it deserves.
>
> I'll also follow up directly with the two of you (and the steering
> committee, and separately the other nominated facilitators) about this.
> Meanwhile I'm working on getting the registration system going, and Access
> are working on crowd funding for those who need support to participate.
>
>      --
>
> *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
>
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub
> |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>
>
>
>


-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130904/2cd8b000/attachment.htm>

From avri at acm.org  Tue Sep  3 16:07:47 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 16:07:47 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] IGF plus
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHBKOC7ystAAsND4TZPtOTkyT833RiY2BFx_QvCOexQnqQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CE429C24.2DD22%andrew@gp-digital.org> <521CDF2E.7000705@itforchange.net> <52244A96.5060702@ciroap.org> <52261282.5070305@itforchange.net> <52261500.1070905@itforchange.net> <CAJqNAHBKOC7ystAAsND4TZPtOTkyT833RiY2BFx_QvCOexQnqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B6749681-0CF4-4943-999F-21053A20909B@acm.org>

Hi,

I think this is a good framing.  The only thing I would recommend adding to the specific aims, is preparation for the IGF itself - specific action/statement for the sessions and workshops to be held in the following days.

avri


On 3 Sep 2013, at 15:48, Anja Kovacs wrote:

> I wanted to chip in and share my thinking on two issues.
> 
> 1. I believe it is very important that the ITU and WSIS+10 are kept in the agenda as explicit, focused agenda items, and that we spend some time discussing and planning for the processes around them. To my mind, these are among the most important places where states at present are already trying to play out their views on enhanced cooperation in practice, with rather important consequences for civil society (I wrote about this earlier here:http://beta.internetdemocracy.in/2013/07/pawns-in-a-governments-game/). In general, they are also two processes that are likely to have a real outcome for Internet governance. It is important that civil society is aware and informed, and that at least some of us are also closely involved (the ITU also happens to be the process around which Best Bits came into its own, and I think it would be foolish of us to now retreat from whatever little inroads or impact we have made).
> 
> 2. The reason I proposed to Jeremy that we make the first day one long session (with perhaps a discussion of EC, ITU and WSIS in the morning and of multistakeholderism in the afternoon) is because I believe that the question of how we see multistakeholderism is sharpened by our engagements in these concrete policy fora and how we plan to move forward in them, while at the same time our engagement with these fora is of course also to some extent determined by the visions and views we have when we enter them. In that sense I think that by contextualising the discussion on MS within those debates, the chances that we move forward are far greater, if not in terms of coming to a joint position, then at least in terms of understanding we all take the positions that we take.
> 
> One of the specific aims of Best Bits is that it should aid civil society not only in having important discussions, but also in getting concrete work done. By framing the agenda for our two days in Bali in the above manner, we can maximise our outcomes on both counts.  
> 
> Best regards,
> Anja


From valeriab at apc.org  Tue Sep  3 16:14:46 2013
From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 15:14:46 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] IGF plus
In-Reply-To: <B6749681-0CF4-4943-999F-21053A20909B@acm.org>
References: <CE429C24.2DD22%andrew@gp-digital.org> <521CDF2E.7000705@itforchange.net> <52244A96.5060702@ciroap.org> <52261282.5070305@itforchange.net> <52261500.1070905@itforchange.net> <CAJqNAHBKOC7ystAAsND4TZPtOTkyT833RiY2BFx_QvCOexQnqQ@mail.gmail.com> <B6749681-0CF4-4943-999F-21053A20909B@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CC50F47F-1C7A-4D23-AE99-4144FFACEF22@apc.org>

Hi all,

I concur with Anja and Avri.

Valeria


On 03/09/2013, at 15:07, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I think this is a good framing.  The only thing I would recommend  
> adding to the specific aims, is preparation for the IGF itself -  
> specific action/statement for the sessions and workshops to be held  
> in the following days.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 3 Sep 2013, at 15:48, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>
>> I wanted to chip in and share my thinking on two issues.
>>
>> 1. I believe it is very important that the ITU and WSIS+10 are kept  
>> in the agenda as explicit, focused agenda items, and that we spend  
>> some time discussing and planning for the processes around them. To  
>> my mind, these are among the most important places where states at  
>> present are already trying to play out their views on enhanced  
>> cooperation in practice, with rather important consequences for  
>> civil society (I wrote about this earlier here:http://beta.internetdemocracy.in/2013/07/pawns-in-a-governments-game/) 
>> . In general, they are also two processes that are likely to have a  
>> real outcome for Internet governance. It is important that civil  
>> society is aware and informed, and that at least some of us are  
>> also closely involved (the ITU also happens to be the process  
>> around which Best Bits came into its own, and I think it would be  
>> foolish of us to now retreat from whatever little inroads or impact  
>> we have made).
>>
>> 2. The reason I proposed to Jeremy that we make the first day one  
>> long session (with perhaps a discussion of EC, ITU and WSIS in the  
>> morning and of multistakeholderism in the afternoon) is because I  
>> believe that the question of how we see multistakeholderism is  
>> sharpened by our engagements in these concrete policy fora and how  
>> we plan to move forward in them, while at the same time our  
>> engagement with these fora is of course also to some extent  
>> determined by the visions and views we have when we enter them. In  
>> that sense I think that by contextualising the discussion on MS  
>> within those debates, the chances that we move forward are far  
>> greater, if not in terms of coming to a joint position, then at  
>> least in terms of understanding we all take the positions that we  
>> take.
>>
>> One of the specific aims of Best Bits is that it should aid civil  
>> society not only in having important discussions, but also in  
>> getting concrete work done. By framing the agenda for our two days  
>> in Bali in the above manner, we can maximise our outcomes on both  
>> counts.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Anja
>


From andrew at torproject.is  Tue Sep  3 12:31:06 2013
From: andrew at torproject.is (Andrew Lewman)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 12:31:06 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_=5Bliberationtech=5D_Call_for_Tenders_?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?SMART_2013/N004_=E2=80=9CEuropean_Capability_for_Situational_Aw?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?areness=E2=80=9D_=28ECSA=29_-_European_Federation_for_cyber-cen?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?sorship_and_human_rights_monitoring?=
In-Reply-To: <B947C187D5C52B4B9C0DBC45FF88501849F0300C@S-DC-ESTG04-B.net1.cec.eu.int>
References: <B947C187D5C52B4B9C0DBC45FF88501849F0300C@S-DC-ESTG04-B.net1.cec.eu.int>
Message-ID: <20130903123106.085fe504@kilik>

On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 15:27:19 +0000
<Camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu> wrote:
> You will find all the relevant information (invitation to the tender,
> tender specifications and model contract) in the following link:
> 
> http://bit.ly/16E6sfG

It seems your website is blocking access from the very tools you're
trying to fund and create. I just tried access via Tor, ipredator vpn,
and hotspot shield. All received the following message:

"Access Denied

Your request has been denied for security reason."

Perhaps you need a freedom reason to allow access.

-- 
Andrew
http://tpo.is/contact
pgp 0x6B4D6475

From Camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu  Tue Sep  3 11:27:19 2013
From: Camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu (Camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 15:27:19 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Call_for_Tenders_SMART_2013/N004_=93E?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?uropean_Capability_for_Situational_Awareness=94_=28ECSA?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?=29_-_European_Federation_for_cyber-censorship_and_human?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?_rights_monitoring?=
Message-ID: <B947C187D5C52B4B9C0DBC45FF88501849F0300C@S-DC-ESTG04-B.net1.cec.eu.int>

Dear colleagues (and some friends in the lists),


The purpose of this email is to inform you of the recent publication of the Call for Tenders SMART 2013/N004 “European Capability for Situational Awareness” (ECSA). If you are interested in this contract, you should submit your tender no later than 26/09/2013.


You will find all the relevant information (invitation to the tender, tender specifications and model contract) in the following link:

http://bit.ly/16E6sfG


At the initiative of the Directorate General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology (DG CONNECT), in close cooperation with other European Commission services (DG Development and Cooperation and DG Enterprise) and the European External Action Service (EEAS), the European Commission has put in place the No-Disconnect Strategy.1 The goal of this policy toolkit is to provide on-going support to counter-censorship and surveillance to facilitate the role of activists, political dissidents, bloggers, journalists and citizens living and/or operating in high-risk environments, or elsewhere. This way we make operational our commitment to uphold human rights and fundamental freedoms online and support that the No-Disconnect Strategy embraces the wider EU strategy for Human Rights.2


For those who are not yet familiar with the Strategy, its four main strands of activity are: (1) development of technological tools; (2) training/awareness and capacity building; (3) development of methods to provide a global capability for situational awareness; and (4) cooperation with the ICT/Internet industry, EU Member States and third countries, also involved in the protection of online freedom of expression and privacy.


The tender "European capability for situational awareness" (ECSA) is aimed at providing to the European Commission the framework and information necessary to evaluate the creation of a wider European Federation for cyber-censorship and human rights monitoring, and the underlying system infrastructure required to that end.


To achieve this objective, the ICT-PSP Work Programme 2013 will support the development of the ECSA platform with an allocation of approximately EUR 400,000 for the initial phase (conceptualization of the platform according to the conditions seth forth in the tender specifications that you will find in the link above, and the design of a first prototype of the systems infrastructure and interactive map).


The idea departed partially from the “OECD Communiqué on Principles for Internet Policy Making”, in particular the following two ones:

  *   “Develop capacities to bring publicly available, reliable data into the policy-making process. Publicly available data can increase the quality of all stakeholders’ participation in Internet policy- making as well as governments’ ultimate policy decisions. The collection, validation and public dissemination of objective data to inform Internet policy decisions should be reinforced and used to augment the combined research capacities of governments, other competent authorities and other stakeholders. International comparable metrics will help to quantify the ongoing economic developments and assess the proportionality and effectiveness of any policy solutions created in multi-stakeholder processes. Data gathering should be undertaken so as to avoid administrative burdens and data analysis should be done carefully to enable sound policymaking.”

  *   “Transparency, fair process, and accountability. In order to build public trust in the Internet environment, policy-making processes and substantive policies that ensure transparency, fair process, and accountability should be encouraged. Transparency ensures that Internet users have timely, accessible, and actionable information that is relevant to their rights and interests”.

Is in this context in which we realized that a tool enabling evidence-based policy-making and transparency related, in this case, to censorship and surveillance, could also provide situational awareness not only to EU policy and decision makers but also to those affected directly by the aforementioned restrictions, maximizing their empowerment: political dissidents, activists, human rights defenders, bloggers, journalists and several other essential actors in the fight for online (and offline) freedom.


Now, shifting the focus of this email to the tender itself, the tasks outlined in the tender specifications (http://bit.ly/16E6sfG) will address, among several other things, the definition of the governance framework and systems infrastructure that should govern and support the operations of the federation of organizations that tenderers will have to propose, taking into account that all sorts of expertise on Internet-event monitoring will be needed.


With the view to translate the Internet reality into a “cartography” of cyber-censorship and cyber-surveillance, the federation will be anchored in a dynamic platform -controlled from a dashboard-, where the aforementioned federated network of partners with Internet and censorship/surveillance monitoring capabilities will aggregate a variety of clearly defined sets of data (including Open Data and Big Data) coming from several sources and stakeholders.


We expect this project to provide reliable and real time or near-real time information on the status of network connectivity and network traffic alterations/restrictions, as well as timely information on legal, social and political developments related to the use of the Internet and media for the exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms.


As it seems obvious, the gathering of data (and in some cases of information) will be related to the location and intensity of cyber-censorship and surveillance in non-democratic countries, nascent democracies, jurisdictions where human rights are most at risk or other parts of the globe where similar trends have been arising in recent times.


The data gathering will have two tracks: the first one addressing restrictions/disruptions of Internet and ICT infrastructure, access, traffic, content, Internet cut-offs or security events, inter alia, overlaid with a second track of contextual data of political, social, legal, regulatory, policy, media, journalistic or human rights nature, related to the Internet or not and with a global scope, which would help provide the full picture and enable the EU and other actors to swiftly act upon reliable and timely information. Examples of this second track could be arrests of journalists, restrictions on freedom of expression in times of elections, laws affecting Internet openness, crack-downs on activists or restriction to NGO´s establishment, to name a few.


That near-real time information will be mashed-up and controlled from the dashboard, and presented in a user-friendly manner, ideally in different layers (thematic, geographic, highly troubled areas, etc.) through interactive visualizations via live maps as an essential condition, coupled with the generation of alarms; subject-matter reports and geographical reports. As you will see in the tender, new ways of dissemination of information are most welcome.


As highlighted before, this type of capability is expected to enhance the current EU´s early-warning, decision-making and policy-making skills and strengthen the level of situational awareness of, but not limited to, stakeholders such as digital activists or human rights defenders, but even researchers.


In particular, the tasks you will find in the tender are:


Task 1 Creation of an Internet censorship monitoring Federation

Task 2 Provision of a Data Sources catalogue

Task 3 Definition of a Data Governance Framework

Task 4 Definition of the technical and infrastructure specifications, features and functionalities (including security measures)

Task 5 Recommendations


Some of the expected positive impacts of ECSA we can name are as follows: (1) Ensuring Internet resilience and stability; (2) Reinforcement of early-warning capabilities and emergency response concerning events affecting human rights, legal, policy and media restrictions; (3) Better measurement of the evolution of non-democratic environments to democratic ones ("democracy thermometer"); (4) Better exchange of information and capacity building among relevant stakeholders; (5) Better response in case of attacks to human rights and activists networks; (6) Creation of a body of knowledge at the disposal of academics and researchers, as well as of the general public (Open Science); (7) Publication of timely reports and alarms on relevant Internet and human rights related events (including activity and threat reports); (8) Support to the implementation of Human Rights-based approaches; (9) Optimization of resources and tailored targeted grant support in areas where human rights are most at risk in terms of cyber censorship and surveillance; (10) Reinforcement of capabilities to ensure global Internet connectivity; (11) Provide (new) methods for network measurement; (12) Provision of a new source of information about Internet security and infrastructure incidents; or (13) Provision of capabilities for crisis mapping, among others.


In Part 1 of the Tender specifications you will find the Technical Description, containing the general context, the specific context and examples of organisations and existing projects in the area of Internet monitoring (whereby some of your projects we regularly observe are mentioned).


As regards the Elegibility Criteria, we recommend you to have a look in detail at Part 2 of the Tender Specifications containing the Administrative Details, in particular Section 1 “Elegibility requirements”; Section 2 “Administrative Requirements”; Section 5.2 “Selection Criteria” and Section 5.3 “Award Criteria”.


At the request of tenderers, additional information will be communicated solely for the purpose of clarifying the nature of the contract and the tender specifications. Such information will have to be communicated on the same date to all interested parties hence your questions will be published in the link referred to in the document “invitation to the tender” (https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/news-redirect/l1626). This means that for whatever doubt you may have, you can write directly to camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu<mailto:camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu> (copying our functional mailbox CNECT-D1 at ec.europa.eu<mailto:CNECT-D1 at ec.europa.eu>). We will do so for transparency reasons and to guarantee equal competition, making publicly available both, question and answers.


The opening of received tenders will take place on 10/10/2013 at 10.00h in the Commission building located in Avenue de Beaulieu 25, Brussels. One authorised representative of each tenderer may attend such opening. Tenderers who plan to attend the opening session have to inform me (Ms Camino Manjon Sierra) by e-mail camino.MANJON@,ec.europa.eu; by fax (+32 2 296 89 70) or letter at least 72h in advance.


I advance a clerical mistake in the section referring to the information to be stated in the outer envelope when you send us over your tenders: "INVITATION TO TENDER SMART 2013/N004 / FULL OJ REF" "NOT TO BE OPENED BY THE MESSENGER/COURIER SERVICE" "NOT TO BE OPENED BY THE OPENING COMMITTEE BEFORE 16/9/2013", where 16/9/2013 should be 26/09/2013.


As a closing, I would like to sincerely thank my colleague and mentor Andrea Glorioso for his support in the firs steps of this complex project and for conducting our European Capability Situational Awareness workshop celebrated in November 2012, when due to a contractual pause before my current position in the European Commission I could not be on the driving seat or provide any out of the box thinking!


I take the opportunity to also sincerely thank all those organizations which took part in the workshop (Agenda available at http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf//document.cfm?doc_id=1094).


We look forward to receiving your proposals and we thank you all for the good inspiration that your work has meant for us.


1<https://remi.webmail.ec.europa.eu/owa/14.2.342.3/scripts/premium/blank.htm#sdfootnote1anc>http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/neelie-kroes/eu-fighting-cybercensorship/

2<https://remi.webmail.ec.europa.eu/owa/14.2.342.3/scripts/premium/blank.htm#sdfootnote2anc>http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/131181.pdf



Best regards


Ms Camino Manjon Sierra

European Commission - DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology

Unit D1 (International relations)

Internet Governance; ICANN GAC; dot.EU; Internet and Human Rights

Desk Officer Iran, Syria, Sudan, Iraq & Yemen

Avenue de Beaulieu 25 (5/98) / B-1049 / Brussels / Belgium

T: +32-2-29-78797

M: +32-488-203-447

Twitter @msprotonneutron

Linked-In https://www.linkedin.com/pub/camino-manjon/50/b20/240

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130903/fa3ce2a1/attachment.htm>

From deborah at accessnow.org  Tue Sep  3 22:35:45 2013
From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 22:35:45 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Human Rights Council Briefing Note: 24th Session
Message-ID: <CALU7RQZypeh=pSgj99GSFCw_r0citROGEtDEFWbPkwbNqHEp2w@mail.gmail.com>

Dear friends,

The programme<http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session24/Pages/24RegularSession.aspx>
for
the upcoming session of the Human Rights
Council<http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/HRCIndex.aspx>  is
now available. This is session the 24th session of the Council (HRC24) and
will be taking place from 9-27 September in Geneva.

Plenary sessions will be live streamed and archived at:
http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/c/un-human-rights-council.html
The twitter hashtag for the session is #HRC24.  This will be  a busy 15 day
session, with several full-day non-stop meetings  as well as a variety of
side-events, open and closed sessions for resolution negotiations, planning
sessions and other meetings.

The High Commissioner for Human Rights will present her update, and an
interactive dialogue will take place with the Human Rights Advisory
Committee as well as a number of Special Procedures, including on
indigenous peoples, on truth justice and reparation, and on contemporary
forms of slavery.  The Commission of Inquiry on Syria will also provide an
update to the HRC. There will be the annual discussion on gender
integration. The Council will consider Universal Periodic Review (UPR)
reports on Bangladesh, Azerbaijan, Russian Federation, Cameroon, Cuba,
Turkmenistan, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Colombia, Uzbekistan, Tuvalu,
Germany, Djibouti, and Canada.

HRC24 will also present an opportunity, in light of the recent Snowden
revelations, to further discuss issues of mass surveillance and privacy
rights, building on the civil society
statement<http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa/> from
HRC23 calling for some means to ensure more systematic attention by the UN
to internet related human rights violations.

We’ve prepared a short briefing on the three particular internet related
human rights items that will be addressed at HRC 24, as well as some
background on the Council’s work on the internet and human rights which is
available here:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/access.3cdn.net/cd66494991b8ae040f_bfm6bnbrj.pdf
Should you have additional questions please contact: deborah [at] accessnow
[dot] org and joy [at] apc [dot] org

Kind regards,
Deborah

-- 
Deborah Brown
Senior Policy Analyst
Access | AccessNow.org
E. deborah at accessnow.org
@deblebrown
PGP 0x5EB4727D
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130903/74b95ba5/attachment.htm>

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Wed Sep  4 01:49:21 2013
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 14:49:21 +0900
Subject: [bestbits] Asia Pacific regional IGF ongoing now
Message-ID: <C0B5949A-9B8A-4E72-93A9-DE4E97EE76F0@glocom.ac.jp>

APrIGF opened this morning, workshops are being streamed now.  Agenda: <http://2013.rigf.asia/agenda/> and streaming <http://2013.rigf.asia/live/> Video and real-time transcript.

<http://2013.rigf.asia/workshop-proposal-7/> Internet governance for human rights and democracy on now.

Adam

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Sep  4 02:51:48 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 12:21:48 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] IGF plus
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHBKOC7ystAAsND4TZPtOTkyT833RiY2BFx_QvCOexQnqQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CE429C24.2DD22%andrew@gp-digital.org> <521CDF2E.7000705@itforchange.net> <52244A96.5060702@ciroap.org> <52261282.5070305@itforchange.net> <52261500.1070905@itforchange.net> <CAJqNAHBKOC7ystAAsND4TZPtOTkyT833RiY2BFx_QvCOexQnqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5226D884.3030405@itforchange.net>


Dear Anja

I have no problems with your framing below. However, the points I raised 
are somewhat different. Let me clarify them.

On Wednesday 04 September 2013 01:18 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
> Dear Parminder and all,
>
> I wanted to chip in and share my thinking on two issues.
>
> 1. I believe it is very important that the ITU and WSIS+10 are kept in 
> the agenda as explicit, focused agenda items, and that we spend some 
> time discussing and planning for the processes around them. To my 
> mind, these are among the most important places where states at 
> present are already trying to play out their views on enhanced 
> cooperation in practice, with rather important consequences for civil 
> society (I wrote about this earlier 
> here:http://beta.internetdemocracy.in/2013/07/pawns-in-a-governments-game/). 
> In general, they are also two processes that are likely to have a real 
> outcome for Internet governance. It is important that civil society is 
> aware and informed, and that at least some of us are also closely 
> involved (the ITU also happens to be the process around which Best 
> Bits came into its own, and I think it would be foolish of us to now 
> retreat from whatever little inroads or impact we have made).

I did not say we should not discuss ITU or WSIS. I said we should 
discuss all places where global Internet policy making actually takes 
place, in the order of intensity of actual processes and outcomes for 
the global Internet, rather than be fixated on forum A of forum B. You 
would agree that this should be how the civil society looks at things. I 
argued that the OECD's CCICP is  a major forum for global policy making 
at present. And therefore that venue, its outcomes and processes should 
also be discussed. That is my point.

I also offered proof, if it were needed, to show that OECD is a major 
forum for global policy making. Submissions by ISOC, ICC and many 
developed countries to the WG on Enhanced Cooperation say so (while they 
hardly mention WSIS +10 or ITU). OECD has the only globally operative 
set of Principles for Internet Policy Making, which have real weight and 
implication. They are right now being pushed for global implementation. 
In fact US's contribution speaks about ' extension of OECD Principles 
more globally'. And I also mentioned the new global program ECSA 
<http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/smart-2013n004-%E2%80%94-european-capability-situational-awareness> 
to implement one element of these OECD principles.

Does it leave any doubt as to where a big part of global Internet policy 
making is taking place? Why should civil society also not focus on this 
forum of global Internet policy making? This was my question. Sure do 
discuss ITU and WSIS +10 (which developed countries are intent should 
not take place except as an insipid bureaucratic event) but also discuss 
OECD's global Internet policy making. And since ITU plus WSIS plus OECD 
becomes too long a title, I just suggested that it be made more general 
as 'Global Internet policy making' and have perhaps three sub sections 
under it.


>
> 2. The reason I proposed to Jeremy that we make the first day one long 
> session (with perhaps a discussion of EC, ITU and WSIS in the morning 
> and of multistakeholderism in the afternoon) is because I believe that 
> the question of how we see multistakeholderism is sharpened by our 
> engagements in these concrete policy fora and how we plan to move 
> forward in them, while at the same time our engagement with these fora 
> is of course also to some extent determined by the visions and views 
> we have when we enter them. In that sense I think that by 
> contextualising the discussion on MS within those debates, the chances 
> that we move forward are far greater, if not in terms of coming to a 
> joint position, then at least in terms of understanding we all take 
> the positions that we take.

Sure, I agree, let the MS session come after the global policy making 
session rather than precede it, and be sufficiently contextualised to 
the discussions on policy making processes. I would for instance 
certainly want to know why civil society does not recommend IEG model to 
OECD's Internet policy making processes as it does for ITU. Or 
alternatively, why does it not recommend OECD's CCICP's stakeholder 
participation processes, with which the involved civil society seems 
fairly satisfied, to ITU rather than the IEG model (which I really dont 
fully understand, and to the extend I do, do not see it as a great model).

What I want is a fullish discussion - which starts on this list - about 
what different people and groups really understand by MSism in policy 
processes, and how do they ideally see it play out and implemented. I, 
for instance, really dont now what would your ideal policy development 
mechanism look like? And so about many others here.... I repeat, that is 
the major areas of lack of understanding among us here, and it is best 
that we can at least agree on the technical meaning of terms, as we 
individually may seek to apply them.
>
> One of the specific aims of Best Bits is that it should aid civil 
> society not only in having important discussions, but also in getting 
> concrete work done. By framing the agenda for our two days in Bali in 
> the above manner, we can maximise our outcomes on both counts.

I am always for concrete outcomes, that go in concrete directions. So, I 
agree... From the MS discussion, lets try to get to some principles of 
what we think MSism is, and how it should actually be applied in policy 
making, and policy deliberations and consultations.  And how MS 
representation should be constituted. That would be a singular 
contribution to the area of global governance of the Internet. And from 
the earlier discussion on global Internet policy making spaces, we can 
have an outcome in terms what should civil society do in each case, and 
what are the dangers and what are the opportunities...

Parminder

>
> Best regards,
> Anja
>
>
> On 3 September 2013 22:27, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>
>     On Tuesday 03 September 2013 10:16 PM, parminder wrote:
>>     Jeremy
>>
>>     My impression was that just a draft of the programhas been put
>>     forward and it has still to go through discussions and approval
>>     of the group before finalisation.. Is my impression right?
>>
>>     On the presumption that it is yet only a draft - I really  think
>>     we should have at least a full half session on what really is
>>     multistakeholderism. And that subject alone. I really am not sure
>>     what most people here think it is . There is this silence zone
>>     around its theory and practice. I have raised the question often.
>>     I think if there is one difference that groups like IT for Change
>>     have with many other groups in the IG space, it is about an
>>     understanding of MSism... And while there can be real political
>>     differences, I dont see why we should have such technical
>>     differences, just on the meaning and understanding of terms. Lets
>>     try to thrash it out forever. And we can start this discussion
>>     here itself, on this list. Importantly, I saw strong support on
>>     this list for a specific discussion on what is MSism. I think
>>     these views should be respected.
>>
>>     I also want the session on ITU plus WSIS 10 to rather on Public
>>     policy making on global IG.... The responses to questionaire
>>     issued by the WG on enhanced cooperation by ISOC, ICC, and many
>>     developing countries
>
>     sorry, i meant developed countries
>
>>     cite OECD as one important place where global Internet policy
>>     making takes place. At least now can we take it that indeed a lot
>>     of Internet policy making takes place in OECD. (See the posting
>>     today on the IGC list declaring a project implementing - globally
>>     - some parts of the OECD Principles for Internet Policy Making).
>>     why do we only keep asking questions of UN based Internet policy
>>     processes, and not from places where some real policy making
>>     takes place.... We should discuss OECD's *global* Internet policy
>>     making processes as well. And if we want the IEG (Informal
>>     Experts Group) as the standard model by which ITU whould do its
>>     Internet related polciy work, why do we hesitate to tell OECD
>>     that it should use the same model, and none else.... What I
>>     suggesting here is - Name this session - Where does global
>>     Internet policy making take place, how, and what should CS do.
>>
>>     Thirdly, despite repeated appeals, I dont know why are we not
>>     ready to to name session three directly as NSA or Snowden issue
>>     (something stated a little better). The world thinks that global
>>     IG has changed forever because of what Snowden has told us about
>>     NSA.... That is not just the regular surveillance issue, that we
>>     have been talking in all IGFs and should keep doing. There is a
>>     clear Snowden impact on the global Internet - a huge impact. And
>>     we need to specifically discuss what this impact is, and how US
>>     has to be confronted in its (still largely unapologetic) global
>>     surveillance. That is a specific issue. And Again I saw great
>>     support for discussing this particular issue at length, but in
>>     the current draft this issue seem to be hidden as about one sixth
>>     of a session, that too without mentioning the main actors, NSA,
>>     US gov and Snowden.
>>
>>     thanks. parminder
>>
>>
>>     On Monday 02 September 2013 01:51 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>     On 28/08/2013, at 3:17 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>>>     <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>     Fully support this. Lets give one full day to this...
>>>
>>>     (Sorry for the delayed response, I've been travelling until my
>>>     return to the office today.)  We don't have one full day
>>>     available for this at the Best Bits meeting, unless we take out
>>>     other things that people want to do, but I've added this as a
>>>     sub-item to the draft agenda for Bali for the Day 1 morning,
>>>     under the rather broad heading "Global Internet governance
>>>     principles, enhanced cooperation and the IGF".
>>>
>>>     Since you (and Valeria) are nominated as facilitators of that
>>>     session, you can guide us in suggesting the appropriate emphasis
>>>     between sub-topics for discussion.  Most surely, we could spend
>>>     a full week rather than two days if we were to cover everything
>>>     in the depth it deserves.
>>>
>>>     I'll also follow up directly with the two of you (and the
>>>     steering committee, and separately the other nominated
>>>     facilitators) about this. Meanwhile I'm working on getting the
>>>     registration system going, and Access are working on crowd
>>>     funding for those who need support to participate.
>>>
>>>     -- 
>>>
>>>     *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
>>>
>>>     Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement
>>>     knowledge hub
>>>     |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>>>
>>>     @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
>>>     <http://www.consumersinternational.org/> |
>>>     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.
>>>
>>>     *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>>>     recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
>>>     instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130904/04a9c7b5/attachment.htm>

From Camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu  Wed Sep  4 03:39:48 2013
From: Camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu (Camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu)
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 07:39:48 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?RE=3A_=5Bliberationtech=5D_Call_for_T?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?enders_SMART_2013/N004_=93European_Capability_for_Situat?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?ional_Awareness=94_=28ECSA=29_-_European_Federation_for_?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?cyber-censorship_and_human_rights_monitoring?=
In-Reply-To: <20130903123106.085fe504@kilik>
References: <B947C187D5C52B4B9C0DBC45FF88501849F0300C@S-DC-ESTG04-B.net1.cec.eu.int>,<20130903123106.085fe504@kilik>
Message-ID: <B947C187D5C52B4B9C0DBC45FF88501849F040EB@S-DC-ESTG04-B.net1.cec.eu.int>

Dear Andrew,

It is not out department in charge of blocking Tor users from accessing content hosted under Europa,eu.

Conversations with the DG In charge (DG DIGIT) as most of you know, have been long and unfruitful so far. 

I am on leave now but at my return I will retake conversations with the officials in charge of the internal EC security to see the chances to lift the ban. 

Please do not blame us for needing to find freedom reasons to allow access. We do our utmost, but some times one policy officer can´t challenge on her own and in the glimpse of an eye the entire security policy of the big institution we are. 

I wish you can find other means to access the content, otherwise, you can find the relevant documents attached.

As usual, I remain available for clarifications and for a friendly chat, as I would not like to see this becoming into an "EC name & shame" issue due to the Tor restrictions. We also do good work which should not be shaded by this incident, although it is also not my intention to play it down.

All the best and I hope the attachments can help.

Best regards

Ms Camino Manjon


________________________________________
From: Andrew Lewman [andrew at torproject.is]
Sent: 03 September 2013 18:31
To: MANJON Camino (CNECT)
Cc: liberationtech; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; pet at lists.links.org
Subject: Re: [liberationtech] Call for Tenders SMART 2013/N004 “European Capability for Situational Awareness” (ECSA) - European Federation for cyber-censorship and human rights monitoring

On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 15:27:19 +0000
<Camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu> wrote:
> You will find all the relevant information (invitation to the tender,
> tender specifications and model contract) in the following link:
>
> http://bit.ly/16E6sfG

It seems your website is blocking access from the very tools you're
trying to fund and create. I just tried access via Tor, ipredator vpn,
and hotspot shield. All received the following message:

"Access Denied

Your request has been denied for security reason."

Perhaps you need a freedom reason to allow access.

--
Andrew
http://tpo.is/contact
pgp 0x6B4D6475
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ECSAFinalInvitationtoTender-5.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 746749 bytes
Desc: ECSAFinalInvitationtoTender-5.pdf
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130904/79ff9920/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ECSAFinalModelcontract-1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 271207 bytes
Desc: ECSAFinalModelcontract-1.pdf
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130904/79ff9920/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ECSAFinalTenderspecifications-5.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 622210 bytes
Desc: ECSAFinalTenderspecifications-5.pdf
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130904/79ff9920/attachment-0002.pdf>

From Andrew at gp-digital.org  Wed Sep  4 04:18:23 2013
From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt)
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 09:18:23 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] IGF plus
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHBKOC7ystAAsND4TZPtOTkyT833RiY2BFx_QvCOexQnqQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CE429C24.2DD22%andrew@gp-digital.org>
	<521CDF2E.7000705@itforchange.net>	<52244A96.5060702@ciroap.org>
	<52261282.5070305@itforchange.net>	<52261500.1070905@itforchange.net>
 <CAJqNAHBKOC7ystAAsND4TZPtOTkyT833RiY2BFx_QvCOexQnqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CBD57207366@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>

I would support the emphasis upon Best Bits focusing on concrete proposals and things we can actually win..

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] On Behalf Of Anja Kovacs
Sent: 03 September 2013 20:49
To: parminder
Cc: &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
Subject: Re: [bestbits] IGF plus

Dear Parminder and all,

I wanted to chip in and share my thinking on two issues.
1. I believe it is very important that the ITU and WSIS+10 are kept in the agenda as explicit, focused agenda items, and that we spend some time discussing and planning for the processes around them. To my mind, these are among the most important places where states at present are already trying to play out their views on enhanced cooperation in practice, with rather important consequences for civil society (I wrote about this earlier here:http://beta.internetdemocracy.in/2013/07/pawns-in-a-governments-game/). In general, they are also two processes that are likely to have a real outcome for Internet governance. It is important that civil society is aware and informed, and that at least some of us are also closely involved (the ITU also happens to be the process around which Best Bits came into its own, and I think it would be foolish of us to now retreat from whatever little inroads or impact we have made).
2. The reason I proposed to Jeremy that we make the first day one long session (with perhaps a discussion of EC, ITU and WSIS in the morning and of multistakeholderism in the afternoon) is because I believe that the question of how we see multistakeholderism is sharpened by our engagements in these concrete policy fora and how we plan to move forward in them, while at the same time our engagement with these fora is of course also to some extent determined by the visions and views we have when we enter them. In that sense I think that by contextualising the discussion on MS within those debates, the chances that we move forward are far greater, if not in terms of coming to a joint position, then at least in terms of understanding we all take the positions that we take.
One of the specific aims of Best Bits is that it should aid civil society not only in having important discussions, but also in getting concrete work done. By framing the agenda for our two days in Bali in the above manner, we can maximise our outcomes on both counts.
Best regards,
Anja

On 3 September 2013 22:27, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:

On Tuesday 03 September 2013 10:16 PM, parminder wrote:
Jeremy

My impression was that just a draft of the program has been put forward and it has still to go through discussions and approval of the group before finalisation.. Is my impression right?

On the presumption that it is yet only a draft - I really  think we should have at least a full half session on what really is multistakeholderism. And that subject alone. I really am not sure what most people here think it is . There is this silence zone around its theory and practice. I have raised the question often. I think if there is one difference that groups like IT for Change have with many other groups in the IG space, it is about an understanding of MSism... And while there can be real political differences, I dont see why we should have such technical differences, just on the meaning and understanding of terms. Lets try to thrash it out forever. And we can start this discussion here itself, on this list. Importantly, I saw strong support on this list for a specific discussion on what is MSism. I think these views should be respected.

I also want the session on ITU plus WSIS 10 to rather on Public policy making on global IG.... The responses to questionaire issued by the WG on enhanced cooperation by ISOC, ICC, and many developing countries

sorry, i meant developed countries
cite OECD as one important place where global Internet policy making takes place. At least now can we take it that indeed a lot of Internet policy making takes place in OECD. (See the posting today on the IGC list declaring a project implementing - globally - some parts of the OECD Principles for Internet Policy Making). why do we only keep asking questions of UN based Internet policy processes, and not from places where some real policy making takes place.... We should discuss OECD's *global* Internet policy making processes as well. And if we want the IEG (Informal Experts Group) as the standard model by which ITU whould do its Internet related polciy work, why do we hesitate to tell OECD that it should use the same model, and none else.... What I suggesting here is - Name this session - Where does global Internet policy making take place, how, and what should CS do.

Thirdly, despite repeated appeals, I dont know why are we not ready to to name session three directly as NSA or Snowden issue (something stated a little better). The world thinks that global IG has changed forever because of what Snowden has told us about NSA.... That is not just the regular surveillance issue, that we have been talking in all IGFs and should keep doing. There is a clear Snowden impact on the global Internet - a huge impact. And we need to specifically discuss what this impact is, and how US has to be confronted in its (still largely unapologetic) global surveillance. That is a specific issue. And Again I saw great support for discussing this particular issue at length, but in the current draft this issue seem to be hidden as about one sixth of a session, that too without mentioning the main actors, NSA, US gov and Snowden.

thanks. parminder

On Monday 02 September 2013 01:51 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
On 28/08/2013, at 3:17 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net><mailto:parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:


Fully support this. Lets give one full day to this...

(Sorry for the delayed response, I've been travelling until my return to the office today.)  We don't have one full day available for this at the Best Bits meeting, unless we take out other things that people want to do, but I've added this as a sub-item to the draft agenda for Bali for the Day 1 morning, under the rather broad heading "Global Internet governance principles, enhanced cooperation and the IGF".

Since you (and Valeria) are nominated as facilitators of that session, you can guide us in suggesting the appropriate emphasis between sub-topics for discussion.  Most surely, we could spend a full week rather than two days if we were to cover everything in the depth it deserves.

I'll also follow up directly with the two of you (and the steering committee, and separately the other nominated facilitators) about this.  Meanwhile I'm working on getting the registration system going, and Access are working on crowd funding for those who need support to participate.

--

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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org<http://www.consumersinternational.org/> | 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.

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.






--
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in<http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130904/eef8d944/attachment.htm>

From Camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu  Wed Sep  4 04:49:59 2013
From: Camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu (Camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu)
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 08:49:59 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?RE=3A_Call_for_Tenders_SMART_2013/N00?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?4_=93European_Capability_for_Situational_Awareness=94_?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?=28ECSA=29_-_European_Federation_for_cyber-censorship_an?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?d_human_rights_monitoring?=
In-Reply-To: <B947C187D5C52B4B9C0DBC45FF88501849F0300C@S-DC-ESTG04-B.net1.cec.eu.int>
References: <B947C187D5C52B4B9C0DBC45FF88501849F0300C@S-DC-ESTG04-B.net1.cec.eu.int>
Message-ID: <B947C187D5C52B4B9C0DBC45FF88501849F045F9@S-DC-ESTG04-B.net1.cec.eu.int>

Dear all,

And now the full EC link, for all those ones, like our friends in CN for instance, where bitly is blocked

http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/smart-2013n004-—-european-capability-situational-awareness

Thanks Erik J. for the warning.

Seems we do really have a problem with censorship (jokingly said of course)

I hope we can also input that to ECSA!

All the best

Ms Camino Manjon
________________________________
From: MANJON Camino (CNECT)
Sent: 03 September 2013 17:27
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; liberationtech at lists.stanford.edu; pet at lists.links.org
Subject: Call for Tenders SMART 2013/N004 “European Capability for Situational Awareness” (ECSA) - European Federation for cyber-censorship and human rights monitoring


Dear colleagues (and some friends in the lists),


The purpose of this email is to inform you of the recent publication of the Call for Tenders SMART 2013/N004 “European Capability for Situational Awareness” (ECSA). If you are interested in this contract, you should submit your tender no later than 26/09/2013.


You will find all the relevant information (invitation to the tender, tender specifications and model contract) in the following link:

http://bit.ly/16E6sfG


At the initiative of the Directorate General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology (DG CONNECT), in close cooperation with other European Commission services (DG Development and Cooperation and DG Enterprise) and the European External Action Service (EEAS), the European Commission has put in place the No-Disconnect Strategy.1 The goal of this policy toolkit is to provide on-going support to counter-censorship and surveillance to facilitate the role of activists, political dissidents, bloggers, journalists and citizens living and/or operating in high-risk environments, or elsewhere. This way we make operational our commitment to uphold human rights and fundamental freedoms online and support that the No-Disconnect Strategy embraces the wider EU strategy for Human Rights.2


For those who are not yet familiar with the Strategy, its four main strands of activity are: (1) development of technological tools; (2) training/awareness and capacity building; (3) development of methods to provide a global capability for situational awareness; and (4) cooperation with the ICT/Internet industry, EU Member States and third countries, also involved in the protection of online freedom of expression and privacy.


The tender "European capability for situational awareness" (ECSA) is aimed at providing to the European Commission the framework and information necessary to evaluate the creation of a wider European Federation for cyber-censorship and human rights monitoring, and the underlying system infrastructure required to that end.


To achieve this objective, the ICT-PSP Work Programme 2013 will support the development of the ECSA platform with an allocation of approximately EUR 400,000 for the initial phase (conceptualization of the platform according to the conditions seth forth in the tender specifications that you will find in the link above, and the design of a first prototype of the systems infrastructure and interactive map).


The idea departed partially from the “OECD Communiqué on Principles for Internet Policy Making”, in particular the following two ones:

  *   “Develop capacities to bring publicly available, reliable data into the policy-making process. Publicly available data can increase the quality of all stakeholders’ participation in Internet policy- making as well as governments’ ultimate policy decisions. The collection, validation and public dissemination of objective data to inform Internet policy decisions should be reinforced and used to augment the combined research capacities of governments, other competent authorities and other stakeholders. International comparable metrics will help to quantify the ongoing economic developments and assess the proportionality and effectiveness of any policy solutions created in multi-stakeholder processes. Data gathering should be undertaken so as to avoid administrative burdens and data analysis should be done carefully to enable sound policymaking.”

  *   “Transparency, fair process, and accountability. In order to build public trust in the Internet environment, policy-making processes and substantive policies that ensure transparency, fair process, and accountability should be encouraged. Transparency ensures that Internet users have timely, accessible, and actionable information that is relevant to their rights and interests”.

Is in this context in which we realized that a tool enabling evidence-based policy-making and transparency related, in this case, to censorship and surveillance, could also provide situational awareness not only to EU policy and decision makers but also to those affected directly by the aforementioned restrictions, maximizing their empowerment: political dissidents, activists, human rights defenders, bloggers, journalists and several other essential actors in the fight for online (and offline) freedom.


Now, shifting the focus of this email to the tender itself, the tasks outlined in the tender specifications (http://bit.ly/16E6sfG) will address, among several other things, the definition of the governance framework and systems infrastructure that should govern and support the operations of the federation of organizations that tenderers will have to propose, taking into account that all sorts of expertise on Internet-event monitoring will be needed.


With the view to translate the Internet reality into a “cartography” of cyber-censorship and cyber-surveillance, the federation will be anchored in a dynamic platform -controlled from a dashboard-, where the aforementioned federated network of partners with Internet and censorship/surveillance monitoring capabilities will aggregate a variety of clearly defined sets of data (including Open Data and Big Data) coming from several sources and stakeholders.


We expect this project to provide reliable and real time or near-real time information on the status of network connectivity and network traffic alterations/restrictions, as well as timely information on legal, social and political developments related to the use of the Internet and media for the exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms.


As it seems obvious, the gathering of data (and in some cases of information) will be related to the location and intensity of cyber-censorship and surveillance in non-democratic countries, nascent democracies, jurisdictions where human rights are most at risk or other parts of the globe where similar trends have been arising in recent times.


The data gathering will have two tracks: the first one addressing restrictions/disruptions of Internet and ICT infrastructure, access, traffic, content, Internet cut-offs or security events, inter alia, overlaid with a second track of contextual data of political, social, legal, regulatory, policy, media, journalistic or human rights nature, related to the Internet or not and with a global scope, which would help provide the full picture and enable the EU and other actors to swiftly act upon reliable and timely information. Examples of this second track could be arrests of journalists, restrictions on freedom of expression in times of elections, laws affecting Internet openness, crack-downs on activists or restriction to NGO´s establishment, to name a few.


That near-real time information will be mashed-up and controlled from the dashboard, and presented in a user-friendly manner, ideally in different layers (thematic, geographic, highly troubled areas, etc.) through interactive visualizations via live maps as an essential condition, coupled with the generation of alarms; subject-matter reports and geographical reports. As you will see in the tender, new ways of dissemination of information are most welcome.


As highlighted before, this type of capability is expected to enhance the current EU´s early-warning, decision-making and policy-making skills and strengthen the level of situational awareness of, but not limited to, stakeholders such as digital activists or human rights defenders, but even researchers.


In particular, the tasks you will find in the tender are:


Task 1 Creation of an Internet censorship monitoring Federation

Task 2 Provision of a Data Sources catalogue

Task 3 Definition of a Data Governance Framework

Task 4 Definition of the technical and infrastructure specifications, features and functionalities (including security measures)

Task 5 Recommendations


Some of the expected positive impacts of ECSA we can name are as follows: (1) Ensuring Internet resilience and stability; (2) Reinforcement of early-warning capabilities and emergency response concerning events affecting human rights, legal, policy and media restrictions; (3) Better measurement of the evolution of non-democratic environments to democratic ones ("democracy thermometer"); (4) Better exchange of information and capacity building among relevant stakeholders; (5) Better response in case of attacks to human rights and activists networks; (6) Creation of a body of knowledge at the disposal of academics and researchers, as well as of the general public (Open Science); (7) Publication of timely reports and alarms on relevant Internet and human rights related events (including activity and threat reports); (8) Support to the implementation of Human Rights-based approaches; (9) Optimization of resources and tailored targeted grant support in areas where human rights are most at risk in terms of cyber censorship and surveillance; (10) Reinforcement of capabilities to ensure global Internet connectivity; (11) Provide (new) methods for network measurement; (12) Provision of a new source of information about Internet security and infrastructure incidents; or (13) Provision of capabilities for crisis mapping, among others.


In Part 1 of the Tender specifications you will find the Technical Description, containing the general context, the specific context and examples of organisations and existing projects in the area of Internet monitoring (whereby some of your projects we regularly observe are mentioned).


As regards the Elegibility Criteria, we recommend you to have a look in detail at Part 2 of the Tender Specifications containing the Administrative Details, in particular Section 1 “Elegibility requirements”; Section 2 “Administrative Requirements”; Section 5.2 “Selection Criteria” and Section 5.3 “Award Criteria”.


At the request of tenderers, additional information will be communicated solely for the purpose of clarifying the nature of the contract and the tender specifications. Such information will have to be communicated on the same date to all interested parties hence your questions will be published in the link referred to in the document “invitation to the tender” (https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/news-redirect/l1626). This means that for whatever doubt you may have, you can write directly to camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu<mailto:camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu> (copying our functional mailbox CNECT-D1 at ec.europa.eu<mailto:CNECT-D1 at ec.europa.eu>). We will do so for transparency reasons and to guarantee equal competition, making publicly available both, question and answers.


The opening of received tenders will take place on 10/10/2013 at 10.00h in the Commission building located in Avenue de Beaulieu 25, Brussels. One authorised representative of each tenderer may attend such opening. Tenderers who plan to attend the opening session have to inform me (Ms Camino Manjon Sierra) by e-mail camino.MANJON@,ec.europa.eu; by fax (+32 2 296 89 70) or letter at least 72h in advance.


I advance a clerical mistake in the section referring to the information to be stated in the outer envelope when you send us over your tenders: "INVITATION TO TENDER SMART 2013/N004 / FULL OJ REF" "NOT TO BE OPENED BY THE MESSENGER/COURIER SERVICE" "NOT TO BE OPENED BY THE OPENING COMMITTEE BEFORE 16/9/2013", where 16/9/2013 should be 26/09/2013.


As a closing, I would like to sincerely thank my colleague and mentor Andrea Glorioso for his support in the firs steps of this complex project and for conducting our European Capability Situational Awareness workshop celebrated in November 2012, when due to a contractual pause before my current position in the European Commission I could not be on the driving seat or provide any out of the box thinking!


I take the opportunity to also sincerely thank all those organizations which took part in the workshop (Agenda available at http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf//document.cfm?doc_id=1094).


We look forward to receiving your proposals and we thank you all for the good inspiration that your work has meant for us.


1<https://remi.webmail.ec.europa.eu/owa/14.2.342.3/scripts/premium/blank.htm#sdfootnote1anc>http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/neelie-kroes/eu-fighting-cybercensorship/

2<https://remi.webmail.ec.europa.eu/owa/14.2.342.3/scripts/premium/blank.htm#sdfootnote2anc>http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/131181.pdf



Best regards


Ms Camino Manjon Sierra

European Commission - DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology

Unit D1 (International relations)

Internet Governance; ICANN GAC; dot.EU; Internet and Human Rights

Desk Officer Iran, Syria, Sudan, Iraq & Yemen

Avenue de Beaulieu 25 (5/98) / B-1049 / Brussels / Belgium

T: +32-2-29-78797

M: +32-488-203-447

Twitter @msprotonneutron

Linked-In https://www.linkedin.com/pub/camino-manjon/50/b20/240

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130904/5d5b0e2f/attachment.htm>

From Camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu  Wed Sep  4 06:04:11 2013
From: Camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu (Camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu)
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 10:04:11 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?RE=3A_Call_for_Tenders_SMART_2013/N00?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?4_=93European_Capability_for_Situational_Awareness=94_?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?=28ECSA=29_-_European_Federation_for_cyber-censorship_an?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?d_human_rights_monitoring?=
In-Reply-To: <B947C187D5C52B4B9C0DBC45FF88501849F0300C@S-DC-ESTG04-B.net1.cec.eu.int>
References: <B947C187D5C52B4B9C0DBC45FF88501849F0300C@S-DC-ESTG04-B.net1.cec.eu.int>
Message-ID: <B947C187D5C52B4B9C0DBC45FF88501849F077F0@S-DC-ESTG04-B.net1.cec.eu.int>

Dear all,

Apologies for bombarding you with so many emails, but again, for those of you having trouble accessing the content of the links because you receive a response of this like "internal commission content", please access from

http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/neelie-kroes/eu-fighting-cybercensorship/

and

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/131181.pdf

Regards

Camino Manjon
________________________________
From: MANJON Camino (CNECT)
Sent: 03 September 2013 17:27
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; liberationtech at lists.stanford.edu; pet at lists.links.org
Subject: Call for Tenders SMART 2013/N004 “European Capability for Situational Awareness” (ECSA) - European Federation for cyber-censorship and human rights monitoring


Dear colleagues (and some friends in the lists),


The purpose of this email is to inform you of the recent publication of the Call for Tenders SMART 2013/N004 “European Capability for Situational Awareness” (ECSA). If you are interested in this contract, you should submit your tender no later than 26/09/2013.


You will find all the relevant information (invitation to the tender, tender specifications and model contract) in the following link:

http://bit.ly/16E6sfG


At the initiative of the Directorate General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology (DG CONNECT), in close cooperation with other European Commission services (DG Development and Cooperation and DG Enterprise) and the European External Action Service (EEAS), the European Commission has put in place the No-Disconnect Strategy.1<javascript:DanaDeferEval('parent.onLocalLink(\'sdfootnote1sym\',window.frameElement)')> The goal of this policy toolkit is to provide on-going support to counter-censorship and surveillance to facilitate the role of activists, political dissidents, bloggers, journalists and citizens living and/or operating in high-risk environments, or elsewhere. This way we make operational our commitment to uphold human rights and fundamental freedoms online and support that the No-Disconnect Strategy embraces the wider EU strategy for Human Rights.2<javascript:DanaDeferEval('parent.onLocalLink(\'sdfootnote2sym\',window.frameElement)')>


For those who are not yet familiar with the Strategy, its four main strands of activity are: (1) development of technological tools; (2) training/awareness and capacity building; (3) development of methods to provide a global capability for situational awareness; and (4) cooperation with the ICT/Internet industry, EU Member States and third countries, also involved in the protection of online freedom of expression and privacy.


The tender "European capability for situational awareness" (ECSA) is aimed at providing to the European Commission the framework and information necessary to evaluate the creation of a wider European Federation for cyber-censorship and human rights monitoring, and the underlying system infrastructure required to that end.


To achieve this objective, the ICT-PSP Work Programme 2013 will support the development of the ECSA platform with an allocation of approximately EUR 400,000 for the initial phase (conceptualization of the platform according to the conditions seth forth in the tender specifications that you will find in the link above, and the design of a first prototype of the systems infrastructure and interactive map).


The idea departed partially from the “OECD Communiqué on Principles for Internet Policy Making”, in particular the following two ones:

  *   “Develop capacities to bring publicly available, reliable data into the policy-making process. Publicly available data can increase the quality of all stakeholders’ participation in Internet policy- making as well as governments’ ultimate policy decisions. The collection, validation and public dissemination of objective data to inform Internet policy decisions should be reinforced and used to augment the combined research capacities of governments, other competent authorities and other stakeholders. International comparable metrics will help to quantify the ongoing economic developments and assess the proportionality and effectiveness of any policy solutions created in multi-stakeholder processes. Data gathering should be undertaken so as to avoid administrative burdens and data analysis should be done carefully to enable sound policymaking.”

  *   “Transparency, fair process, and accountability. In order to build public trust in the Internet environment, policy-making processes and substantive policies that ensure transparency, fair process, and accountability should be encouraged. Transparency ensures that Internet users have timely, accessible, and actionable information that is relevant to their rights and interests”.

Is in this context in which we realized that a tool enabling evidence-based policy-making and transparency related, in this case, to censorship and surveillance, could also provide situational awareness not only to EU policy and decision makers but also to those affected directly by the aforementioned restrictions, maximizing their empowerment: political dissidents, activists, human rights defenders, bloggers, journalists and several other essential actors in the fight for online (and offline) freedom.


Now, shifting the focus of this email to the tender itself, the tasks outlined in the tender specifications (http://bit.ly/16E6sfG) will address, among several other things, the definition of the governance framework and systems infrastructure that should govern and support the operations of the federation of organizations that tenderers will have to propose, taking into account that all sorts of expertise on Internet-event monitoring will be needed.


With the view to translate the Internet reality into a “cartography” of cyber-censorship and cyber-surveillance, the federation will be anchored in a dynamic platform -controlled from a dashboard-, where the aforementioned federated network of partners with Internet and censorship/surveillance monitoring capabilities will aggregate a variety of clearly defined sets of data (including Open Data and Big Data) coming from several sources and stakeholders.


We expect this project to provide reliable and real time or near-real time information on the status of network connectivity and network traffic alterations/restrictions, as well as timely information on legal, social and political developments related to the use of the Internet and media for the exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms.


As it seems obvious, the gathering of data (and in some cases of information) will be related to the location and intensity of cyber-censorship and surveillance in non-democratic countries, nascent democracies, jurisdictions where human rights are most at risk or other parts of the globe where similar trends have been arising in recent times.


The data gathering will have two tracks: the first one addressing restrictions/disruptions of Internet and ICT infrastructure, access, traffic, content, Internet cut-offs or security events, inter alia, overlaid with a second track of contextual data of political, social, legal, regulatory, policy, media, journalistic or human rights nature, related to the Internet or not and with a global scope, which would help provide the full picture and enable the EU and other actors to swiftly act upon reliable and timely information. Examples of this second track could be arrests of journalists, restrictions on freedom of expression in times of elections, laws affecting Internet openness, crack-downs on activists or restriction to NGO´s establishment, to name a few.


That near-real time information will be mashed-up and controlled from the dashboard, and presented in a user-friendly manner, ideally in different layers (thematic, geographic, highly troubled areas, etc.) through interactive visualizations via live maps as an essential condition, coupled with the generation of alarms; subject-matter reports and geographical reports. As you will see in the tender, new ways of dissemination of information are most welcome.


As highlighted before, this type of capability is expected to enhance the current EU´s early-warning, decision-making and policy-making skills and strengthen the level of situational awareness of, but not limited to, stakeholders such as digital activists or human rights defenders, but even researchers.


In particular, the tasks you will find in the tender are:


Task 1 Creation of an Internet censorship monitoring Federation

Task 2 Provision of a Data Sources catalogue

Task 3 Definition of a Data Governance Framework

Task 4 Definition of the technical and infrastructure specifications, features and functionalities (including security measures)

Task 5 Recommendations


Some of the expected positive impacts of ECSA we can name are as follows: (1) Ensuring Internet resilience and stability; (2) Reinforcement of early-warning capabilities and emergency response concerning events affecting human rights, legal, policy and media restrictions; (3) Better measurement of the evolution of non-democratic environments to democratic ones ("democracy thermometer"); (4) Better exchange of information and capacity building among relevant stakeholders; (5) Better response in case of attacks to human rights and activists networks; (6) Creation of a body of knowledge at the disposal of academics and researchers, as well as of the general public (Open Science); (7) Publication of timely reports and alarms on relevant Internet and human rights related events (including activity and threat reports); (8) Support to the implementation of Human Rights-based approaches; (9) Optimization of resources and tailored targeted grant support in areas where human rights are most at risk in terms of cyber censorship and surveillance; (10) Reinforcement of capabilities to ensure global Internet connectivity; (11) Provide (new) methods for network measurement; (12) Provision of a new source of information about Internet security and infrastructure incidents; or (13) Provision of capabilities for crisis mapping, among others.


In Part 1 of the Tender specifications you will find the Technical Description, containing the general context, the specific context and examples of organisations and existing projects in the area of Internet monitoring (whereby some of your projects we regularly observe are mentioned).


As regards the Elegibility Criteria, we recommend you to have a look in detail at Part 2 of the Tender Specifications containing the Administrative Details, in particular Section 1 “Elegibility requirements”; Section 2 “Administrative Requirements”; Section 5.2 “Selection Criteria” and Section 5.3 “Award Criteria”.


At the request of tenderers, additional information will be communicated solely for the purpose of clarifying the nature of the contract and the tender specifications. Such information will have to be communicated on the same date to all interested parties hence your questions will be published in the link referred to in the document “invitation to the tender” (https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/news-redirect/l1626). This means that for whatever doubt you may have, you can write directly to camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu<mailto:camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu> (copying our functional mailbox CNECT-D1 at ec.europa.eu<mailto:CNECT-D1 at ec.europa.eu>). We will do so for transparency reasons and to guarantee equal competition, making publicly available both, question and answers.


The opening of received tenders will take place on 10/10/2013 at 10.00h in the Commission building located in Avenue de Beaulieu 25, Brussels. One authorised representative of each tenderer may attend such opening. Tenderers who plan to attend the opening session have to inform me (Ms Camino Manjon Sierra) by e-mail camino.MANJON@,ec.europa.eu; by fax (+32 2 296 89 70) or letter at least 72h in advance.


I advance a clerical mistake in the section referring to the information to be stated in the outer envelope when you send us over your tenders: "INVITATION TO TENDER SMART 2013/N004 / FULL OJ REF" "NOT TO BE OPENED BY THE MESSENGER/COURIER SERVICE" "NOT TO BE OPENED BY THE OPENING COMMITTEE BEFORE 16/9/2013", where 16/9/2013 should be 26/09/2013.


As a closing, I would like to sincerely thank my colleague and mentor Andrea Glorioso for his support in the firs steps of this complex project and for conducting our European Capability Situational Awareness workshop celebrated in November 2012, when due to a contractual pause before my current position in the European Commission I could not be on the driving seat or provide any out of the box thinking!


I take the opportunity to also sincerely thank all those organizations which took part in the workshop (Agenda available at http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf//document.cfm?doc_id=1094).


We look forward to receiving your proposals and we thank you all for the good inspiration that your work has meant for us.


1<https://remi.webmail.ec.europa.eu/owa/14.2.342.3/scripts/premium/blank.htm#sdfootnote1anc>http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/neelie-kroes/eu-fighting-cybercensorship/

2<https://remi.webmail.ec.europa.eu/owa/14.2.342.3/scripts/premium/blank.htm#sdfootnote2anc>http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/131181.pdf



Best regards


Ms Camino Manjon Sierra

European Commission - DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology

Unit D1 (International relations)

Internet Governance; ICANN GAC; dot.EU; Internet and Human Rights

Desk Officer Iran, Syria, Sudan, Iraq & Yemen

Avenue de Beaulieu 25 (5/98) / B-1049 / Brussels / Belgium

T: +32-2-29-78797

M: +32-488-203-447

Twitter @msprotonneutron

Linked-In https://www.linkedin.com/pub/camino-manjon/50/b20/240

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130904/637c5b90/attachment.htm>

From anriette at apc.org  Wed Sep  4 06:38:13 2013
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 12:38:13 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] IGF plus
In-Reply-To: <CC50F47F-1C7A-4D23-AE99-4144FFACEF22@apc.org>
References: <CE429C24.2DD22%andrew@gp-digital.org> <521CDF2E.7000705@itforchange.net> <52244A96.5060702@ciroap.org> <52261282.5070305@itforchange.net> <52261500.1070905@itforchange.net> <CAJqNAHBKOC7ystAAsND4TZPtOTkyT833RiY2BFx_QvCOexQnqQ@mail.gmail.com> <B6749681-0CF4-4943-999F-21053A20909B@acm.org> <CC50F47F-1C7A-4D23-AE99-4144FFACEF22@apc.org>
Message-ID: <52270D95.10606@apc.org>

Dear all

Apologies for chipping in at this point and not following the discussion
consistently. One idea I would like to discuss is looking at how to
build specific mechanisms to address specific problems rather than
always focusing on general problems/processes. I think this is also what
Avri and Anja are proposing.

E.g. to take the surveillance issue... we have written some letters; we
are raising it in the HRC and related bodies; there is a civil society
'good practice' guideline (which I realise not everyone agrees on fully,
but it is still a good start).

Can we not take this particular issue and look at what concrete
mechanisms and measures we can propose to address it in quite specific
ways?

Anriette



On 03/09/2013 22:14, Valeria Betancourt wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I concur with Anja and Avri.
>
> Valeria
>
>
> On 03/09/2013, at 15:07, Avri Doria wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think this is a good framing.  The only thing I would recommend
>> adding to the specific aims, is preparation for the IGF itself -
>> specific action/statement for the sessions and workshops to be held
>> in the following days.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 3 Sep 2013, at 15:48, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>>
>>> I wanted to chip in and share my thinking on two issues.
>>>
>>> 1. I believe it is very important that the ITU and WSIS+10 are kept
>>> in the agenda as explicit, focused agenda items, and that we spend
>>> some time discussing and planning for the processes around them. To
>>> my mind, these are among the most important places where states at
>>> present are already trying to play out their views on enhanced
>>> cooperation in practice, with rather important consequences for
>>> civil society (I wrote about this earlier
>>> here:http://beta.internetdemocracy.in/2013/07/pawns-in-a-governments-game/).
>>> In general, they are also two processes that are likely to have a
>>> real outcome for Internet governance. It is important that civil
>>> society is aware and informed, and that at least some of us are also
>>> closely involved (the ITU also happens to be the process around
>>> which Best Bits came into its own, and I think it would be foolish
>>> of us to now retreat from whatever little inroads or impact we have
>>> made).
>>>
>>> 2. The reason I proposed to Jeremy that we make the first day one
>>> long session (with perhaps a discussion of EC, ITU and WSIS in the
>>> morning and of multistakeholderism in the afternoon) is because I
>>> believe that the question of how we see multistakeholderism is
>>> sharpened by our engagements in these concrete policy fora and how
>>> we plan to move forward in them, while at the same time our
>>> engagement with these fora is of course also to some extent
>>> determined by the visions and views we have when we enter them. In
>>> that sense I think that by contextualising the discussion on MS
>>> within those debates, the chances that we move forward are far
>>> greater, if not in terms of coming to a joint position, then at
>>> least in terms of understanding we all take the positions that we take.
>>>
>>> One of the specific aims of Best Bits is that it should aid civil
>>> society not only in having important discussions, but also in
>>> getting concrete work done. By framing the agenda for our two days
>>> in Bali in the above manner, we can maximise our outcomes on both
>>> counts.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Anja
>>
>
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
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


From Andrew at gp-digital.org  Wed Sep  4 06:41:43 2013
From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt)
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 11:41:43 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] IGF plus
In-Reply-To: <52270D95.10606@apc.org>
References: <CE429C24.2DD22%andrew@gp-digital.org>
 <521CDF2E.7000705@itforchange.net> <52244A96.5060702@ciroap.org>
 <52261282.5070305@itforchange.net> <52261500.1070905@itforchange.net>
 <CAJqNAHBKOC7ystAAsND4TZPtOTkyT833RiY2BFx_QvCOexQnqQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <B6749681-0CF4-4943-999F-21053A20909B@acm.org>
 <CC50F47F-1C7A-4D23-AE99-4144FFACEF22@apc.org> <52270D95.10606@apc.org>
Message-ID: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CBD57207376@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>

Completely agree with Anriette - I think it would be excellent to focus on concrete practical initiatives we can take

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


-----Original Message-----
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen
Sent: 04 September 2013 11:38
To: Valeria Betancourt
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Bits
Subject: Re: [bestbits] IGF plus

Dear all

Apologies for chipping in at this point and not following the discussion consistently. One idea I would like to discuss is looking at how to build specific mechanisms to address specific problems rather than always focusing on general problems/processes. I think this is also what Avri and Anja are proposing.

E.g. to take the surveillance issue... we have written some letters; we are raising it in the HRC and related bodies; there is a civil society 'good practice' guideline (which I realise not everyone agrees on fully, but it is still a good start).

Can we not take this particular issue and look at what concrete mechanisms and measures we can propose to address it in quite specific ways?

Anriette



On 03/09/2013 22:14, Valeria Betancourt wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I concur with Anja and Avri.
>
> Valeria
>
>
> On 03/09/2013, at 15:07, Avri Doria wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think this is a good framing.  The only thing I would recommend 
>> adding to the specific aims, is preparation for the IGF itself - 
>> specific action/statement for the sessions and workshops to be held 
>> in the following days.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 3 Sep 2013, at 15:48, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>>
>>> I wanted to chip in and share my thinking on two issues.
>>>
>>> 1. I believe it is very important that the ITU and WSIS+10 are kept 
>>> in the agenda as explicit, focused agenda items, and that we spend 
>>> some time discussing and planning for the processes around them. To 
>>> my mind, these are among the most important places where states at 
>>> present are already trying to play out their views on enhanced 
>>> cooperation in practice, with rather important consequences for 
>>> civil society (I wrote about this earlier 
>>> here:http://beta.internetdemocracy.in/2013/07/pawns-in-a-governments-game/).
>>> In general, they are also two processes that are likely to have a 
>>> real outcome for Internet governance. It is important that civil 
>>> society is aware and informed, and that at least some of us are also 
>>> closely involved (the ITU also happens to be the process around 
>>> which Best Bits came into its own, and I think it would be foolish 
>>> of us to now retreat from whatever little inroads or impact we have 
>>> made).
>>>
>>> 2. The reason I proposed to Jeremy that we make the first day one 
>>> long session (with perhaps a discussion of EC, ITU and WSIS in the 
>>> morning and of multistakeholderism in the afternoon) is because I 
>>> believe that the question of how we see multistakeholderism is 
>>> sharpened by our engagements in these concrete policy fora and how 
>>> we plan to move forward in them, while at the same time our 
>>> engagement with these fora is of course also to some extent 
>>> determined by the visions and views we have when we enter them. In 
>>> that sense I think that by contextualising the discussion on MS 
>>> within those debates, the chances that we move forward are far 
>>> greater, if not in terms of coming to a joint position, then at 
>>> least in terms of understanding we all take the positions that we take.
>>>
>>> One of the specific aims of Best Bits is that it should aid civil 
>>> society not only in having important discussions, but also in 
>>> getting concrete work done. By framing the agenda for our two days 
>>> in Bali in the above manner, we can maximise our outcomes on both 
>>> counts.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Anja
>>
>
>

--
------------------------------------------------------
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


From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed Sep  4 07:29:12 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 18:29:12 +0700
Subject: [bestbits] New Blogpost: The Internet,Global Governance,and the
 Surveillance State in a Post-Snowden World (The Internet is Not Your
 Friend, Get Over It)
Message-ID: <001f01cea962$013b8490$03b28db0$@gmail.com>

This might interest some...

Blogpost: The Internet,Global Governance,and the Surveillance State in a
Post-Snowden World (The Internet is not your Friend, Get Over It) 

http://tinyurl.com/mwhlea4

Mike


From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Wed Sep  4 08:13:57 2013
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 17:43:57 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] IGF plus
In-Reply-To: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CBD57207376@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
References: <CE429C24.2DD22%andrew@gp-digital.org>
	<521CDF2E.7000705@itforchange.net>
	<52244A96.5060702@ciroap.org>
	<52261282.5070305@itforchange.net>
	<52261500.1070905@itforchange.net>
	<CAJqNAHBKOC7ystAAsND4TZPtOTkyT833RiY2BFx_QvCOexQnqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<B6749681-0CF4-4943-999F-21053A20909B@acm.org>
	<CC50F47F-1C7A-4D23-AE99-4144FFACEF22@apc.org>
	<52270D95.10606@apc.org>
	<F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CBD57207376@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHB0a_52=e7Gdiqq9kixfOLpefs7Hhgijx4vyKy5owAPNw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Parminder, Anriette and all,

That was indeed what I had in mind, Anriette, as well as linking more
theoretical discussions or discussions of principles (which we do need to
have at times) to these specific mechanisms we are developing and/or
engaging in.

And that is the problem with the OECD: it is much less clear to me how we
can make this particular discussion a concrete and outcome oriented one. I
have seen the debate about the OECD play out on various lists (even if
without resolution, I think a discussion has been had), and don't yet see
where there could be common ground to move forward among the varous stances
that seem to exist on the OECD.

If there are any proposals in this regard, I would of course be happy to
hear them.

Best regards,
Anja


On 4 September 2013 16:11, Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org> wrote:

> Completely agree with Anriette - I think it would be excellent to focus on
> concrete practical initiatives we can take
>
> 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
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:
> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen
> Sent: 04 September 2013 11:38
> To: Valeria Betancourt
> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Bits
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] IGF plus
>
> Dear all
>
> Apologies for chipping in at this point and not following the discussion
> consistently. One idea I would like to discuss is looking at how to build
> specific mechanisms to address specific problems rather than always
> focusing on general problems/processes. I think this is also what Avri and
> Anja are proposing.
>
> E.g. to take the surveillance issue... we have written some letters; we
> are raising it in the HRC and related bodies; there is a civil society
> 'good practice' guideline (which I realise not everyone agrees on fully,
> but it is still a good start).
>
> Can we not take this particular issue and look at what concrete mechanisms
> and measures we can propose to address it in quite specific ways?
>
> Anriette
>
>
>
> On 03/09/2013 22:14, Valeria Betancourt wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I concur with Anja and Avri.
> >
> > Valeria
> >
> >
> > On 03/09/2013, at 15:07, Avri Doria wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I think this is a good framing.  The only thing I would recommend
> >> adding to the specific aims, is preparation for the IGF itself -
> >> specific action/statement for the sessions and workshops to be held
> >> in the following days.
> >>
> >> avri
> >>
> >>
> >> On 3 Sep 2013, at 15:48, Anja Kovacs wrote:
> >>
> >>> I wanted to chip in and share my thinking on two issues.
> >>>
> >>> 1. I believe it is very important that the ITU and WSIS+10 are kept
> >>> in the agenda as explicit, focused agenda items, and that we spend
> >>> some time discussing and planning for the processes around them. To
> >>> my mind, these are among the most important places where states at
> >>> present are already trying to play out their views on enhanced
> >>> cooperation in practice, with rather important consequences for
> >>> civil society (I wrote about this earlier
> >>> here:
> http://beta.internetdemocracy.in/2013/07/pawns-in-a-governments-game/).
> >>> In general, they are also two processes that are likely to have a
> >>> real outcome for Internet governance. It is important that civil
> >>> society is aware and informed, and that at least some of us are also
> >>> closely involved (the ITU also happens to be the process around
> >>> which Best Bits came into its own, and I think it would be foolish
> >>> of us to now retreat from whatever little inroads or impact we have
> >>> made).
> >>>
> >>> 2. The reason I proposed to Jeremy that we make the first day one
> >>> long session (with perhaps a discussion of EC, ITU and WSIS in the
> >>> morning and of multistakeholderism in the afternoon) is because I
> >>> believe that the question of how we see multistakeholderism is
> >>> sharpened by our engagements in these concrete policy fora and how
> >>> we plan to move forward in them, while at the same time our
> >>> engagement with these fora is of course also to some extent
> >>> determined by the visions and views we have when we enter them. In
> >>> that sense I think that by contextualising the discussion on MS
> >>> within those debates, the chances that we move forward are far
> >>> greater, if not in terms of coming to a joint position, then at
> >>> least in terms of understanding we all take the positions that we take.
> >>>
> >>> One of the specific aims of Best Bits is that it should aid civil
> >>> society not only in having important discussions, but also in
> >>> getting concrete work done. By framing the agenda for our two days
> >>> in Bali in the above manner, we can maximise our outcomes on both
> >>> counts.
> >>>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>> Anja
> >>
> >
> >
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
> executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.orgpo box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>
>


-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130904/9ff05f6d/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Wed Sep  4 08:21:06 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 21:21:06 +0900
Subject: [bestbits] IGF plus
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHB0a_52=e7Gdiqq9kixfOLpefs7Hhgijx4vyKy5owAPNw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CE429C24.2DD22%andrew@gp-digital.org> <521CDF2E.7000705@itforchange.net> <52244A96.5060702@ciroap.org> <52261282.5070305@itforchange.net> <52261500.1070905@itforchange.net> <CAJqNAHBKOC7ystAAsND4TZPtOTkyT833RiY2BFx_QvCOexQnqQ@mail.gmail.com> <B6749681-0CF4-4943-999F-21053A20909B@acm.org> <CC50F47F-1C7A-4D23-AE99-4144FFACEF22@apc.org> <52270D95.10606@apc.org> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CBD57207376@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <CAJqNAHB0a_52=e7Gdiqq9kixfOLpefs7Hhgijx4vyKy5owAPNw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <64150848-0BA8-4DFA-9F86-EA2D10FFE03A@ciroap.org>

On 04/09/2013, at 9:13 PM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in> wrote:

> That was indeed what I had in mind, Anriette, as well as linking more theoretical discussions or discussions of principles (which we do need to have at times) to these specific mechanisms we are developing and/or engaging in.
> 
> And that is the problem with the OECD: it is much less clear to me how we can make this particular discussion a concrete and outcome oriented one. I have seen the debate about the OECD play out on various lists (even if without resolution, I think a discussion has been had), and don't yet see where there could be common ground to move forward among the varous stances that seem to exist on the OECD. 
> 
> If there are any proposals in this regard, I would of course be happy to hear them.


The OECD has a rather dense set of process of its own, which are covered a different coalition, viz. CSISAC (though there is significant cross membership with Best Bits).  It is hard to simply "dip your toes" into what goes on at the OECD, and I don't suggest we try to do so.  However better reporting from CSISAC to its own members and broader civil society is definitely needed (its website is two years out of date, to start with), and something that we are trying to make happen.  As always, resource constraints apply.

-- 
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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130904/21fd2d74/attachment.htm>

From anriette at apc.org  Wed Sep  4 08:28:41 2013
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 14:28:41 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] IGF plus
In-Reply-To: <64150848-0BA8-4DFA-9F86-EA2D10FFE03A@ciroap.org>
References: <CE429C24.2DD22%andrew@gp-digital.org> <521CDF2E.7000705@itforchange.net> <52244A96.5060702@ciroap.org> <52261282.5070305@itforchange.net> <52261500.1070905@itforchange.net> <CAJqNAHBKOC7ystAAsND4TZPtOTkyT833RiY2BFx_QvCOexQnqQ@mail.gmail.com> <B6749681-0CF4-4943-999F-21053A20909B@acm.org> <CC50F47F-1C7A-4D23-AE99-4144FFACEF22@apc.org> <52270D95.10606@apc.org> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CBD57207376@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <CAJqNAHB0a_52=e7Gdiqq9kixfOLpefs7Hhgijx4vyKy5owAPNw@mail.gmail.com> <64150848-0BA8-4DFA-9F86-EA2D10FFE03A@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <52272779.1030702@apc.org>

Agree with Jeremy on CSISAC OECD.

But in any case, I see this discussion as us setting an agenda which
could be picked up in various spaces rather than just responding to
pre-existing agendas in policy spaces.. not that we cannot do both.

Anriette

On 04/09/2013 14:21, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 04/09/2013, at 9:13 PM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in> wrote:
>
>> That was indeed what I had in mind, Anriette, as well as linking more theoretical discussions or discussions of principles (which we do need to have at times) to these specific mechanisms we are developing and/or engaging in.
>>
>> And that is the problem with the OECD: it is much less clear to me how we can make this particular discussion a concrete and outcome oriented one. I have seen the debate about the OECD play out on various lists (even if without resolution, I think a discussion has been had), and don't yet see where there could be common ground to move forward among the varous stances that seem to exist on the OECD. 
>>
>> If there are any proposals in this regard, I would of course be happy to hear them.
>
> The OECD has a rather dense set of process of its own, which are covered a different coalition, viz. CSISAC (though there is significant cross membership with Best Bits).  It is hard to simply "dip your toes" into what goes on at the OECD, and I don't suggest we try to do so.  However better reporting from CSISAC to its own members and broader civil society is definitely needed (its website is two years out of date, to start with), and something that we are trying to make happen.  As always, resource constraints apply.
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
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


From erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu  Wed Sep  4 08:29:53 2013
From: erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu (JOSEFSSON Erik)
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 14:29:53 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?RE=3A_Call_for_Tenders_SMART_2013?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?/N004_=93European_Capability_for_Situational_Awareness?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?=94_=28ECSA=29_-_European_Federation_for_cyber-censorshi?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?p_and_human_rights_monitoring?=
In-Reply-To: <B947C187D5C52B4B9C0DBC45FF88501849F045F9@S-DC-ESTG04-B.net1.cec.eu.int>
References: <B947C187D5C52B4B9C0DBC45FF88501849F0300C@S-DC-ESTG04-B.net1.cec.eu.int> 
    <B947C187D5C52B4B9C0DBC45FF88501849F045F9@S-DC-ESTG04-B.net1.cec.eu.int>
Message-ID: <BFB8C54A55E15345AD245DB3CCC03538082FFA69@EMAILBRUSV21.ep.parl.union.eu>

We've been talking about it in EPFSUG too:

    http://epfsug.eu/wws/arc/epfsug/2012-12/msg00045.html

But the parliament doesn't block Tor, does it?

//Erik


On 09/04/2013 10:49 AM, Camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> And now the full EC link, for all those ones, like our friends in CN
> for instance, where bitly is blocked
>
> http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/smart-2013n004-—-european-capability-situational-awareness
> <http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/smart-2013n004-%97-european-capability-situational-awareness>
>
> Thanks Erik J. for the warning.
>
> Seems we do really have a problem with censorship (jokingly said of
> course)
>
> I hope we can also input that to ECSA! 
>
> All the best
>
> Ms Camino Manjon
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* MANJON Camino (CNECT)
> *Sent:* 03 September 2013 17:27
> *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net;
> Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org;
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; liberationtech at lists.stanford.edu;
> pet at lists.links.org
> *Subject:* Call for Tenders SMART 2013/N004 “European Capability for
> Situational Awareness” (ECSA) - European Federation for
> cyber-censorship and human rights monitoring
>
> Dear colleagues (and some friends in the lists),
>
>
> The purpose of this email is to inform you of the recent publication
> of the *Call for Tenders **SMART 2013/N004 “European Capability for
> Situational Awareness” (ECSA). *If you are interested in this
> contract, you should submit your tender no later than *_26/09/2013_*.
>
>
> You will find all the relevant information (invitation to the tender,
> tender specifications and model contract) in the following link:  
>
> http://bit.ly/16E6sfG
>
>
> At the initiative of the *Directorate General for **Communications
> Networks, Content and Technology* (DG CONNECT),in close cooperation
> with other European Commission services (DG Development and
> Cooperation and DG Enterprise) and the European External Action
> Service (EEAS), the European Commission has put in place the
> No-Disconnect Strategy.^^1 <#sdfootnote1sym> The goal of this policy
> toolkit is *to provide on-going support to counter-censorship and
> surveillance to facilitate the role of **activists, political
> dissidents, bloggers, journalists and citizens living and/or operating
> in high-risk environments, or elsewhere*. This way we make operational
> our commitment to uphold human rights and fundamental freedoms online
> and support that the No-Disconnect Strategy embraces the wider EU
> strategy for Human Rights.^^2 <#sdfootnote2sym>
>
>
> For those who are not yet familiar with the Strategy, its four main
> strands of activity are: *(1)*development of technological tools;
> *(2)*training/awareness and capacity building; *(3)*development of
> methods to provide a global capability for situational awareness; and
> *(4)*cooperation with the ICT/Internet industry, EU Member States and
> third countries, also involved in the protection of online freedom of
> expression and privacy.
>
>
> The tender "*European capability for situational awareness*" (ECSA) is
> aimed at providing to the European Commission the framework and
> information necessary to evaluate the creation of a wider _*European
> Federation for cyber-censorship and human rights monitoring, and the
> underlying system infrastructure required to that end.*___
>
> _*
> *_
>
> To achieve this objective, the ICT-PSP Work Programme 2013 will
> support the development of the ECSA platform with an allocation of
> approximately EUR 400,000 for the initial phase (conceptualization of
> the platform according to the conditions seth forth in the tender
> specifications that you will find in the link above, and the design of
> a first prototype of the systems infrastructure and interactive map).
>
>
> The idea departed partially from the “/OECD Communiqué on Principles
> for Internet Policy Making/”, in particular the following two ones:
>
>  *
>
>     “Develop capacities to *bring publicly available, reliable data
>     into the policy-making process*. Publicly available data can
>     increase the quality of all stakeholders’ participation in
>     Internet policy- making as well as governments’ ultimate policy
>     decisions. The collection, validation and public dissemination of
>     objective data to inform Internet policy decisions should be
>     reinforced and used to augment the combined research capacities of
>     governments, other competent authorities and other stakeholders.
>     International comparable metrics will help to quantify the ongoing
>     economic developments and assess the proportionality and
>     effectiveness of any policy solutions created in multi-stakeholder
>     processes. Data gathering should be undertaken so as to avoid
>     administrative burdens and data analysis should be done carefully
>     to enable sound policymaking.”
>
>  *
>
>     “*T**ransparency, fair process, and accountability.*In order to
>     build public trust in the Internet environment, policy-making
>     processes and substantive policies that ensure transparency, fair
>     process, and accountability should be encouraged. Transparency
>     ensures that Internet users have timely, accessible, and
>     actionable information that is relevant to their rights and
>     interests”.
>
> Is in this context in which we realized that a tool enabling
> evidence-based policy-making and transparency related, in this case,
> to censorship and surveillance, could also provide *situational
> awareness*not only to EU policy and decision makers but also to those
> affected directly by the aforementioned restrictions, maximizing their
> empowerment: political dissidents, activists, human rights defenders,
> bloggers, journalists and several other essential actors in the fight
> for online (and offline) freedom.
>
>
> Now, *shifting the focus of this email to the tender itself*, the
> tasks outlined in the tender specifications (http://bit.ly/16E6sfG)
> will address, among several other things, the definition of the
> governance framework and systems infrastructure that should govern and
> support the operations of the federation of organizations that
> tenderers will have to propose, taking into account that all sorts of
> expertise on Internet-event monitoring will be needed.
>
>
> With the view to translate the Internet reality into a “*cartography*”
> of cyber-censorship and cyber-surveillance, the federation will be
> anchored in a dynamic platform -controlled from a /dashboard/-, where
> the aforementioned federated network of partners with Internet and
> censorship/surveillance monitoring capabilities will aggregate a
> variety of clearly defined sets of data (including Open Data and Big
> Data) coming from several sources and stakeholders. 
>
>
> We expect this project to provide reliable and real time or near-real
> time information on the status of network connectivity and network
> traffic alterations/restrictions, as well as timely information on
> legal, social and political developments related to the use of the
> Internet and media for the exercise of human rights and fundamental
> freedoms.
>
>
> As it seems obvious, the gathering of data (and in some cases of
> information) will be related to the location and intensity of
> cyber-censorship and surveillance in non-democratic countries, nascent
> democracies, jurisdictions where human rights are most at risk or
> other parts of the globe where similar trendshave been arising in
> recent times.
>
>
> The data gathering will have *two tracks*: the *first*one addressing
> restrictions/disruptions of Internet and ICT infrastructure, access,
> traffic, content, Internet cut-offs or security events, /inter alia/,
> overlaid with a *second*track of contextual data of political, social,
> legal, regulatory, policy, media, journalistic or human rights nature,
> related to the Internet or not and with a global scope, which would
> help provide the full picture and enable the EU and other actors to
> swiftly act upon reliable and timely information. Examples of this
> second track could be arrests of journalists, restrictions on freedom
> of expression in times of elections, laws affecting Internet openness,
> crack-downs on activists or restriction to NGO´s establishment, to
> name a few.
>
>
> That near-real time information will be mashed-up and controlled from
> the dashboard, and presented in a user-friendly manner, ideally in
> different layers (thematic, geographic, highly troubled areas, etc.)
> through *interactive visualizations via live maps as an essential
> condition, *coupled with the generation of alarms; subject-matter
> reports and geographical reports. As you will see in the tender, new
> ways of dissemination of information are most welcome.
>
>
> As highlighted before, this type of capability is expected to enhance
> the current EU´s early-warning, decision-making and policy-making
> skills and strengthen the level of situational awareness of, but not
> limited to, stakeholders such as digital activists or human rights
> defenders, but even researchers.
>
>
> In particular, the tasks you will find in the tender are:
>
>
> *Task 1 Creation of an Internet censorship monitoring Federation*
>
> *Task 2 Provision of a Data Sources catalogue*
>
> *Task 3 Definition of a Data Governance Framework*
>
> *Task 4 Definition of the technical and infrastructure specifications,
> features and functionalities**(including security measures)*
>
> *Task 5 Recommendations*
>
> *
> *
>
> Some of the expected positive impacts of ECSA we can name are as
> follows: *(1)*Ensuring Internet resilience and stability; *(2)*
> Reinforcement of early-warning capabilities and emergency response
> concerning events affecting human rights, legal, policy and media
> restrictions; *(3) *Better measurement of the evolution of
> non-democratic environments to democratic ones ("/democracy
> thermometer/"); *(4) *Better exchange of information and capacity
> building among relevant stakeholders; *(5) *Better response in case of
> attacks to human rights and activists networks; *(6)* Creation of a
> body of knowledge at the disposal of academics and researchers, as
> well as of the general public (Open Science); *(7) *Publication of
> timely reports and alarms on relevant Internet and human rights
> related events (including activity and threat reports); *(8) *Support
> to the implementation of Human Rights-based approaches;
> *(9)*Optimization of resources and tailored targeted grant support in
> areas where human rights are most at risk in terms of cyber censorship
> and surveillance; *(10)*Reinforcement of capabilities to ensure global
> Internet connectivity; *(11)*Provide (new) methods for network
> measurement; *(12)*Provision of a new source of information about
> Internet security and infrastructure incidents; or *(13)*Provision of
> capabilities for crisis mapping, among others.
>
>
> In *Part 1 of the Tender specifications*you will find the*Technical
> Description*, containing the general context, the specific context and
> examples of organisations and existing projects in the area of
> Internet monitoring (whereby some of your projects we regularly
> observe are mentioned).
>
>
> As regards the *Elegibility Criteria*, we recommend you to have a look
> in detail at *Part**2 of the Tender Specifications*containing the
> Administrative Details, in particular Section 1 “*Elegibility
> requirements*”; Section 2 “*Administrative Requirements*”; Section 5.2
> “*Selection Criteria*” and Section 5.3 “*Award Criteria*”.
>
>
> At the request of tenderers, additional information will be
> communicated solely for the purpose of clarifying the nature of the
> contract and the tender specifications. Such information will have to
> be communicated on the same date to all interested parties hence your
> questions will be published in the link referred to in the document
> “invitation to the tender”
> (https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/news-redirect/l1626). This means
> that for whatever doubt you may have, you can write directly to
> _camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu
> <mailto:camino.MANJON at ec.europa.eu>_(copying our functional mailbox
> _CNECT-D1 at ec.europa.eu <mailto:CNECT-D1 at ec.europa.eu>_). We will do so
> for transparency reasons and to guarantee equal competition, making
> publicly available both, question and answers.
>
>
> The *opening of received tenders*will take place on *10/10/2013*at
> /*10.00h* /in the Commission building located in Avenue de Beaulieu
> 25, Brussels. One authorised representative of each tenderer may
> attend such opening. Tenderers who plan to attend the opening session
> have to inform me (/Ms Camino Manjon Sierra) /by e-mail
> camino.MANJON@,ec.europa.eu; by fax (+32 2 296 89 70) or letter at
> least 72h in advance.
>
>
> I advance a *clerical mistake*in the section referring to the
> information to be stated in the outer envelope when you send us over
> your tenders: "INVITATION TO TENDER *SMART *2013/N004 / *FULL OJ REF"
> "NOT TO BE OPENED *BY THE MESSENGER/COURIER SERVICE" *"NOT TO BE
> OPENED *BY THE OPENING COMMITTEE BEFORE 16/9/2013", where 16/9/2013
> should be 26/09/2013.
>
>
> As a closing, I would like to sincerely thank my colleague and mentor
> Andrea Glorioso for his support in the firs steps of this complex
> project and for conducting our European Capability Situational
> Awareness workshop celebrated in November 2012, when due to a
> contractual pause before my current position in the European
> Commission I could not be on the driving seat or provide any out of
> the box thinking!
>
>
> I take the opportunity to also sincerely thank all those organizations
> which took part in the workshop (Agenda available
> at _http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf//document.cfm?doc_id=1094__)._
>
>
> We look forward to receiving your proposals and we thank you all for
> the good inspiration that your work has meant for us.
>
>
> 1
> <https://remi.webmail.ec.europa.eu/owa/14.2.342.3/scripts/premium/blank.htm#sdfootnote1anc>http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/neelie-kroes/eu-fighting-cybercensorship/
>
> 2
> <https://remi.webmail.ec.europa.eu/owa/14.2.342.3/scripts/premium/blank.htm#sdfootnote2anc>http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/131181.pdf
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
>
> *Ms Camino Manjon Sierra*
>
> European Commission - DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology
>
> Unit D1 (International relations)
>
> Internet Governance; ICANN GAC; dot.EU; Internet and Human Rights
>
> Desk Officer Iran, Syria, Sudan, Iraq & Yemen
>
> Avenue de Beaulieu 25 (5/98) / B-1049 / Brussels / Belgium
>
> T: +32-2-29-78797
>
> M: +32-488-203-447
>
> Twitter @msprotonneutron
>
> Linked-In https://www.linkedin.com/pub/camino-manjon/50/b20/240
>
>


-- 
Erik Josefsson
Advisor on Internet Policies
Greens/EFA Group
<http://www.greens-efa.eu/36-details/josefsson-erik-138.html>
GSM: *+32484082063*
BXL: PHS 04C075 TEL: +3222832667
SBG: WIC M03005 TEL: +33388173776
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130904/51879d8a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 897 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130904/51879d8a/attachment.sig>

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Wed Sep  4 08:32:19 2013
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 18:02:19 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] IGF plus
In-Reply-To: <64150848-0BA8-4DFA-9F86-EA2D10FFE03A@ciroap.org>
References: <CE429C24.2DD22%andrew@gp-digital.org>
	<521CDF2E.7000705@itforchange.net>
	<52244A96.5060702@ciroap.org>
	<52261282.5070305@itforchange.net>
	<52261500.1070905@itforchange.net>
	<CAJqNAHBKOC7ystAAsND4TZPtOTkyT833RiY2BFx_QvCOexQnqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<B6749681-0CF4-4943-999F-21053A20909B@acm.org>
	<CC50F47F-1C7A-4D23-AE99-4144FFACEF22@apc.org>
	<52270D95.10606@apc.org>
	<F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CBD57207376@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
	<CAJqNAHB0a_52=e7Gdiqq9kixfOLpefs7Hhgijx4vyKy5owAPNw@mail.gmail.com>
	<64150848-0BA8-4DFA-9F86-EA2D10FFE03A@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHDmsxE+7ZQjcTVKigHv1e7kS77=p4Bx3dy387LaU=K9zA@mail.gmail.com>

For those not living in a member state of the OECD, that process is not
necessarily one they would like get involved in though, as that will only
help to give credence to claims that the OECD principles are 'global' ones.

Which is one of the main reason swhy building a unified approach on this at
the next BB meeting will likely be difficult: different groups and
individuals just look at that process in radically different ways. I agree
that more discussion would be valuable in fact (and would be very eager to
get more regular updates from those who are involved), but don't think that
at present, the Best Bits meeting is the best place to do so.

FYI: the Internet Democracy Project does not consider the OECD or its
principles as global in nature, and whenever such a claim is made, we
oppose this explicitly (as we do when similar references are made to the
Budapest convention).

Best,
Anja


On 4 September 2013 17:51, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> On 04/09/2013, at 9:13 PM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in> wrote:
>
> That was indeed what I had in mind, Anriette, as well as linking more
> theoretical discussions or discussions of principles (which we do need to
> have at times) to these specific mechanisms we are developing and/or
> engaging in.
>
> And that is the problem with the OECD: it is much less clear to me how we
> can make this particular discussion a concrete and outcome oriented one. I
> have seen the debate about the OECD play out on various lists (even if
> without resolution, I think a discussion has been had), and don't yet see
> where there could be common ground to move forward among the varous stances
> that seem to exist on the OECD.
>
> If there are any proposals in this regard, I would of course be happy to
> hear them.
>
>
> The OECD has a rather dense set of process of its own, which are covered a
> different coalition, viz. CSISAC (though there is significant cross
> membership with Best Bits).  It is hard to simply "dip your toes" into what
> goes on at the OECD, and I don't suggest we try to do so.  However better
> reporting from CSISAC to its own members and broader civil society is
> definitely needed (its website is two years out of date, to start with),
> and something that we are trying to make happen.  As always, resource
> constraints apply.
>
> --
>
> *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
>
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub
> |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>
>


-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130904/ae61e819/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed Sep  4 08:40:48 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 19:40:48 +0700
Subject: [bestbits] IGF plus
In-Reply-To: <64150848-0BA8-4DFA-9F86-EA2D10FFE03A@ciroap.org>
References: <CE429C24.2DD22%andrew@gp-digital.org> <521CDF2E.7000705@itforchange.net> <52244A96.5060702@ciroap.org> <52261282.5070305@itforchange.net> <52261500.1070905@itforchange.net> <CAJqNAHBKOC7ystAAsND4TZPtOTkyT833RiY2BFx_QvCOexQnqQ@mail.gmail.com> <B6749681-0CF4-4943-999F-21053A20909B@acm.org> <CC50F47F-1C7A-4D23-AE99-4144FFACEF22@apc.org> <52270D95.10606@apc.org> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CBD57207376@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <CAJqNAHB0a_52=e7Gdiqq9kixfOLpefs7Hhgijx4vyKy5owAPNw@mail.gmail.com> <64150848-0BA8-4DFA-9F86-EA2D10FFE03A@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <006801cea96c$024dd360$06e97a20$@gmail.com>

The issue with the OECD principles is that it is quite clear that the US
etc. want to make these the basic principles for Internet governance
globally (see the US submission concering the ECWG as Parm has already
pointed to (even though the initial process of affirming these principles
was flawed--CS did not sign on to these in a context where the various
parties in the OECD are insisting that MSism including CS is a necessary
element in OECD legitimation processes.

 

So, dealing directly with the OECD principles is not a sideshow but rather
going right to the heart of the current drive concerning Internet governance
(at least from a Developed Country/OECD perspective.

 

M

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 7:21 PM
To: Anja Kovacs
Cc: Andrew Puddephatt; anriette at apc.org; Valeria Betancourt;
bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Bits
Subject: Re: [bestbits] IGF plus

 

On 04/09/2013, at 9:13 PM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in> wrote:





That was indeed what I had in mind, Anriette, as well as linking more
theoretical discussions or discussions of principles (which we do need to
have at times) to these specific mechanisms we are developing and/or
engaging in.

 

And that is the problem with the OECD: it is much less clear to me how we
can make this particular discussion a concrete and outcome oriented one. I
have seen the debate about the OECD play out on various lists (even if
without resolution, I think a discussion has been had), and don't yet see
where there could be common ground to move forward among the varous stances
that seem to exist on the OECD. 

If there are any proposals in this regard, I would of course be happy to
hear them.

 

The OECD has a rather dense set of process of its own, which are covered a
different coalition, viz. CSISAC (though there is significant cross
membership with Best Bits).  It is hard to simply "dip your toes" into what
goes on at the OECD, and I don't suggest we try to do so.  However better
reporting from CSISAC to its own members and broader civil society is
definitely needed (its website is two years out of date, to start with), and
something that we are trying to make happen.  As always, resource
constraints apply.

 

-- 

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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone>
http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/>  |
www.facebook.com/consumersinternational

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality> . Don't print
this email unless necessary.

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to
enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see
<http://jere.my/l/8m> http://jere.my/l/8m.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130904/c86ba207/attachment.htm>

From avri at acm.org  Wed Sep  4 08:51:33 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 08:51:33 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] IGF plus
In-Reply-To: <64150848-0BA8-4DFA-9F86-EA2D10FFE03A@ciroap.org>
References: <CE429C24.2DD22%andrew@gp-digital.org> <521CDF2E.7000705@itforchange.net> <52244A96.5060702@ciroap.org> <52261282.5070305@itforchange.net> <52261500.1070905@itforchange.net> <CAJqNAHBKOC7ystAAsND4TZPtOTkyT833RiY2BFx_QvCOexQnqQ@mail.gmail.com> <B6749681-0CF4-4943-999F-21053A20909B@acm.org> <CC50F47F-1C7A-4D23-AE99-4144FFACEF22@apc.org> <52270D95.10606@apc.org> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CBD57207376@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <CAJqNAHB0a_52=e7Gdiqq9kixfOLpefs7Hhgijx4vyKy5owAPNw@mail.gmail.com> <64150848-0BA8-4DFA-9F86-EA2D10FFE03A@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <0EF15958-8681-4529-91E1-ACA93A198DCA@acm.org>


On 4 Sep 2013, at 08:21, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:

>  It is hard to simply "dip your toes" into what goes on at the OECD, and I don't suggest we try to do so.  

Let me say that i dipped my toes in around a year ago and am still trying to figure my way around that labyrinth.

> However better reporting from CSISAC to its own members and broader civil society is definitely needed (its website is two years out of date, to start with),

Yeah, i was told updating the web site was a priority when i asked about it over a year ago.  I think there is a secretariat that has this on its task list.

I beleive it would be good for someone that understood what was going on, and perhaps was in the CSISAC leadership (I think we have one) would input into these discussions.

avri



From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed Sep  4 08:52:21 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 19:52:21 +0700
Subject: [bestbits] IGF plus
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHDmsxE+7ZQjcTVKigHv1e7kS77=p4Bx3dy387LaU=K9zA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CE429C24.2DD22%andrew@gp-digital.org>	<521CDF2E.7000705@itforchange.net>	<52244A96.5060702@ciroap.org>	<52261282.5070305@itforchange.net>	<52261500.1070905@itforchange.net>	<CAJqNAHBKOC7ystAAsND4TZPtOTkyT833RiY2BFx_QvCOexQnqQ@mail.gmail.com>	<B6749681-0CF4-4943-999F-21053A20909B@acm.org>	<CC50F47F-1C7A-4D23-AE99-4144FFACEF22@apc.org>	<52270D95.10606@apc.org>	<F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CBD57207376@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>	<CAJqNAHB0a_52=e7Gdiqq9kixfOLpefs7Hhgijx4vyKy5owAPNw@mail.gmail.com>	<64150848-0BA8-4DFA-9F86-EA2D10FFE03A@ciroap.org> <CAJqNAHDmsxE+7ZQjcTVKigHv1e7kS77=p4Bx3dy387LaU=K9zA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <008801cea96d$a012d040$e03870c0$@gmail.com>

Anja and all,

 

In the absence of alternative sets of principles with any degree of broad
based support and given the political, economic and technology signifiicance
of the OECD countries any position on something as significant as this
cannot/should not be ignored and particularly by a CS concerned with global
developments.

 

M

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anja Kovacs
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 7:32 PM
To: Jeremy Malcolm
Cc: Andrew Puddephatt; anriette at apc.org; Valeria Betancourt;
bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Bits
Subject: Re: [bestbits] IGF plus

 

For those not living in a member state of the OECD, that process is not
necessarily one they would like get involved in though, as that will only
help to give credence to claims that the OECD principles are 'global' ones. 

Which is one of the main reason swhy building a unified approach on this at
the next BB meeting will likely be difficult: different groups and
individuals just look at that process in radically different ways. I agree
that more discussion would be valuable in fact (and would be very eager to
get more regular updates from those who are involved), but don't think that
at present, the Best Bits meeting is the best place to do so.

FYI: the Internet Democracy Project does not consider the OECD or its
principles as global in nature, and whenever such a claim is made, we oppose
this explicitly (as we do when similar references are made to the Budapest
convention).

Best,
Anja

 

On 4 September 2013 17:51, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

On 04/09/2013, at 9:13 PM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in> wrote:





That was indeed what I had in mind, Anriette, as well as linking more
theoretical discussions or discussions of principles (which we do need to
have at times) to these specific mechanisms we are developing and/or
engaging in.

 

And that is the problem with the OECD: it is much less clear to me how we
can make this particular discussion a concrete and outcome oriented one. I
have seen the debate about the OECD play out on various lists (even if
without resolution, I think a discussion has been had), and don't yet see
where there could be common ground to move forward among the varous stances
that seem to exist on the OECD. 

If there are any proposals in this regard, I would of course be happy to
hear them.

 

The OECD has a rather dense set of process of its own, which are covered a
different coalition, viz. CSISAC (though there is significant cross
membership with Best Bits).  It is hard to simply "dip your toes" into what
goes on at the OECD, and I don't suggest we try to do so.  However better
reporting from CSISAC to its own members and broader civil society is
definitely needed (its website is two years out of date, to start with), and
something that we are trying to make happen.  As always, resource
constraints apply.

 

-- 

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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub
|http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/>  |
www.facebook.com/consumersinternational

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality> . Don't print
this email unless necessary.

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to
enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see
<http://jere.my/l/8m> http://jere.my/l/8m.

 




-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130904/fa09ac29/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Sep  4 09:21:03 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 18:51:03 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] IGF plus
In-Reply-To: <52270D95.10606@apc.org>
References: <CE429C24.2DD22%andrew@gp-digital.org> <521CDF2E.7000705@itforchange.net> <52244A96.5060702@ciroap.org> <52261282.5070305@itforchange.net> <52261500.1070905@itforchange.net> <CAJqNAHBKOC7ystAAsND4TZPtOTkyT833RiY2BFx_QvCOexQnqQ@mail.gmail.com> <B6749681-0CF4-4943-999F-21053A20909B@acm.org> <CC50F47F-1C7A-4D23-AE99-4144FFACEF22@apc.org> <52270D95.10606@apc.org>
Message-ID: <522733BF.7070305@itforchange.net>


On Wednesday 04 September 2013 04:08 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> Dear all
>
> Apologies for chipping in at this point and not following the discussion
> consistently. One idea I would like to discuss is looking at how to
> build specific mechanisms to address specific problems rather than
> always focusing on general problems/processes. I think this is also what
> Avri and Anja are proposing.

I didnt see Anja refer to anything like building specific mechanisms to 
address specific problems. She only discussed the day one subjects - 
ITU/ WSIS section and MSism part .
On the other hand, I have been asking for focussing on the specific 
problem of global surveillance by NSA/ US......
>
> E.g. to take the surveillance issue... we have written some letters; we
> are raising it in the HRC and related bodies; there is a civil society
> 'good practice' guideline (which I realise not everyone agrees on fully,
> but it is still a good start).
>
> Can we not take this particular issue and look at what concrete
> mechanisms and measures we can propose to address it in quite specific
> ways?

Yes, discuss the Snowden revelations issue, review what we have done 
till present and what else is necessary... As for the the recent civil 
society guidelines on privacy, there is a good discussion on this 
subject  in the IRP list, and that too should be carried forward.

parminder

>
> Anriette
>
>
>
> On 03/09/2013 22:14, Valeria Betancourt wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I concur with Anja and Avri.
>>
>> Valeria
>>
>>
>> On 03/09/2013, at 15:07, Avri Doria wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I think this is a good framing.  The only thing I would recommend
>>> adding to the specific aims, is preparation for the IGF itself -
>>> specific action/statement for the sessions and workshops to be held
>>> in the following days.
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3 Sep 2013, at 15:48, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>>>
>>>> I wanted to chip in and share my thinking on two issues.
>>>>
>>>> 1. I believe it is very important that the ITU and WSIS+10 are kept
>>>> in the agenda as explicit, focused agenda items, and that we spend
>>>> some time discussing and planning for the processes around them. To
>>>> my mind, these are among the most important places where states at
>>>> present are already trying to play out their views on enhanced
>>>> cooperation in practice, with rather important consequences for
>>>> civil society (I wrote about this earlier
>>>> here:http://beta.internetdemocracy.in/2013/07/pawns-in-a-governments-game/).
>>>> In general, they are also two processes that are likely to have a
>>>> real outcome for Internet governance. It is important that civil
>>>> society is aware and informed, and that at least some of us are also
>>>> closely involved (the ITU also happens to be the process around
>>>> which Best Bits came into its own, and I think it would be foolish
>>>> of us to now retreat from whatever little inroads or impact we have
>>>> made).
>>>>
>>>> 2. The reason I proposed to Jeremy that we make the first day one
>>>> long session (with perhaps a discussion of EC, ITU and WSIS in the
>>>> morning and of multistakeholderism in the afternoon) is because I
>>>> believe that the question of how we see multistakeholderism is
>>>> sharpened by our engagements in these concrete policy fora and how
>>>> we plan to move forward in them, while at the same time our
>>>> engagement with these fora is of course also to some extent
>>>> determined by the visions and views we have when we enter them. In
>>>> that sense I think that by contextualising the discussion on MS
>>>> within those debates, the chances that we move forward are far
>>>> greater, if not in terms of coming to a joint position, then at
>>>> least in terms of understanding we all take the positions that we take.
>>>>
>>>> One of the specific aims of Best Bits is that it should aid civil
>>>> society not only in having important discussions, but also in
>>>> getting concrete work done. By framing the agenda for our two days
>>>> in Bali in the above manner, we can maximise our outcomes on both
>>>> counts.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Anja
>>


From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Sep  4 10:01:35 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 19:31:35 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] IGF plus
In-Reply-To: <008801cea96d$a012d040$e03870c0$@gmail.com>
References: <CE429C24.2DD22%andrew@gp-digital.org>	<521CDF2E.7000705@itforchange.net>	<52244A96.5060702@ciroap.org>	<52261282.5070305@itforchange.net>	<52261500.1070905@itforchange.net>	<CAJqNAHBKOC7ystAAsND4TZPtOTkyT833RiY2BFx_QvCOexQnqQ@mail.gmail.com>	<B6749681-0CF4-4943-999F-21053A20909B@acm.org>	<CC50F47F-1C7A-4D23-AE99-4144FFACEF22@apc.org>	<52270D95.10606@apc.org>	<F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CBD57207376@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>	<CAJqNAHB0a_52=e7Gdiqq9kixfOLpefs7Hhgijx4vyKy5owAPNw@mail.gmail.com>	<64150848-0BA8-4DFA-9F86-EA2D10FFE03A@ciroap.org> <CAJqNAHDmsxE+7ZQjcTVKigHv1e7kS77=p4Bx3dy387LaU=K9zA@mail.gmail.com> <008801cea96d$a012d040$e03870c0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <52273D3F.5030507@itforchange.net>


Let me add some points here....

It does not matter if we dont recognise OECD process as 'globally' 
legitimate (of course I dont), the point remains that this particular 
process is the most potent one right now in terms of global Internet 
policy making. How can we simply turn our face away from it. Its outputs 
are being sold/ pushed through plurilateral and bilateral forums. The 
forthcomng Seoul Cyber conference, of the lineage of the London Cyber 
conference, is the kind of place where real work happens, and principles 
developed at OECD etc are incorporated into meeting outcomes selectively 
taking in concurrence of a selective wider set of countries - whose 
fears and greedy hopes are continually played on.

Whether the processes around OECD's CICCP are dense, or there are civil 
society groups already involved (which as I suggested seem to have 
different conceptions of multistakeholderism inside and outside OCECD), 
does not make it an inappropriate subject for BestBits....

Also remember that OECD model of global policy making has traditionally 
been a big issue with developing countries. (It recently played in the 
UN with regard to distribution of tax from global commerce. Please see 
this <http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/resurgence/2012/268/cover04.htm>. 
)  With Internet being essentially global, the default application of 
OECD policies on a global scale is even more severe. This is an 
important global issue that needs to be taken up. It is a developing 
countries issue.

Anja, no I have seen no discussion on OECD model of global policy making 
in the IG space.... Yes, I do occasionally pose questions but they are 
never responded to. Therefore the discussion is still pending. and this 
is a good time to have it.

I also have a specific issue on the MS (multistakeholderism) model that 
civil society pushes. Should we not be consistent across different 
spaces with regard to our preferred model. I know I am repeating this 
question.... I understand that the mandate of OECD's Committee for 
Computer, Information and Communication Policy is up for renewal towards 
the end of 2013 (I may be wrong and can be corrected). Would global 
civil society not want to propose that this important site of global 
policy making becomes what it considered as really multistakeholder.... 
Should we not write to them about it, as we write to the ITU.

So, the proposed concrete outcomes are as follows:

Consequent to our discussion at the face to face meeting, we write to 
the OECD;

(1) On substantive issues, that the OECD should not push the policy 
framework that it produces as global ones, and if indeed it sees the 
need of global policy frameworks it must develop them at appropriate 
global forums

(2) On the process issue, that OECD's Internet policy mechanism, ie 
CICCP, should adopt the multistakeholder model of policy development 
that OECD countries advocate (along with civil society) for global 
Internet policy forums. The proposed renewal of CICCP's mandate in Dec 
2013 is a good opportunity to do this.

parminder


On Wednesday 04 September 2013 06:22 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
>
> Anja and all,
>
> In the absence of alternative sets of principles with any degree of 
> broad based support and given the political, economic and technology 
> signifiicance of the OECD countries any position on something as 
> significant as this cannot/should not be ignored and particularly by a 
> CS concerned with global developments.
>
> M
>
> *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net 
> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Anja Kovacs
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 04, 2013 7:32 PM
> *To:* Jeremy Malcolm
> *Cc:* Andrew Puddephatt; anriette at apc.org; Valeria Betancourt; 
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Bits
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] IGF plus
>
> For those not living in a member state of the OECD, that process is 
> not necessarily one they would like get involved in though, as that 
> will only help to give credence to claims that the OECD principles are 
> 'global' ones.
>
> Which is one of the main reason swhy building a unified approach on 
> this at the next BB meeting will likely be difficult: different groups 
> and individuals just look at that process in radically different ways. 
> I agree that more discussion would be valuable in fact (and would be 
> very eager to get more regular updates from those who are involved), 
> but don't think that at present, the Best Bits meeting is the best 
> place to do so.
>
> FYI: the Internet Democracy Project does not consider the OECD or its 
> principles as global in nature, and whenever such a claim is made, we 
> oppose this explicitly (as we do when similar references are made to 
> the Budapest convention).
>
> Best,
> Anja
>
> On 4 September 2013 17:51, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org 
> <mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>> wrote:
>
> On 04/09/2013, at 9:13 PM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in 
> <mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in>> wrote:
>
>
>
> That was indeed what I had in mind, Anriette, as well as linking more 
> theoretical discussions or discussions of principles (which we do need 
> to have at times) to these specific mechanisms we are developing 
> and/or engaging in.
>
> And that is the problem with the OECD: it is much less clear to me how 
> we can make this particular discussion a concrete and outcome oriented 
> one. I have seen the debate about the OECD play out on various lists 
> (even if without resolution, I think a discussion has been had), and 
> don't yet see where there could be common ground to move forward among 
> the varous stances that seem to exist on the OECD.
>
> If there are any proposals in this regard, I would of course be happy 
> to hear them.
>
> The OECD has a rather dense set of process of its own, which are 
> covered a different coalition, viz. CSISAC (though there is 
> significant cross membership with Best Bits).  It is hard to simply 
> "dip your toes" into what goes on at the OECD, and I don't suggest we 
> try to do so.  However better reporting from CSISAC to its own members 
> and broader civil society is definitely needed (its website is two 
> years out of date, to start with), and something that we are trying to 
> make happen.  As always, resource constraints apply.
>
> -- 
>
> *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
>
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge 
> hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/> | 
> 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.
>
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For 
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130904/3530e799/attachment.htm>

From anriette at apc.org  Wed Sep  4 10:11:53 2013
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 16:11:53 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] IGF plus
In-Reply-To: <522733BF.7070305@itforchange.net>
References: <CE429C24.2DD22%andrew@gp-digital.org> <521CDF2E.7000705@itforchange.net> <52244A96.5060702@ciroap.org> <52261282.5070305@itforchange.net> <52261500.1070905@itforchange.net> <CAJqNAHBKOC7ystAAsND4TZPtOTkyT833RiY2BFx_QvCOexQnqQ@mail.gmail.com> <B6749681-0CF4-4943-999F-21053A20909B@acm.org> <CC50F47F-1C7A-4D23-AE99-4144FFACEF22@apc.org> <52270D95.10606@apc.org> <522733BF.7070305@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <52273FA9.5050206@apc.org>

Dear Parminder and all...

Would it be possible for someone to volunteer to summarise the
surveillance issue and work that has been done that on that, and
discussion in IRP list etc. as a background doc for our meeting in Bali?

That would cover some stuff that started prior to the Snowden
revelations as well as work/discussion since. That might help us work a
bit faster.

Apologies for not being able to volunteer.

Anriette

On 04/09/2013 15:21, parminder wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 04 September 2013 04:08 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>> Dear all
>>
>> Apologies for chipping in at this point and not following the discussion
>> consistently. One idea I would like to discuss is looking at how to
>> build specific mechanisms to address specific problems rather than
>> always focusing on general problems/processes. I think this is also what
>> Avri and Anja are proposing.
>
> I didnt see Anja refer to anything like building specific mechanisms
> to address specific problems. She only discussed the day one subjects
> - ITU/ WSIS section and MSism part .
> On the other hand, I have been asking for focussing on the specific
> problem of global surveillance by NSA/ US......
>>
>> E.g. to take the surveillance issue... we have written some letters; we
>> are raising it in the HRC and related bodies; there is a civil society
>> 'good practice' guideline (which I realise not everyone agrees on fully,
>> but it is still a good start).
>>
>> Can we not take this particular issue and look at what concrete
>> mechanisms and measures we can propose to address it in quite specific
>> ways?
>
> Yes, discuss the Snowden revelations issue, review what we have done
> till present and what else is necessary... As for the the recent civil
> society guidelines on privacy, there is a good discussion on this
> subject  in the IRP list, and that too should be carried forward.
>
> parminder
>
>>
>> Anriette
>>
>>
>>
>> On 03/09/2013 22:14, Valeria Betancourt wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I concur with Anja and Avri.
>>>
>>> Valeria
>>>
>>>
>>> On 03/09/2013, at 15:07, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I think this is a good framing.  The only thing I would recommend
>>>> adding to the specific aims, is preparation for the IGF itself -
>>>> specific action/statement for the sessions and workshops to be held
>>>> in the following days.
>>>>
>>>> avri
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 3 Sep 2013, at 15:48, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I wanted to chip in and share my thinking on two issues.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. I believe it is very important that the ITU and WSIS+10 are kept
>>>>> in the agenda as explicit, focused agenda items, and that we spend
>>>>> some time discussing and planning for the processes around them. To
>>>>> my mind, these are among the most important places where states at
>>>>> present are already trying to play out their views on enhanced
>>>>> cooperation in practice, with rather important consequences for
>>>>> civil society (I wrote about this earlier
>>>>> here:http://beta.internetdemocracy.in/2013/07/pawns-in-a-governments-game/).
>>>>>
>>>>> In general, they are also two processes that are likely to have a
>>>>> real outcome for Internet governance. It is important that civil
>>>>> society is aware and informed, and that at least some of us are also
>>>>> closely involved (the ITU also happens to be the process around
>>>>> which Best Bits came into its own, and I think it would be foolish
>>>>> of us to now retreat from whatever little inroads or impact we have
>>>>> made).
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. The reason I proposed to Jeremy that we make the first day one
>>>>> long session (with perhaps a discussion of EC, ITU and WSIS in the
>>>>> morning and of multistakeholderism in the afternoon) is because I
>>>>> believe that the question of how we see multistakeholderism is
>>>>> sharpened by our engagements in these concrete policy fora and how
>>>>> we plan to move forward in them, while at the same time our
>>>>> engagement with these fora is of course also to some extent
>>>>> determined by the visions and views we have when we enter them. In
>>>>> that sense I think that by contextualising the discussion on MS
>>>>> within those debates, the chances that we move forward are far
>>>>> greater, if not in terms of coming to a joint position, then at
>>>>> least in terms of understanding we all take the positions that we
>>>>> take.
>>>>>
>>>>> One of the specific aims of Best Bits is that it should aid civil
>>>>> society not only in having important discussions, but also in
>>>>> getting concrete work done. By framing the agenda for our two days
>>>>> in Bali in the above manner, we can maximise our outcomes on both
>>>>> counts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Anja
>>>
>
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
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


From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Wed Sep  4 10:13:32 2013
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 19:43:32 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] IGF plus
In-Reply-To: <52273FA9.5050206@apc.org>
References: <CE429C24.2DD22%andrew@gp-digital.org>
	<521CDF2E.7000705@itforchange.net>
	<52244A96.5060702@ciroap.org>
	<52261282.5070305@itforchange.net>
	<52261500.1070905@itforchange.net>
	<CAJqNAHBKOC7ystAAsND4TZPtOTkyT833RiY2BFx_QvCOexQnqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<B6749681-0CF4-4943-999F-21053A20909B@acm.org>
	<CC50F47F-1C7A-4D23-AE99-4144FFACEF22@apc.org>
	<52270D95.10606@apc.org>
	<522733BF.7070305@itforchange.net>
	<52273FA9.5050206@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHD79VYU_F4NwA_RGKCc2AK5K9FtWxw88h39=0-2Jb=e=g@mail.gmail.com>

To make my position more concrete: I do not think that as an initiative
from the developing world, we undermine the march forward of the OECD in
any way by signing a letter addressed to them. On the contrary, that only
gives them greater legitimacy. Those who are from member states could do
so, but as far as the rest of us are concerned, I think what we need to do
is boycott.

Best,
Anja


On 4 September 2013 19:41, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:

> Dear Parminder and all...
>
> Would it be possible for someone to volunteer to summarise the
> surveillance issue and work that has been done that on that, and
> discussion in IRP list etc. as a background doc for our meeting in Bali?
>
> That would cover some stuff that started prior to the Snowden
> revelations as well as work/discussion since. That might help us work a
> bit faster.
>
> Apologies for not being able to volunteer.
>
> Anriette
>
> On 04/09/2013 15:21, parminder wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday 04 September 2013 04:08 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> >> Dear all
> >>
> >> Apologies for chipping in at this point and not following the discussion
> >> consistently. One idea I would like to discuss is looking at how to
> >> build specific mechanisms to address specific problems rather than
> >> always focusing on general problems/processes. I think this is also what
> >> Avri and Anja are proposing.
> >
> > I didnt see Anja refer to anything like building specific mechanisms
> > to address specific problems. She only discussed the day one subjects
> > - ITU/ WSIS section and MSism part .
> > On the other hand, I have been asking for focussing on the specific
> > problem of global surveillance by NSA/ US......
> >>
> >> E.g. to take the surveillance issue... we have written some letters; we
> >> are raising it in the HRC and related bodies; there is a civil society
> >> 'good practice' guideline (which I realise not everyone agrees on fully,
> >> but it is still a good start).
> >>
> >> Can we not take this particular issue and look at what concrete
> >> mechanisms and measures we can propose to address it in quite specific
> >> ways?
> >
> > Yes, discuss the Snowden revelations issue, review what we have done
> > till present and what else is necessary... As for the the recent civil
> > society guidelines on privacy, there is a good discussion on this
> > subject  in the IRP list, and that too should be carried forward.
> >
> > parminder
> >
> >>
> >> Anriette
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 03/09/2013 22:14, Valeria Betancourt wrote:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> I concur with Anja and Avri.
> >>>
> >>> Valeria
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 03/09/2013, at 15:07, Avri Doria wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> I think this is a good framing.  The only thing I would recommend
> >>>> adding to the specific aims, is preparation for the IGF itself -
> >>>> specific action/statement for the sessions and workshops to be held
> >>>> in the following days.
> >>>>
> >>>> avri
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 3 Sep 2013, at 15:48, Anja Kovacs wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I wanted to chip in and share my thinking on two issues.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1. I believe it is very important that the ITU and WSIS+10 are kept
> >>>>> in the agenda as explicit, focused agenda items, and that we spend
> >>>>> some time discussing and planning for the processes around them. To
> >>>>> my mind, these are among the most important places where states at
> >>>>> present are already trying to play out their views on enhanced
> >>>>> cooperation in practice, with rather important consequences for
> >>>>> civil society (I wrote about this earlier
> >>>>> here:
> http://beta.internetdemocracy.in/2013/07/pawns-in-a-governments-game/).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In general, they are also two processes that are likely to have a
> >>>>> real outcome for Internet governance. It is important that civil
> >>>>> society is aware and informed, and that at least some of us are also
> >>>>> closely involved (the ITU also happens to be the process around
> >>>>> which Best Bits came into its own, and I think it would be foolish
> >>>>> of us to now retreat from whatever little inroads or impact we have
> >>>>> made).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2. The reason I proposed to Jeremy that we make the first day one
> >>>>> long session (with perhaps a discussion of EC, ITU and WSIS in the
> >>>>> morning and of multistakeholderism in the afternoon) is because I
> >>>>> believe that the question of how we see multistakeholderism is
> >>>>> sharpened by our engagements in these concrete policy fora and how
> >>>>> we plan to move forward in them, while at the same time our
> >>>>> engagement with these fora is of course also to some extent
> >>>>> determined by the visions and views we have when we enter them. In
> >>>>> that sense I think that by contextualising the discussion on MS
> >>>>> within those debates, the chances that we move forward are far
> >>>>> greater, if not in terms of coming to a joint position, then at
> >>>>> least in terms of understanding we all take the positions that we
> >>>>> take.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> One of the specific aims of Best Bits is that it should aid civil
> >>>>> society not only in having important discussions, but also in
> >>>>> getting concrete work done. By framing the agenda for our two days
> >>>>> in Bali in the above manner, we can maximise our outcomes on both
> >>>>> counts.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>> Anja
> >>>
> >
> >
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>


-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130904/cfba1387/attachment.htm>

From anriette at apc.org  Wed Sep  4 10:20:22 2013
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 16:20:22 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] IGF plus
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHD79VYU_F4NwA_RGKCc2AK5K9FtWxw88h39=0-2Jb=e=g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CE429C24.2DD22%andrew@gp-digital.org> <521CDF2E.7000705@itforchange.net> <52244A96.5060702@ciroap.org> <52261282.5070305@itforchange.net> <52261500.1070905@itforchange.net> <CAJqNAHBKOC7ystAAsND4TZPtOTkyT833RiY2BFx_QvCOexQnqQ@mail.gmail.com> <B6749681-0CF4-4943-999F-21053A20909B@acm.org> <CC50F47F-1C7A-4D23-AE99-4144FFACEF22@apc.org> <52270D95.10606@apc.org> <522733BF.7070305@itforchange.net> <52273FA9.5050206@apc.org> <CAJqNAHD79VYU_F4NwA_RGKCc2AK5K9FtWxw88h39=0-2Jb=e=g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <522741A6.5050608@apc.org>

I agree with Anja on the OECD issue..

What I think we should do is for Parminder's suggestion on the OECD to
go to CSISAC - so for you to make that proposal in CSISAC and for CSISAC
to take it up.

I don't think Best Bits should do it directly.. more effective to do it
through CSISAC.

Anriette

On 04/09/2013 16:13, Anja Kovacs wrote:
> To make my position more concrete: I do not think that as an initiative
> from the developing world, we undermine the march forward of the OECD in
> any way by signing a letter addressed to them. On the contrary, that only
> gives them greater legitimacy. Those who are from member states could do
> so, but as far as the rest of us are concerned, I think what we need to do
> is boycott.
>
> Best,
> Anja
>
>
> On 4 September 2013 19:41, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:
>
>> Dear Parminder and all...
>>
>> Would it be possible for someone to volunteer to summarise the
>> surveillance issue and work that has been done that on that, and
>> discussion in IRP list etc. as a background doc for our meeting in Bali?
>>
>> That would cover some stuff that started prior to the Snowden
>> revelations as well as work/discussion since. That might help us work a
>> bit faster.
>>
>> Apologies for not being able to volunteer.
>>
>> Anriette
>>
>> On 04/09/2013 15:21, parminder wrote:
>>> On Wednesday 04 September 2013 04:08 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>>> Dear all
>>>>
>>>> Apologies for chipping in at this point and not following the discussion
>>>> consistently. One idea I would like to discuss is looking at how to
>>>> build specific mechanisms to address specific problems rather than
>>>> always focusing on general problems/processes. I think this is also what
>>>> Avri and Anja are proposing.
>>> I didnt see Anja refer to anything like building specific mechanisms
>>> to address specific problems. She only discussed the day one subjects
>>> - ITU/ WSIS section and MSism part .
>>> On the other hand, I have been asking for focussing on the specific
>>> problem of global surveillance by NSA/ US......
>>>> E.g. to take the surveillance issue... we have written some letters; we
>>>> are raising it in the HRC and related bodies; there is a civil society
>>>> 'good practice' guideline (which I realise not everyone agrees on fully,
>>>> but it is still a good start).
>>>>
>>>> Can we not take this particular issue and look at what concrete
>>>> mechanisms and measures we can propose to address it in quite specific
>>>> ways?
>>> Yes, discuss the Snowden revelations issue, review what we have done
>>> till present and what else is necessary... As for the the recent civil
>>> society guidelines on privacy, there is a good discussion on this
>>> subject  in the IRP list, and that too should be carried forward.
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>>> Anriette
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 03/09/2013 22:14, Valeria Betancourt wrote:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I concur with Anja and Avri.
>>>>>
>>>>> Valeria
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 03/09/2013, at 15:07, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think this is a good framing.  The only thing I would recommend
>>>>>> adding to the specific aims, is preparation for the IGF itself -
>>>>>> specific action/statement for the sessions and workshops to be held
>>>>>> in the following days.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> avri
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3 Sep 2013, at 15:48, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wanted to chip in and share my thinking on two issues.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. I believe it is very important that the ITU and WSIS+10 are kept
>>>>>>> in the agenda as explicit, focused agenda items, and that we spend
>>>>>>> some time discussing and planning for the processes around them. To
>>>>>>> my mind, these are among the most important places where states at
>>>>>>> present are already trying to play out their views on enhanced
>>>>>>> cooperation in practice, with rather important consequences for
>>>>>>> civil society (I wrote about this earlier
>>>>>>> here:
>> http://beta.internetdemocracy.in/2013/07/pawns-in-a-governments-game/).
>>>>>>> In general, they are also two processes that are likely to have a
>>>>>>> real outcome for Internet governance. It is important that civil
>>>>>>> society is aware and informed, and that at least some of us are also
>>>>>>> closely involved (the ITU also happens to be the process around
>>>>>>> which Best Bits came into its own, and I think it would be foolish
>>>>>>> of us to now retreat from whatever little inroads or impact we have
>>>>>>> made).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. The reason I proposed to Jeremy that we make the first day one
>>>>>>> long session (with perhaps a discussion of EC, ITU and WSIS in the
>>>>>>> morning and of multistakeholderism in the afternoon) is because I
>>>>>>> believe that the question of how we see multistakeholderism is
>>>>>>> sharpened by our engagements in these concrete policy fora and how
>>>>>>> we plan to move forward in them, while at the same time our
>>>>>>> engagement with these fora is of course also to some extent
>>>>>>> determined by the visions and views we have when we enter them. In
>>>>>>> that sense I think that by contextualising the discussion on MS
>>>>>>> within those debates, the chances that we move forward are far
>>>>>>> greater, if not in terms of coming to a joint position, then at
>>>>>>> least in terms of understanding we all take the positions that we
>>>>>>> take.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One of the specific aims of Best Bits is that it should aid civil
>>>>>>> society not only in having important discussions, but also in
>>>>>>> getting concrete work done. By framing the agenda for our two days
>>>>>>> in Bali in the above manner, we can maximise our outcomes on both
>>>>>>> counts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>> Anja
>>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>>
>>
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
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


From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed Sep  4 10:26:56 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 21:26:56 +0700
Subject: [bestbits] IGF plus
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHD79VYU_F4NwA_RGKCc2AK5K9FtWxw88h39=0-2Jb=e=g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CE429C24.2DD22%andrew@gp-digital.org>	<521CDF2E.7000705@itforchange.net>	<52244A96.5060702@ciroap.org>	<52261282.5070305@itforchange.net>	<52261500.1070905@itforchange.net>	<CAJqNAHBKOC7ystAAsND4TZPtOTkyT833RiY2BFx_QvCOexQnqQ@mail.gmail.com>	<B6749681-0CF4-4943-999F-21053A20909B@acm.org>	<CC50F47F-1C7A-4D23-AE99-4144FFACEF22@apc.org>	<52270D95.10606@apc.org>	<522733BF.7070305@itforchange.net>	<52273FA9.5050206@apc.org> <CAJqNAHD79VYU_F4NwA_RGKCc2AK5K9FtWxw88h39=0-2Jb=e=g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <010401cea97a$d66dfe00$8349fa00$@gmail.com>

I disagree. There is a signficant concern that these principles become
globally accepted so opposition from LDC's does have an impact--a boycott
simply allows any opposition to be invisible and thus completely able to be
ignored.

 

M

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Anja Kovacs
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 9:14 PM
To: Esterhuysen, Anriette
Cc: &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
Subject: Re: [bestbits] IGF plus

 

To make my position more concrete: I do not think that as an initiative from
the developing world, we undermine the march forward of the OECD in any way
by signing a letter addressed to them. On the contrary, that only gives them
greater legitimacy. Those who are from member states could do so, but as far
as the rest of us are concerned, I think what we need to do is boycott.

Best,

Anja

 

On 4 September 2013 19:41, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:

Dear Parminder and all...

Would it be possible for someone to volunteer to summarise the
surveillance issue and work that has been done that on that, and
discussion in IRP list etc. as a background doc for our meeting in Bali?

That would cover some stuff that started prior to the Snowden
revelations as well as work/discussion since. That might help us work a
bit faster.

Apologies for not being able to volunteer.

Anriette


On 04/09/2013 15:21, parminder wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 04 September 2013 04:08 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>> Dear all
>>
>> Apologies for chipping in at this point and not following the discussion
>> consistently. One idea I would like to discuss is looking at how to
>> build specific mechanisms to address specific problems rather than
>> always focusing on general problems/processes. I think this is also what
>> Avri and Anja are proposing.
>
> I didnt see Anja refer to anything like building specific mechanisms
> to address specific problems. She only discussed the day one subjects
> - ITU/ WSIS section and MSism part .
> On the other hand, I have been asking for focussing on the specific
> problem of global surveillance by NSA/ US......
>>
>> E.g. to take the surveillance issue... we have written some letters; we
>> are raising it in the HRC and related bodies; there is a civil society
>> 'good practice' guideline (which I realise not everyone agrees on fully,
>> but it is still a good start).
>>
>> Can we not take this particular issue and look at what concrete
>> mechanisms and measures we can propose to address it in quite specific
>> ways?
>
> Yes, discuss the Snowden revelations issue, review what we have done
> till present and what else is necessary... As for the the recent civil
> society guidelines on privacy, there is a good discussion on this
> subject  in the IRP list, and that too should be carried forward.
>
> parminder
>
>>
>> Anriette
>>
>>
>>
>> On 03/09/2013 22:14, Valeria Betancourt wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I concur with Anja and Avri.
>>>
>>> Valeria
>>>
>>>
>>> On 03/09/2013, at 15:07, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I think this is a good framing.  The only thing I would recommend
>>>> adding to the specific aims, is preparation for the IGF itself -
>>>> specific action/statement for the sessions and workshops to be held
>>>> in the following days.
>>>>
>>>> avri
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 3 Sep 2013, at 15:48, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I wanted to chip in and share my thinking on two issues.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. I believe it is very important that the ITU and WSIS+10 are kept
>>>>> in the agenda as explicit, focused agenda items, and that we spend
>>>>> some time discussing and planning for the processes around them. To
>>>>> my mind, these are among the most important places where states at
>>>>> present are already trying to play out their views on enhanced
>>>>> cooperation in practice, with rather important consequences for
>>>>> civil society (I wrote about this earlier
>>>>>
here:http://beta.internetdemocracy.in/2013/07/pawns-in-a-governments-game/).
>>>>>
>>>>> In general, they are also two processes that are likely to have a
>>>>> real outcome for Internet governance. It is important that civil
>>>>> society is aware and informed, and that at least some of us are also
>>>>> closely involved (the ITU also happens to be the process around
>>>>> which Best Bits came into its own, and I think it would be foolish
>>>>> of us to now retreat from whatever little inroads or impact we have
>>>>> made).
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. The reason I proposed to Jeremy that we make the first day one
>>>>> long session (with perhaps a discussion of EC, ITU and WSIS in the
>>>>> morning and of multistakeholderism in the afternoon) is because I
>>>>> believe that the question of how we see multistakeholderism is
>>>>> sharpened by our engagements in these concrete policy fora and how
>>>>> we plan to move forward in them, while at the same time our
>>>>> engagement with these fora is of course also to some extent
>>>>> determined by the visions and views we have when we enter them. In
>>>>> that sense I think that by contextualising the discussion on MS
>>>>> within those debates, the chances that we move forward are far
>>>>> greater, if not in terms of coming to a joint position, then at
>>>>> least in terms of understanding we all take the positions that we
>>>>> take.
>>>>>
>>>>> One of the specific aims of Best Bits is that it should aid civil
>>>>> society not only in having important discussions, but also in
>>>>> getting concrete work done. By framing the agenda for our two days
>>>>> in Bali in the above manner, we can maximise our outcomes on both
>>>>> counts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Anja
>>>
>
>

--
------------------------------------------------------
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




-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130904/7467f168/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Sep  4 10:32:31 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 20:02:31 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] IGF plus
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHD79VYU_F4NwA_RGKCc2AK5K9FtWxw88h39=0-2Jb=e=g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CE429C24.2DD22%andrew@gp-digital.org> <521CDF2E.7000705@itforchange.net> <52244A96.5060702@ciroap.org> <52261282.5070305@itforchange.net> <52261500.1070905@itforchange.net> <CAJqNAHBKOC7ystAAsND4TZPtOTkyT833RiY2BFx_QvCOexQnqQ@mail.gmail.com> <B6749681-0CF4-4943-999F-21053A20909B@acm.org> <CC50F47F-1C7A-4D23-AE99-4144FFACEF22@apc.org> <52270D95.10606@apc.org> <522733BF.7070305@itforchange.net> <52273FA9.5050206@apc.org> <CAJqNAHD79VYU_F4NwA_RGKCc2AK5K9FtWxw88h39=0-2Jb=e=g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5227447F.9070908@itforchange.net>


On Wednesday 04 September 2013 07:43 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
> To make my position more concrete: I do not think that as an 
> initiative from the developing world, we undermine the march forward 
> of the OECD in any way by signing a letter addressed to them. On the 
> contrary, that only gives them greater legitimacy. Those who are from 
> member states could do so, but as far as the rest of us are concerned, 
> I think what we need to do is boycott.

Sorry for the extreme example, but sometimes they have an elucidative 
role; that would be like, in another era (though not fully bygone), 
refusing to oppose the British rule in India because we dont want to 
legitimise it by engaging with it even to the extent of opposing it.... 
This is also a bit strange in my estimate , in the background that 
BestBits have recently written to at least two different organs of the 
US state urging them to see if they could behave themselves a bit, 
petitions which i understand were signed by you....

I cant see how a letter to OECD on the lines that I propose would give 
OECD larger legitimacy, when we are writing to tell them that (1) *they 
do not have global legitimacy*, and (2) that they are rather 
hypocritical in proposing MS models that they themselves dont practice, 
Can you please explain how such a letter increases OECD's legitimacy if 
the letter BestBits wrote to the US state did not serve to increase US's 
legitimacy regarding its overlordship over the global Internet.

parminder


>
> Best,
> Anja
>
>
> On 4 September 2013 19:41, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org 
> <mailto:anriette at apc.org>> wrote:
>
>     Dear Parminder and all...
>
>     Would it be possible for someone to volunteer to summarise the
>     surveillance issue and work that has been done that on that, and
>     discussion in IRP list etc. as a background doc for our meeting in
>     Bali?
>
>     That would cover some stuff that started prior to the Snowden
>     revelations as well as work/discussion since. That might help us
>     work a
>     bit faster.
>
>     Apologies for not being able to volunteer.
>
>     Anriette
>
>     On 04/09/2013 15:21, parminder wrote:
>     >
>     > On Wednesday 04 September 2013 04:08 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>     >> Dear all
>     >>
>     >> Apologies for chipping in at this point and not following the
>     discussion
>     >> consistently. One idea I would like to discuss is looking at how to
>     >> build specific mechanisms to address specific problems rather than
>     >> always focusing on general problems/processes. I think this is
>     also what
>     >> Avri and Anja are proposing.
>     >
>     > I didnt see Anja refer to anything like building specific mechanisms
>     > to address specific problems. She only discussed the day one
>     subjects
>     > - ITU/ WSIS section and MSism part .
>     > On the other hand, I have been asking for focussing on the specific
>     > problem of global surveillance by NSA/ US......
>     >>
>     >> E.g. to take the surveillance issue... we have written some
>     letters; we
>     >> are raising it in the HRC and related bodies; there is a civil
>     society
>     >> 'good practice' guideline (which I realise not everyone agrees
>     on fully,
>     >> but it is still a good start).
>     >>
>     >> Can we not take this particular issue and look at what concrete
>     >> mechanisms and measures we can propose to address it in quite
>     specific
>     >> ways?
>     >
>     > Yes, discuss the Snowden revelations issue, review what we have done
>     > till present and what else is necessary... As for the the recent
>     civil
>     > society guidelines on privacy, there is a good discussion on this
>     > subject  in the IRP list, and that too should be carried forward.
>     >
>     > parminder
>     >
>     >>
>     >> Anriette
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> On 03/09/2013 22:14, Valeria Betancourt wrote:
>     >>> Hi all,
>     >>>
>     >>> I concur with Anja and Avri.
>     >>>
>     >>> Valeria
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>> On 03/09/2013, at 15:07, Avri Doria wrote:
>     >>>
>     >>>> Hi,
>     >>>>
>     >>>> I think this is a good framing.  The only thing I would recommend
>     >>>> adding to the specific aims, is preparation for the IGF itself -
>     >>>> specific action/statement for the sessions and workshops to
>     be held
>     >>>> in the following days.
>     >>>>
>     >>>> avri
>     >>>>
>     >>>>
>     >>>> On 3 Sep 2013, at 15:48, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>     >>>>
>     >>>>> I wanted to chip in and share my thinking on two issues.
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> 1. I believe it is very important that the ITU and WSIS+10
>     are kept
>     >>>>> in the agenda as explicit, focused agenda items, and that we
>     spend
>     >>>>> some time discussing and planning for the processes around
>     them. To
>     >>>>> my mind, these are among the most important places where
>     states at
>     >>>>> present are already trying to play out their views on enhanced
>     >>>>> cooperation in practice, with rather important consequences for
>     >>>>> civil society (I wrote about this earlier
>     >>>>>
>     here:http://beta.internetdemocracy.in/2013/07/pawns-in-a-governments-game/).
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> In general, they are also two processes that are likely to
>     have a
>     >>>>> real outcome for Internet governance. It is important that civil
>     >>>>> society is aware and informed, and that at least some of us
>     are also
>     >>>>> closely involved (the ITU also happens to be the process around
>     >>>>> which Best Bits came into its own, and I think it would be
>     foolish
>     >>>>> of us to now retreat from whatever little inroads or impact
>     we have
>     >>>>> made).
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> 2. The reason I proposed to Jeremy that we make the first
>     day one
>     >>>>> long session (with perhaps a discussion of EC, ITU and WSIS
>     in the
>     >>>>> morning and of multistakeholderism in the afternoon) is
>     because I
>     >>>>> believe that the question of how we see multistakeholderism is
>     >>>>> sharpened by our engagements in these concrete policy fora
>     and how
>     >>>>> we plan to move forward in them, while at the same time our
>     >>>>> engagement with these fora is of course also to some extent
>     >>>>> determined by the visions and views we have when we enter
>     them. In
>     >>>>> that sense I think that by contextualising the discussion on MS
>     >>>>> within those debates, the chances that we move forward are far
>     >>>>> greater, if not in terms of coming to a joint position, then at
>     >>>>> least in terms of understanding we all take the positions
>     that we
>     >>>>> take.
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> One of the specific aims of Best Bits is that it should aid
>     civil
>     >>>>> society not only in having important discussions, but also in
>     >>>>> getting concrete work done. By framing the agenda for our
>     two days
>     >>>>> in Bali in the above manner, we can maximise our outcomes on
>     both
>     >>>>> counts.
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>> Best regards,
>     >>>>> Anja
>     >>>
>     >
>     >
>
>     --
>     ------------------------------------------------------
>     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
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130904/3d7426a9/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Sep  4 11:47:02 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 21:17:02 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] IGF plus
In-Reply-To: <522741A6.5050608@apc.org>
References: <CE429C24.2DD22%andrew@gp-digital.org> <521CDF2E.7000705@itforchange.net> <52244A96.5060702@ciroap.org> <52261282.5070305@itforchange.net> <52261500.1070905@itforchange.net> <CAJqNAHBKOC7ystAAsND4TZPtOTkyT833RiY2BFx_QvCOexQnqQ@mail.gmail.com> <B6749681-0CF4-4943-999F-21053A20909B@acm.org> <CC50F47F-1C7A-4D23-AE99-4144FFACEF22@apc.org> <52270D95.10606@apc.org> <522733BF.7070305@itforchange.net> <52273FA9.5050206@apc.org> <CAJqNAHD79VYU_F4NwA_RGKCc2AK5K9FtWxw88h39=0-2Jb=e=g@mail.gmail.com> <522741A6.5050608@apc.org>
Message-ID: <522755F6.3040107@itforchange.net>


I dont see any reason to move this important global Internet issue from 
this platform to another...... CSISAC engages with the OECD's Internet 
policy making system from within, largely accepting the legitimacy of 
its structure as it is.... The critique of the structure and its 
ambition itself must come from outside, and BB is the best forum for that.

Meanwhile, most prominent CISSAC members, which includes APC, are on 
this list - if they agree to take up this issue in the CSISAC, maybe we 
can go there. But I see no such enthusiasm, which doesnt give me much 
confidence that it will fly inside the CSISAC. But if you think CSISAC 
is likely to take up the two point agenda that I propose, I am ready to 
hear your views. And also of other prominent CSISAC members here.

parminder

On Wednesday 04 September 2013 07:50 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> I agree with Anja on the OECD issue..
>
> What I think we should do is for Parminder's suggestion on the OECD to
> go to CSISAC - so for you to make that proposal in CSISAC and for CSISAC
> to take it up.
>
> I don't think Best Bits should do it directly.. more effective to do it
> through CSISAC.
>
> Anriette
>
> On 04/09/2013 16:13, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>> To make my position more concrete: I do not think that as an initiative
>> from the developing world, we undermine the march forward of the OECD in
>> any way by signing a letter addressed to them. On the contrary, that only
>> gives them greater legitimacy. Those who are from member states could do
>> so, but as far as the rest of us are concerned, I think what we need to do
>> is boycott.
>>
>> Best,
>> Anja
>>
>>
>> On 4 September 2013 19:41, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Parminder and all...
>>>
>>> Would it be possible for someone to volunteer to summarise the
>>> surveillance issue and work that has been done that on that, and
>>> discussion in IRP list etc. as a background doc for our meeting in Bali?
>>>
>>> That would cover some stuff that started prior to the Snowden
>>> revelations as well as work/discussion since. That might help us work a
>>> bit faster.
>>>
>>> Apologies for not being able to volunteer.
>>>
>>> Anriette
>>>
>>> On 04/09/2013 15:21, parminder wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday 04 September 2013 04:08 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>>>> Dear all
>>>>>
>>>>> Apologies for chipping in at this point and not following the discussion
>>>>> consistently. One idea I would like to discuss is looking at how to
>>>>> build specific mechanisms to address specific problems rather than
>>>>> always focusing on general problems/processes. I think this is also what
>>>>> Avri and Anja are proposing.
>>>> I didnt see Anja refer to anything like building specific mechanisms
>>>> to address specific problems. She only discussed the day one subjects
>>>> - ITU/ WSIS section and MSism part .
>>>> On the other hand, I have been asking for focussing on the specific
>>>> problem of global surveillance by NSA/ US......
>>>>> E.g. to take the surveillance issue... we have written some letters; we
>>>>> are raising it in the HRC and related bodies; there is a civil society
>>>>> 'good practice' guideline (which I realise not everyone agrees on fully,
>>>>> but it is still a good start).
>>>>>
>>>>> Can we not take this particular issue and look at what concrete
>>>>> mechanisms and measures we can propose to address it in quite specific
>>>>> ways?
>>>> Yes, discuss the Snowden revelations issue, review what we have done
>>>> till present and what else is necessary... As for the the recent civil
>>>> society guidelines on privacy, there is a good discussion on this
>>>> subject  in the IRP list, and that too should be carried forward.
>>>>
>>>> parminder
>>>>
>>>>> Anriette
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 03/09/2013 22:14, Valeria Betancourt wrote:
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I concur with Anja and Avri.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Valeria
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 03/09/2013, at 15:07, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think this is a good framing.  The only thing I would recommend
>>>>>>> adding to the specific aims, is preparation for the IGF itself -
>>>>>>> specific action/statement for the sessions and workshops to be held
>>>>>>> in the following days.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> avri
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3 Sep 2013, at 15:48, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I wanted to chip in and share my thinking on two issues.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. I believe it is very important that the ITU and WSIS+10 are kept
>>>>>>>> in the agenda as explicit, focused agenda items, and that we spend
>>>>>>>> some time discussing and planning for the processes around them. To
>>>>>>>> my mind, these are among the most important places where states at
>>>>>>>> present are already trying to play out their views on enhanced
>>>>>>>> cooperation in practice, with rather important consequences for
>>>>>>>> civil society (I wrote about this earlier
>>>>>>>> here:
>>> http://beta.internetdemocracy.in/2013/07/pawns-in-a-governments-game/).
>>>>>>>> In general, they are also two processes that are likely to have a
>>>>>>>> real outcome for Internet governance. It is important that civil
>>>>>>>> society is aware and informed, and that at least some of us are also
>>>>>>>> closely involved (the ITU also happens to be the process around
>>>>>>>> which Best Bits came into its own, and I think it would be foolish
>>>>>>>> of us to now retreat from whatever little inroads or impact we have
>>>>>>>> made).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. The reason I proposed to Jeremy that we make the first day one
>>>>>>>> long session (with perhaps a discussion of EC, ITU and WSIS in the
>>>>>>>> morning and of multistakeholderism in the afternoon) is because I
>>>>>>>> believe that the question of how we see multistakeholderism is
>>>>>>>> sharpened by our engagements in these concrete policy fora and how
>>>>>>>> we plan to move forward in them, while at the same time our
>>>>>>>> engagement with these fora is of course also to some extent
>>>>>>>> determined by the visions and views we have when we enter them. In
>>>>>>>> that sense I think that by contextualising the discussion on MS
>>>>>>>> within those debates, the chances that we move forward are far
>>>>>>>> greater, if not in terms of coming to a joint position, then at
>>>>>>>> least in terms of understanding we all take the positions that we
>>>>>>>> take.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One of the specific aims of Best Bits is that it should aid civil
>>>>>>>> society not only in having important discussions, but also in
>>>>>>>> getting concrete work done. By framing the agenda for our two days
>>>>>>>> in Bali in the above manner, we can maximise our outcomes on both
>>>>>>>> counts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>> Anja
>>> --
>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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
>>>
>>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130904/28bc3455/attachment.htm>

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Wed Sep  4 16:44:01 2013
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 02:14:01 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] WSIS+10 High Level Event Multistakeholder
 Preparatory Platform launched
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiToRj8qEq5R=7qh8Q7+VGspCpm=5c0v6_Tm7B3exo+c1EA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4BB8F025-9DA1-49E0-A57D-B91A75C287BB@ciroap.org>
	<CALU7RQYHWZ08tX7kWKyFHEheNVcWcaA0V1OCJjF=Wi2iDOn5Cw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALTAiToRj8qEq5R=7qh8Q7+VGspCpm=5c0v6_Tm7B3exo+c1EA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHDQgviGw8jyQUuNCKz10WOvQ1wVjk1dzwOkmZuEuW+zfA@mail.gmail.com>

Think Joana's is a very good proposal. +1 from me.

Best,
Anja


On 3 September 2013 05:19, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:

> Thanks Deborah and Jeremy for highlighting this.
>
> It seams all the documents are meant to be sent by one organization.
> Having that in mind, I would suggest:
>
> For the document on outcome docs of WSIS+10, I guess a joint submission
> from BB could be richer, meanly because, as Jeremy mentioned, it includes
> ICT4D themes about which, at least for me, I wouldn't have much to say.
>
> For the second document, I tend to think that we could gain more space if
> we make multiple submissions. But we could coordinate so we ensure that, on
> the second one, about organization of the meeting, all the topics we want
> to cover are dealt with and that there is a diversity of speakers from
> civil society. Does it sound feasible?
>
> cheers
>
> joana
>
> -
>
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> @joana_varon
> PGP 0x016B8E73
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Deborah Brown <deborah at accessnow.org>wrote:
>
>> Thanks for circulating this Jeremy. I wanted to flag that the deadline
>> for submitting the two forms is 20 September, so in just under 3 weeks
>> time. [At the bottom of the first page of each word doc the following is
>> written: Please note that formal submission should be sent to the
>> wsis-info at itu.int not later than 20 September 2013. "]
>>
>> From a quick read it looks like the first form will feed into the two
>> outcome documents of the WSIS+10 Sharm el-Sheikh meeting (the WSIS+10
>> Statement on Implementation of WSIS Outcomes and the WSIS+10 Vision for
>> WSIS Beyond 2015 under mandates of the participating Agencies) and the
>> second form relates to the organization of the meeting itself (themes,
>> speakers, workshops).
>>
>> Per Jeremy's question, is there any interest in collaborating on a
>> submission? I thought it would be good to pose this again to the list now
>> that we know of the relatively short time frame.
>>
>> Best,
>> Deborah
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>wrote:
>>
>>> Belatedly, the Multistakeholder Preparatory Platform for the 2014
>>> WSIS+10 High Level Event has just been launched online.  This is for taking
>>> stock of the implementation of the WSIS outcomes, and developing targets
>>> and Indicators for an open and inclusive information/knowledge society for
>>> all beyond 2015.  The website is:
>>>
>>> http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/mpp/
>>>
>>> Through this process, stakeholders will seek to develop multistakeholder
>>> consensus on two outcome documents for the WSIS+10 event.  To make a
>>> submission you can download Word documents that are on the above site -
>>> online forms will be available soon.  A deadline is not yet, so far as I
>>> can see, specified.
>>>
>>> Some individuals and organisations will be interested in sending their
>>> own submissions.  I'm less sure about whether there is value or interest in
>>> doing a joint submission.  Certainly, this falls outside Internet
>>> governance per se and includes broader ICT4D themes.  But we can discuss
>>> whether there is enough mutual interest in collaborating on a submission.
>>>
>>>     --
>>>
>>> *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
>>>
>>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge
>>> hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>>>
>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>>>
>>> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
>>> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>>>
>>> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>>> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
>>> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Deborah Brown
>> Senior Policy Analyst
>> Access | AccessNow.org
>> E. deborah at accessnow.org
>> @deblebrown
>> PGP 0x5EB4727D
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> -
>



-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130905/9942fd08/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Wed Sep  4 17:17:54 2013
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 17:17:54 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] WSIS+10 High Level Event Multistakeholder
 Preparatory Platform launched
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHDQgviGw8jyQUuNCKz10WOvQ1wVjk1dzwOkmZuEuW+zfA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4BB8F025-9DA1-49E0-A57D-B91A75C287BB@ciroap.org>
	<CALU7RQYHWZ08tX7kWKyFHEheNVcWcaA0V1OCJjF=Wi2iDOn5Cw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALTAiToRj8qEq5R=7qh8Q7+VGspCpm=5c0v6_Tm7B3exo+c1EA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJqNAHDQgviGw8jyQUuNCKz10WOvQ1wVjk1dzwOkmZuEuW+zfA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAejEWBu6eGBspALwum5FqbYEACbFhqJFx65egzd96Y-gw@mail.gmail.com>

+1 on Joana's

next steps?


On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in>wrote:

> Think Joana's is a very good proposal. +1 from me.
>
> Best,
> Anja
>
>
> On 3 September 2013 05:19, Joana Varon <joana at varonferraz.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Deborah and Jeremy for highlighting this.
>>
>> It seams all the documents are meant to be sent by one organization.
>> Having that in mind, I would suggest:
>>
>> For the document on outcome docs of WSIS+10, I guess a joint submission
>> from BB could be richer, meanly because, as Jeremy mentioned, it includes
>> ICT4D themes about which, at least for me, I wouldn't have much to say.
>>
>> For the second document, I tend to think that we could gain more space if
>> we make multiple submissions. But we could coordinate so we ensure that, on
>> the second one, about organization of the meeting, all the topics we want
>> to cover are dealt with and that there is a diversity of speakers from
>> civil society. Does it sound feasible?
>>
>> cheers
>>
>> joana
>>
>> -
>>
>> Joana Varon Ferraz
>> @joana_varon
>> PGP 0x016B8E73
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Deborah Brown <deborah at accessnow.org>wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for circulating this Jeremy. I wanted to flag that the deadline
>>> for submitting the two forms is 20 September, so in just under 3 weeks
>>> time. [At the bottom of the first page of each word doc the following is
>>> written: Please note that formal submission should be sent to the
>>> wsis-info at itu.int not later than 20 September 2013. "]
>>>
>>> From a quick read it looks like the first form will feed into the two
>>> outcome documents of the WSIS+10 Sharm el-Sheikh meeting (the WSIS+10
>>> Statement on Implementation of WSIS Outcomes and the WSIS+10 Vision for
>>> WSIS Beyond 2015 under mandates of the participating Agencies) and the
>>> second form relates to the organization of the meeting itself (themes,
>>> speakers, workshops).
>>>
>>> Per Jeremy's question, is there any interest in collaborating on a
>>> submission? I thought it would be good to pose this again to the list now
>>> that we know of the relatively short time frame.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Deborah
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Belatedly, the Multistakeholder Preparatory Platform for the 2014
>>>> WSIS+10 High Level Event has just been launched online.  This is for taking
>>>> stock of the implementation of the WSIS outcomes, and developing targets
>>>> and Indicators for an open and inclusive information/knowledge society for
>>>> all beyond 2015.  The website is:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/mpp/
>>>>
>>>> Through this process, stakeholders will seek to develop
>>>> multistakeholder consensus on two outcome documents for the WSIS+10 event.
>>>>  To make a submission you can download Word documents that are on the above
>>>> site - online forms will be available soon.  A deadline is not yet, so far
>>>> as I can see, specified.
>>>>
>>>> Some individuals and organisations will be interested in sending their
>>>> own submissions.  I'm less sure about whether there is value or interest in
>>>> doing a joint submission.  Certainly, this falls outside Internet
>>>> governance per se and includes broader ICT4D themes.  But we can discuss
>>>> whether there is enough mutual interest in collaborating on a submission.
>>>>
>>>>     --
>>>>
>>>> *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
>>>>
>>>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge
>>>> hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>>>>
>>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org |
>>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>>>>
>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>.
>>>> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>>>>
>>>> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
>>>> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
>>>> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Deborah Brown
>>> Senior Policy Analyst
>>> Access | AccessNow.org
>>> E. deborah at accessnow.org
>>> @deblebrown
>>> PGP 0x5EB4727D
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> -
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in
>



-- 
*Carolina Rossini*
*Project Director, Latin America Resource Center*
Open Technology Institute
*New America Foundation*
//
http://carolinarossini.net/
+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130904/9784e628/attachment.htm>

From joy at apc.org  Wed Sep  4 18:57:10 2013
From: joy at apc.org (joy)
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2013 10:57:10 +1200
Subject: [bestbits] IGF plus
In-Reply-To: <64150848-0BA8-4DFA-9F86-EA2D10FFE03A@ciroap.org>
References: <CE429C24.2DD22%andrew@gp-digital.org> <521CDF2E.7000705@itforchange.net> <52244A96.5060702@ciroap.org> <52261282.5070305@itforchange.net> <52261500.1070905@itforchange.net> <CAJqNAHBKOC7ystAAsND4TZPtOTkyT833RiY2BFx_QvCOexQnqQ@mail.gmail.com> <B6749681-0CF4-4943-999F-21053A20909B@acm.org> <CC50F47F-1C7A-4D23-AE99-4144FFACEF22@apc.org> <52270D95.10606@apc.org> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CBD57207376@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <CAJqNAHB0a_52=e7Gdiqq9kixfOLpefs7Hhgijx4vyKy5owAPNw@mail.gmail.com> <64150848-0BA8-4DFA-9F86-EA2D10FFE03A@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <5227BAC6.1090003@apc.org>

Hi - I agree - there are other avenues for concerns to be raised and the
arguments for Best Bits to do so in light of other priorities do not
appear strong.
Joy




On 5/09/2013 12:21 a.m., Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 04/09/2013, at 9:13 PM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in
> <mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in>> wrote:
>
>> That was indeed what I had in mind, Anriette, as well as linking more
>> theoretical discussions or discussions of principles (which we do
>> need to have at times) to these specific mechanisms we are developing
>> and/or engaging in.
>>
>> And that is the problem with the OECD: it is much less clear to me
>> how we can make this particular discussion a concrete and outcome
>> oriented one. I have seen the debate about the OECD play out on
>> various lists (even if without resolution, I think a discussion has
>> been had), and don't yet see where there could be common ground to
>> move forward among the varous stances that seem to exist on the OECD.
>>
>> If there are any proposals in this regard, I would of course be happy
>> to hear them.
>
> The OECD has a rather dense set of process of its own, which are
> covered a different coalition, viz. CSISAC (though there is
> significant cross membership with Best Bits).  It is hard to simply
> "dip your toes" into what goes on at the OECD, and I don't suggest we
> try to do so.  However better reporting from CSISAC to its own members
> and broader civil society is definitely needed (its website is two
> years out of date, to start with), and something that we are trying to
> make happen.  As always, resource constraints apply.
>
> -- 
>
> *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
>
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge
> hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/> | 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.
>
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130905/9a10fa53/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Wed Sep  4 22:29:14 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 11:29:14 +0900
Subject: [bestbits] IGF plus
In-Reply-To: <0EF15958-8681-4529-91E1-ACA93A198DCA@acm.org>
References: <CE429C24.2DD22%andrew@gp-digital.org> <521CDF2E.7000705@itforchange.net> <52244A96.5060702@ciroap.org> <52261282.5070305@itforchange.net> <52261500.1070905@itforchange.net> <CAJqNAHBKOC7ystAAsND4TZPtOTkyT833RiY2BFx_QvCOexQnqQ@mail.gmail.com> <B6749681-0CF4-4943-999F-21053A20909B@acm.org> <CC50F47F-1C7A-4D23-AE99-4144FFACEF22@apc.org> <52270D95.10606@apc.org> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CBD57207376@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <CAJqNAHB0a_52=e7Gdiqq9kixfOLpefs7Hhgijx4vyKy5owAPNw@mail.gmail.com> <64150848-0BA8-4DFA-9F86-EA2D10FFE03A@ciroap.org> <0EF15958-8681-4529-91E1-ACA93A198DCA@acm.org>
Message-ID: <6DF0F790-40EE-4A23-90CD-F2C8FAD94A8C@ciroap.org>

On 04/09/2013, at 9:51 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Yeah, i was told updating the web site was a priority when i asked about it over a year ago.  I think there is a secretariat that has this on its task list.
> 
> I beleive it would be good for someone that understood what was going on, and perhaps was in the CSISAC leadership (I think we have one) would input into these discussions.


That someone might be me (I'm on the CSISAC steering committee), and yes, I am already firmly making the point that the OECD's Internet Policy Principles are not democratically legitimate, to the working group that is discussing their outreach.  There are things that I'm not allowed to share from what goes on at the OECD (yay transparency), but let me know if you would like more information on the state of this.

I'm also on the Consumer Policy Committee which is working on policy recommendations on digital content products, and mobile and online payments.  Also happy to link people in with that, if they are interested.

-- 
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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.


From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Sep  5 05:51:20 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2013 15:21:20 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] IGF plus
In-Reply-To: <6DF0F790-40EE-4A23-90CD-F2C8FAD94A8C@ciroap.org>
References: <CE429C24.2DD22%andrew@gp-digital.org> <521CDF2E.7000705@itforchange.net> <52244A96.5060702@ciroap.org> <52261282.5070305@itforchange.net> <52261500.1070905@itforchange.net> <CAJqNAHBKOC7ystAAsND4TZPtOTkyT833RiY2BFx_QvCOexQnqQ@mail.gmail.com> <B6749681-0CF4-4943-999F-21053A20909B@acm.org> <CC50F47F-1C7A-4D23-AE99-4144FFACEF22@apc.org> <52270D95.10606@apc.org> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CBD57207376@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <CAJqNAHB0a_52=e7Gdiqq9kixfOLpefs7Hhgijx4vyKy5owAPNw@mail.gmail.com> <64150848-0BA8-4DFA-9F86-EA2D10FFE03A@ciroap.org> <0EF15958-8681-4529-91E1-ACA93A198DCA@acm.org> <6DF0F790-40EE-4A23-90CD-F2C8FAD94A8C@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <52285418.60801@itforchange.net>


On Thursday 05 September 2013 07:59 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 04/09/2013, at 9:51 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, i was told updating the web site was a priority when i asked about it over a year ago.  I think there is a secretariat that has this on its task list.
>>
>> I beleive it would be good for someone that understood what was going on, and perhaps was in the CSISAC leadership (I think we have one) would input into these discussions.
>
> That someone might be me (I'm on the CSISAC steering committee), and yes, I am already firmly making the point that the OECD's Internet Policy Principles are not democratically legitimate, to the working group that is discussing their outreach.

Jeremy,

The structural facts about OECD's and its policy Internet making are

(1) Things like 'Internet Policy Making Principles" are developed, along 
with simultaneous suppression of similar possible activity at globally 
democratic forums, with the precise intention of their global 
application. Internet being largely a global thing, in default of any 
other set of principles, these OECD principles automatically become the 
global law. There is nothing you can do about it just through internal 
persuasion. This 'structural fact' has to be addressed from the outside. 
Unfortunately, civil society becomes complicit in this 'problem- by 
supporting OECD in developing these policy frameworks, and, even worse, 
also then supporting its member countries in suppressing development of 
similar frameworks or principles through very similar processes (only, 
inclusive of all countries).

(2) These Principles and other OECD outputs are already being pushed in 
bi lateral and pluri lateral forums - including the forthcoming Seoul 
Cyber conference, which will selectively include some developing 
countries as well. It would be used on the Trans Atlantic trade talks 
and possible in the Trans-Pacific Partnership and so on. There is 
nothing you can do to convince OECD not to push these principles, they 
being written with that intention.

(3) And of course, OECD cannot be made democratic. Making it globally 
democratic would mean including all countries - all at a time, or by 
rotation with fixed quota from regions - which will make it exactly the 
proposed UN CIRP that so many of you instinctively pull away from as 
something almost devious. (No, not you Jeremy, I know).

>   There are things that I'm not allowed to share from what goes on at the OECD (yay transparency), but let me know if you would like more information on the state of this.

But perhaps we are allowed to tell OECD that they should be at least be 
as transparent and stakeholder inclusive as they/ BB tells ITU and WSIS 
to be.
>
> I'm also on the Consumer Policy Committee which is working on policy recommendations on digital content products, and mobile and online payments.  Also happy to link people in with that, if they are interested.

This is not about inputting into OECD's work. This is about engaging 
with and commenting on some very important structural facts and 
processes of global Internet policy making. The appropriate forum for 
doing so is a global civil society forum and not an advisory committee 
attached to the particular process, which could of course also make 
helpful noises.

parminder


>


From genekimmelman at gmail.com  Thu Sep  5 09:03:37 2013
From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman)
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 09:03:37 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] IGF plus
In-Reply-To: <52285418.60801@itforchange.net>
References: <CE429C24.2DD22%andrew@gp-digital.org>
	<521CDF2E.7000705@itforchange.net>
	<52244A96.5060702@ciroap.org>
	<52261282.5070305@itforchange.net>
	<52261500.1070905@itforchange.net>
	<CAJqNAHBKOC7ystAAsND4TZPtOTkyT833RiY2BFx_QvCOexQnqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<B6749681-0CF4-4943-999F-21053A20909B@acm.org>
	<CC50F47F-1C7A-4D23-AE99-4144FFACEF22@apc.org>
	<52270D95.10606@apc.org>
	<F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CBD57207376@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
	<CAJqNAHB0a_52=e7Gdiqq9kixfOLpefs7Hhgijx4vyKy5owAPNw@mail.gmail.com>
	<64150848-0BA8-4DFA-9F86-EA2D10FFE03A@ciroap.org>
	<0EF15958-8681-4529-91E1-ACA93A198DCA@acm.org>
	<6DF0F790-40EE-4A23-90CD-F2C8FAD94A8C@ciroap.org>
	<52285418.60801@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CA+4KnA8bfefOyUABGTQgJj5t869iccShm3+=y-Z+QNjBsYUQ1Q@mail.gmail.com>

I think it would be appropriate for CS groups to consider necessary reforms
of OECD taking into account the broad impact OECD internet policy
principles may have globally; and to consider how CSISAC could be a more
effective voice for global CS interests within the OECD structure (or maybe
even outside it?).  I'm not sure where this fits in our agenda, but it
certainly is an important aspect of global power leveraging that impacts
many global policy deliberations.


On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 5:51 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

>
> On Thursday 05 September 2013 07:59 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
>> On 04/09/2013, at 9:51 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>
>>  Yeah, i was told updating the web site was a priority when i asked about
>>> it over a year ago.  I think there is a secretariat that has this on its
>>> task list.
>>>
>>> I beleive it would be good for someone that understood what was going
>>> on, and perhaps was in the CSISAC leadership (I think we have one) would
>>> input into these discussions.
>>>
>>
>> That someone might be me (I'm on the CSISAC steering committee), and yes,
>> I am already firmly making the point that the OECD's Internet Policy
>> Principles are not democratically legitimate, to the working group that is
>> discussing their outreach.
>>
>
> Jeremy,
>
> The structural facts about OECD's and its policy Internet making are
>
> (1) Things like 'Internet Policy Making Principles" are developed, along
> with simultaneous suppression of similar possible activity at globally
> democratic forums, with the precise intention of their global application.
> Internet being largely a global thing, in default of any other set of
> principles, these OECD principles automatically become the global law.
> There is nothing you can do about it just through internal persuasion. This
> 'structural fact' has to be addressed from the outside. Unfortunately,
> civil society becomes complicit in this 'problem- by supporting OECD in
> developing these policy frameworks, and, even worse, also then supporting
> its member countries in suppressing development of similar frameworks or
> principles through very similar processes (only, inclusive of all
> countries).
>
> (2) These Principles and other OECD outputs are already being pushed in bi
> lateral and pluri lateral forums - including the forthcoming Seoul Cyber
> conference, which will selectively include some developing countries as
> well. It would be used on the Trans Atlantic trade talks and possible in
> the Trans-Pacific Partnership and so on. There is nothing you can do to
> convince OECD not to push these principles, they being written with that
> intention.
>
> (3) And of course, OECD cannot be made democratic. Making it globally
> democratic would mean including all countries - all at a time, or by
> rotation with fixed quota from regions - which will make it exactly the
> proposed UN CIRP that so many of you instinctively pull away from as
> something almost devious. (No, not you Jeremy, I know).
>
>    There are things that I'm not allowed to share from what goes on at the
>> OECD (yay transparency), but let me know if you would like more information
>> on the state of this.
>>
>
> But perhaps we are allowed to tell OECD that they should be at least be as
> transparent and stakeholder inclusive as they/ BB tells ITU and WSIS to be.
>
>>
>> I'm also on the Consumer Policy Committee which is working on policy
>> recommendations on digital content products, and mobile and online
>> payments.  Also happy to link people in with that, if they are interested.
>>
>
> This is not about inputting into OECD's work. This is about engaging with
> and commenting on some very important structural facts and processes of
> global Internet policy making. The appropriate forum for doing so is a
> global civil society forum and not an advisory committee attached to the
> particular process, which could of course also make helpful noises.
>
> parminder
>
>
>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130905/a892f471/attachment.htm>

From mshears at cdt.org  Thu Sep  5 02:58:31 2013
From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears)
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2013 07:58:31 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] IGF plus
In-Reply-To: <5227BAC6.1090003@apc.org>
References: <CE429C24.2DD22%andrew@gp-digital.org> <521CDF2E.7000705@itforchange.net> <52244A96.5060702@ciroap.org> <52261282.5070305@itforchange.net> <52261500.1070905@itforchange.net> <CAJqNAHBKOC7ystAAsND4TZPtOTkyT833RiY2BFx_QvCOexQnqQ@mail.gmail.com> <B6749681-0CF4-4943-999F-21053A20909B@acm.org> <CC50F47F-1C7A-4D23-AE99-4144FFACEF22@apc.org> <52270D95.10606@apc.org> <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CBD57207376@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local> <CAJqNAHB0a_52=e7Gdiqq9kixfOLpefs7Hhgijx4vyKy5owAPNw@mail.gmail.com> <64150848-0BA8-4DFA-9F86-EA2D10FFE03A@ciroap.org> <5227BAC6.1090003@apc.org>
Message-ID: <52282B97.2020308@cdt.org>

+ 1

On 04/09/2013 23:57, joy wrote:
> Hi - I agree - there are other avenues for concerns to be raised and 
> the arguments for Best Bits to do so in light of other priorities do 
> not appear strong.
> Joy
>
>
>
>
> On 5/09/2013 12:21 a.m., Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> On 04/09/2013, at 9:13 PM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in 
>> <mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in>> wrote:
>>
>>> That was indeed what I had in mind, Anriette, as well as linking 
>>> more theoretical discussions or discussions of principles (which we 
>>> do need to have at times) to these specific mechanisms we are 
>>> developing and/or engaging in.
>>>
>>> And that is the problem with the OECD: it is much less clear to me 
>>> how we can make this particular discussion a concrete and outcome 
>>> oriented one. I have seen the debate about the OECD play out on 
>>> various lists (even if without resolution, I think a discussion has 
>>> been had), and don't yet see where there could be common ground to 
>>> move forward among the varous stances that seem to exist on the OECD.
>>>
>>> If there are any proposals in this regard, I would of course be 
>>> happy to hear them.
>>
>> The OECD has a rather dense set of process of its own, which are 
>> covered a different coalition, viz. CSISAC (though there is 
>> significant cross membership with Best Bits).  It is hard to simply 
>> "dip your toes" into what goes on at the OECD, and I don't suggest we 
>> try to do so.  However better reporting from CSISAC to its own 
>> members and broader civil society is definitely needed (its website 
>> is two years out of date, to start with), and something that we are 
>> trying to make happen.  As always, resource constraints apply.
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> *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
>>
>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement 
>> knowledge hub 
>> |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>>
>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org 
>> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/> | 
>> 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.
>>
>> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
>> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For 
>> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>>
>>
>

-- 

Matthew Shears
Director and Representative
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org
+44 (0) 771 247 2987
Skype: mshears

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130905/a57343e1/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Thu Sep  5 17:22:05 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 04:22:05 +0700
Subject: [bestbits] WHOOPS: FW: [governance] New Blogpost: The
 Internet,Global Governance,and the Surveillance State in a Post-Snowden
 World (The Internet is Not Your Friend, Get Over It)
Message-ID: <02cd01ceaa7e$0426b590$0c7420b0$@gmail.com>

I seem to have sent an internal URL for my blogpost… Sorry…

 

Correct URLs

 

http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/09/04/the-internet-global-governance-and-the-surveillance-state-in-a-post-snowden-world-the-internet-is-not-your-friend-get-over-it/

 

http://tinyurl.com/khja796

 

M

 

Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 12:45 PM
To: Michael Gurstein
Subject: Fwd: [governance] New Blogpost: The Internet,Global Governance,and the Surveillance State in a Post-Snowden World (The Internet is Not Your Friend, Get Over It)

 

it asks for a password....



-------- Original Message -------- 


Subject: 

[governance] New Blogpost: The Internet,Global Governance,and the Surveillance State in a Post-Snowden World (The Internet is Not Your Friend, Get Over It)


Date: 

Wed, 4 Sep 2013 18:29:12 +0700


From: 

michael gurstein  <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> <gurstein at gmail.com>


Reply-To: 

governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"michael gurstein"  <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> <gurstein at gmail.com>


To: 

 <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, "bestbits"  <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,  <mailto:IRP-SC at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org> <IRP-SC at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>

 

This might interest some...
 
Blogpost: The Internet,Global Governance,and the Surveillance State in a
Post-Snowden World (The Internet is not your Friend, Get Over It) 
 
http://tinyurl.com/mwhlea4
 
Mike
 
 
 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130906/36a8910c/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Thu Sep  5 21:09:13 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 10:09:13 +0900
Subject: [bestbits] Re: APrIGF workshop "Internet governance for human
 rights and democracy" streaming online this Wednesday
In-Reply-To: <52244C36.90002@ciroap.org>
References: <52244C36.90002@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <03DABD80-F1D7-4535-A9FF-39AF327F3A35@ciroap.org>

On 02/09/2013, at 5:28 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> Following on from the Enhanced Cooperation submission to the CSTD, the following workshop will be held at the Asia-Pacific Regional IGF this Wednesday, with live streaming at http://2013.rigf.asia/openness/ from 2:30pm local time (5:30am GMT/UTC, 19:30 US EST).  Please join us!

For those who couldn't make it, a report of the workshop "Internet governance for human rights and democracy" has been posted below:

http://bestbits.net/2013-asia-pacific-regional-igf/

-- 
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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130906/72bcb69c/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Sep  6 00:55:30 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 10:25:30 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Australian Pirate Party pushes for an
 Internet treaty
In-Reply-To: <522959F8.8000809@itforchange.net>
References: <E9B8DD36-2CA1-4A4E-B429-34475C5F70AE@ciroap.org> <522959F8.8000809@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <52296042.6050802@itforchange.net>


On Friday 06 September 2013 09:58 AM, parminder wrote:
>
> On Friday 06 September 2013 09:04 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> In the Australian election week, I noticed in the Pirate's Party 
>> manifesto at http://getawarrant.org.au/:
>>
>> "The Pirate Party will push for negotiations to begin on an 
>> international treaty for a free and open Internet.
>>
>> In 2012, the United Nations passed a landmark resolution that 
>> declared the Internet to be a fundamental human right. The same 
>> rights that people take for granted offline must be also enshrined 
>> online. An international treaty can guarantee this now and for 
>> future generations."
>>
>> Naïve, or ahead of the curve?
>
> Well, ahead of curve only if we want to wait till the architecture of 
> the global Internet, and social processes building on it, is firmly 
> set and too late to be changed. And this will be soon. Remembe the 
> adage 'architecture is policy' and so a policy coming too later after 
> the architecture is rather useless.
>
> I really dont understand why and how people say things like it is too 
> early to begin talking of international arrangements - also knowing 
> that even once you begin talking about them in a positive manner it 
> may take years for them to get off the ground.... In fact it is 
> already getting late. Around WSIS, the Internet pioneers and 
> evangelists still held some high ground and people were ready to 
> develop global frameworks based on such ideals - give or take some. As 
> more and more malignant interests have discovered how to control the 
> Internet and make it deliver for them, the chances of such agreements 
> in fact recede. In the circumstances, what really is the case for 
> holding that to begin talking abut such agreements may be ahead of 
> time, far worse, it being naive?
>
> Meanwhile, of course OECD is going ahead full steam to make global 
> Internet policy and policy frameworks.... I think we need to get real, 
> sooner the better. I mean if we are really thinking global democracy 
> and global public interest,


See http://www.oecd.org/sti/security-privacy ,for instance, for new 
privacy guidelines from the OECD . A few quotes from the website....
,

    "Security and privacy are essential for the Internet economy to
    continue to serve as a platform for innovation, new sources of
    economic growth and social development. The OECD focuses on the
    development of better policies to ensure that security and privacy
    foster economic and social prosperity in an open an interconnected
    digital world."

    "This work is carried out by the OECD Working Party on Information
    Security and Privacy (WPISP)
    <http://www.oecd.org/sti/ieconomy/whatistheoecdworkingpartyoninformationsecurityandprivacywpisp.htm>,
    under the Committee for Information, Computers and Communications
    Policy (ICCP)."


Sure, naive and ahead of the curve for the not so rich world to aspire 
to democratic participation in what affects them so centrally!

parminder




>
> parminder
>
>
>
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> *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
>>
>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement 
>> knowledge hub 
>> |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>>
>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org 
>> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/> | 
>> 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.
>>
>> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
>> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For 
>> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>>
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130906/fc625c90/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Fri Sep  6 01:29:59 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 12:29:59 +0700
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Australian Pirate Party pushes for
 an Internet treaty
In-Reply-To: <52296042.6050802@itforchange.net>
References: <E9B8DD36-2CA1-4A4E-B429-34475C5F70AE@ciroap.org> <522959F8.8000809@itforchange.net> <52296042.6050802@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <04db01ceaac2$3c69ff40$b53dfdc0$@gmail.com>

Parminder,

 

The issue of "trust" as an underlying requirement of the digital economy has a very long history in the OECD.

 

It will be extremely interesting to see how the pious statements concerning Trust, Privacy, the Open Internet etc. eminating from that source will now deal with the truly profound shattering of trust in the Internet as preciptated by Mr. Snowden's revelations.

 

M

 

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 11:56 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Australian Pirate Party pushes for an Internet treaty

 

 

On Friday 06 September 2013 09:58 AM, parminder wrote:

 

On Friday 06 September 2013 09:04 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:

In the Australian election week, I noticed in the Pirate's Party manifesto at http://getawarrant.org.au/:

 

"The Pirate Party will push for negotiations to begin on an international treaty for a free and open Internet.

In 2012, the United Nations passed a landmark resolution that declared the Internet to be a fundamental human right. The same rights that people take for granted offline must be also enshrined online. An international treaty can guarantee this now and for future generations."

 

Naïve, or ahead of the curve?


Well, ahead of curve only if we want to wait till the architecture of the global Internet, and social processes building on it, is firmly set and too late to be changed. And this will be soon. Remembe the adage 'architecture is policy' and so a policy coming too later after the architecture is rather useless. 

I really dont understand why and how people say things like it is too early to begin talking of international arrangements - also knowing that even once you begin talking about them in a positive manner it may take years for them to get off the ground.... In fact it is already getting late. Around WSIS, the Internet pioneers and evangelists still held some high ground and people were ready to develop global frameworks based on such ideals - give or take some. As more and more malignant interests have discovered how to control the Internet and make it deliver for them, the chances of such agreements in fact recede. In the circumstances, what really is the case for holding that to begin talking abut such agreements may be ahead of time, far worse, it being naive? 

Meanwhile, of course OECD is going ahead full steam to make global Internet policy and policy frameworks.... I think we need to get real, sooner the better. I mean if we are really thinking global democracy and global public interest, 



See http://www.oecd.org/sti/security-privacy ,for instance, for new privacy guidelines from the OECD . A few quotes from the website....
, 

"Security and privacy are essential for the Internet economy to continue to serve as a platform for innovation, new sources of economic growth and social development. The OECD focuses on the development of better policies to ensure that security and privacy foster economic and social prosperity in an open an interconnected digital world."

 

"This work is carried out by the OECD Working Party on Information Security and Privacy (WPISP) <http://www.oecd.org/sti/ieconomy/whatistheoecdworkingpartyoninformationsecurityandprivacywpisp.htm> , under the Committee for Information, Computers and Communications Policy (ICCP)."

 

Sure, naive and ahead of the curve for the not so rich world to aspire to democratic participation in what affects them so centrally!

parminder 

 







parminder 






 

-- 



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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | <http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone> http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org <http://www.consumersinternational.org/>  | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational

Read our email confidentiality notice <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality> . Don't print this email unless necessary.

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see  <http://jere.my/l/8m> http://jere.my/l/8m.

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130906/3aa8e9a5/attachment.htm>

From alex.comninos at gmail.com  Mon Sep  9 08:51:31 2013
From: alex.comninos at gmail.com (Alex Comninos)
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 14:51:31 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] IGF registration form completely unencrypted
Message-ID: <CAPfkVHkcZW7xvNq=-c99Fe=LuaYe2+2nRvDqXmRTTBz9FuF0nA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi All

The IGF registration web form is completely unencrypted (utilises HTTP
not HTTPS). They expect us to send personal information as well as our
ID/passport numbers in plaintext?

I hope someone can bump the MAG to fix this.

http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-2013-registration

Kind regards,
Alex

From rguerra at privaterra.org  Mon Sep  9 09:06:20 2013
From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 09:06:20 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] IGF registration form completely unencrypted
In-Reply-To: <CAPfkVHkcZW7xvNq=-c99Fe=LuaYe2+2nRvDqXmRTTBz9FuF0nA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPfkVHkcZW7xvNq=-c99Fe=LuaYe2+2nRvDqXmRTTBz9FuF0nA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1E5BAC06-13C0-4BCA-B337-536A0D9CDB45@privaterra.org>

Alex,

Someone correct me if I am wrong - but this isn't the first time the issue of having an insecure registration site has been raised.

that being said - might be good to have a conversation on this list or elsewhere of the recommended best settings of where to obtain the SSL certificate and how to best configure the web server so that the optimal (ie. most secure) encryption and hash algorithms be used

robert


--
R. Guerra
Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081
Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom 
Email: rguerra at privaterra.org

On 2013-09-09, at 8:51 AM, Alex Comninos wrote:

> Hi All
> 
> The IGF registration web form is completely unencrypted (utilises HTTP
> not HTTPS). They expect us to send personal information as well as our
> ID/passport numbers in plaintext?
> 
> I hope someone can bump the MAG to fix this.
> 
> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-2013-registration
> 
> Kind regards,
> Alex


From alex.comninos at gmail.com  Mon Sep  9 09:10:55 2013
From: alex.comninos at gmail.com (Alex Comninos)
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 15:10:55 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] IGF registration form completely unencrypted
In-Reply-To: <1E5BAC06-13C0-4BCA-B337-536A0D9CDB45@privaterra.org>
References: <CAPfkVHkcZW7xvNq=-c99Fe=LuaYe2+2nRvDqXmRTTBz9FuF0nA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1E5BAC06-13C0-4BCA-B337-536A0D9CDB45@privaterra.org>
Message-ID: <CAPfkVHmvBX8fO1FxvJKpdkApDye_760NS4bu0ZVD11nfzwppkw@mail.gmail.com>

On 9 September 2013 15:06, Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org> wrote:
> Someone correct me if I am wrong - but this isn't the first time the issue of having an insecure registration site has been raised.

IGF 2011 had an http registration and I raised it then, 2012 utilised
HTTPS, I am not sure of the others.

From william.drake at uzh.ch  Mon Sep  9 09:59:59 2013
From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 15:59:59 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] IGF registration form completely unencrypted
In-Reply-To: <CAPfkVHmvBX8fO1FxvJKpdkApDye_760NS4bu0ZVD11nfzwppkw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPfkVHkcZW7xvNq=-c99Fe=LuaYe2+2nRvDqXmRTTBz9FuF0nA@mail.gmail.com> <1E5BAC06-13C0-4BCA-B337-536A0D9CDB45@privaterra.org> <CAPfkVHmvBX8fO1FxvJKpdkApDye_760NS4bu0ZVD11nfzwppkw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6282FC4D-1D73-446E-A1F5-358D8B49A766@uzh.ch>

Hi

On Sep 9, 2013, at 3:10 PM, Alex Comninos <alex.comninos at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 9 September 2013 15:06, Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org> wrote:
>> Someone correct me if I am wrong - but this isn't the first time the issue of having an insecure registration site has been raised.
> 
> IGF 2011 had an http registration and I raised it then, 2012 utilised
> HTTPS, I am not sure of the others.

Saw this message and shot the secretariat a note, since it's their site.  Chengetai's response is below.

Cheers

Bill

—————

> From: Chengetai Masango <CMASANGO at unog.ch>
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] IGF registration form completely unencrypted
> Date: September 9, 2013 3:37:20 PM GMT+02:00
> To: William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
> Cc: IGF <IGF at unog.ch>
> 
> Hi Bill,
> 
> We have an https link 
> 
> 
> https://comanche.vervehosting.com/~wgig/igf/cms/wks2013/meeting_attendance_registration_2013_IGF.php
> 
> I will add the link to the form.
> 
> 
> on the server side its all encrypted so that's fine.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130909/15ff0cb8/attachment.htm>

From alex.comninos at gmail.com  Mon Sep  9 10:13:08 2013
From: alex.comninos at gmail.com (Alex Comninos)
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 16:13:08 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] IGF registration form completely unencrypted
In-Reply-To: <6282FC4D-1D73-446E-A1F5-358D8B49A766@uzh.ch>
References: <CAPfkVHkcZW7xvNq=-c99Fe=LuaYe2+2nRvDqXmRTTBz9FuF0nA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1E5BAC06-13C0-4BCA-B337-536A0D9CDB45@privaterra.org> <CAPfkVHmvBX8fO1FxvJKpdkApDye_760NS4bu0ZVD11nfzwppkw@mail.gmail.com>
 <6282FC4D-1D73-446E-A1F5-358D8B49A766@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <CAPfkVHmm1rVFsLrP4PBykHPO9NG4YGCzQ2fkwu7NPrx_+ykvvg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Bill

Thanks for this swift reply.

The HTTPS form looked familiar, I see that the HTTPS form
(https://comanche.vervehosting.com/~wgig/igf/cms/wks2013/meeting_attendance_registration_2013_IGF.php)
is actually embedded as an iframe in the HTTP page
(http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-2013-registration) - see the
source excerpt below:
...
<div class="contentpane">
<div class="componentheading">
Pre Registration IGF 2013 </div>
<iframe id="blockrandom"
name="iframe"
src="https://comanche.vervehosting.com/~wgig/igf/cms/wks2013/meeting_attendance_registration_2013_IGF.php"
width="100%"
height="2070"
scrolling="auto"
align="top"
frameborder="0"
class="wrapper">
This option will not work correctly. Unfortunately, your browser does
not support inline frames.</iframe>
</div>
...

I am no techie but this should provide SSL encryption nonetheless?

So it was encrypted after all I guess?

Kind regards,
Alex
...
Alex Comninos | doctoral candidate
Department of Geography | Justus Liebig University, Gießen
+49 179 554 7075 | Skype: alexcomninos5
http:// comninos.org | Twitter: @alexcomninos


On 9 September 2013 15:59, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Sep 9, 2013, at 3:10 PM, Alex Comninos <alex.comninos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 9 September 2013 15:06, Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org> wrote:
>
> Someone correct me if I am wrong - but this isn't the first time the issue
> of having an insecure registration site has been raised.
>
>
> IGF 2011 had an http registration and I raised it then, 2012 utilised
> HTTPS, I am not sure of the others.
>
>
> Saw this message and shot the secretariat a note, since it's their site.
> Chengetai's response is below.
>
> Cheers
>
> Bill
>
> —————
>
> From: Chengetai Masango <CMASANGO at unog.ch>
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] IGF registration form completely unencrypted
> Date: September 9, 2013 3:37:20 PM GMT+02:00
> To: William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
> Cc: IGF <IGF at unog.ch>
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> We have an https link
>
>
> https://comanche.vervehosting.com/~wgig/igf/cms/wks2013/meeting_attendance_registration_2013_IGF.php
>
> I will add the link to the form.
>
>
> on the server side its all encrypted so that's fine.

From alex.comninos at gmail.com  Mon Sep  9 10:55:09 2013
From: alex.comninos at gmail.com (Alex Comninos)
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 16:55:09 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] IGF registration form completely unencrypted
In-Reply-To: <CAPfkVHmm1rVFsLrP4PBykHPO9NG4YGCzQ2fkwu7NPrx_+ykvvg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPfkVHkcZW7xvNq=-c99Fe=LuaYe2+2nRvDqXmRTTBz9FuF0nA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1E5BAC06-13C0-4BCA-B337-536A0D9CDB45@privaterra.org> <CAPfkVHmvBX8fO1FxvJKpdkApDye_760NS4bu0ZVD11nfzwppkw@mail.gmail.com>
 <6282FC4D-1D73-446E-A1F5-358D8B49A766@uzh.ch> <CAPfkVHmm1rVFsLrP4PBykHPO9NG4YGCzQ2fkwu7NPrx_+ykvvg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPfkVHmPnoAVJfjmpEFGC3Dbpkpnr3WcvEOO4b=1AxaLggcf7g@mail.gmail.com>

Hi All

I am no techie but I have enquired with a coder and a sysadmin. The
HTTPS form is embedded in an IFRAME in the HTTP site, it is handled by
the browser as a seperate page, so SSL encryption should be intact.

So this was in fact a false alarm I guess.

Still a good idea to send people directly to the HTTPS so they can
know its an encrypted connection, and verify the identity of the site.

So I guess all is in order

(except for in browser SSL encryption in general being possibly
broken, but thats another story).

Kind regards,
Alex


...
Alex Comninos | doctoral candidate
Department of Geography | Justus Liebig University, Gießen
+49 179 554 7075 | Skype: alexcomninos5
http:// comninos.org | Twitter: @alexcomninos


On 9 September 2013 16:13, Alex Comninos <alex.comninos at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Bill
>
> Thanks for this swift reply.
>
> The HTTPS form looked familiar, I see that the HTTPS form
> (https://comanche.vervehosting.com/~wgig/igf/cms/wks2013/meeting_attendance_registration_2013_IGF.php)
> is actually embedded as an iframe in the HTTP page
> (http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-2013-registration) - see the
> source excerpt below:
> ...
> <div class="contentpane">
> <div class="componentheading">
> Pre Registration IGF 2013 </div>
> <iframe id="blockrandom"
> name="iframe"
> src="https://comanche.vervehosting.com/~wgig/igf/cms/wks2013/meeting_attendance_registration_2013_IGF.php"
> width="100%"
> height="2070"
> scrolling="auto"
> align="top"
> frameborder="0"
> class="wrapper">
> This option will not work correctly. Unfortunately, your browser does
> not support inline frames.</iframe>
> </div>
> ...
>
> I am no techie but this should provide SSL encryption nonetheless?
>
> So it was encrypted after all I guess?
>
> Kind regards,
> Alex
> ...
> Alex Comninos | doctoral candidate
> Department of Geography | Justus Liebig University, Gießen
> +49 179 554 7075 | Skype: alexcomninos5
> http:// comninos.org | Twitter: @alexcomninos
>
>
> On 9 September 2013 15:59, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> On Sep 9, 2013, at 3:10 PM, Alex Comninos <alex.comninos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 9 September 2013 15:06, Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org> wrote:
>>
>> Someone correct me if I am wrong - but this isn't the first time the issue
>> of having an insecure registration site has been raised.
>>
>>
>> IGF 2011 had an http registration and I raised it then, 2012 utilised
>> HTTPS, I am not sure of the others.
>>
>>
>> Saw this message and shot the secretariat a note, since it's their site.
>> Chengetai's response is below.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> —————
>>
>> From: Chengetai Masango <CMASANGO at unog.ch>
>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] IGF registration form completely unencrypted
>> Date: September 9, 2013 3:37:20 PM GMT+02:00
>> To: William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
>> Cc: IGF <IGF at unog.ch>
>>
>> Hi Bill,
>>
>> We have an https link
>>
>>
>> https://comanche.vervehosting.com/~wgig/igf/cms/wks2013/meeting_attendance_registration_2013_IGF.php
>>
>> I will add the link to the form.
>>
>>
>> on the server side its all encrypted so that's fine.

From alex.comninos at gmail.com  Mon Sep  9 11:09:04 2013
From: alex.comninos at gmail.com (Alex Comninos)
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 17:09:04 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] IGF registration form completely unencrypted
In-Reply-To: <6282FC4D-1D73-446E-A1F5-358D8B49A766@uzh.ch>
References: <CAPfkVHkcZW7xvNq=-c99Fe=LuaYe2+2nRvDqXmRTTBz9FuF0nA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1E5BAC06-13C0-4BCA-B337-536A0D9CDB45@privaterra.org> <CAPfkVHmvBX8fO1FxvJKpdkApDye_760NS4bu0ZVD11nfzwppkw@mail.gmail.com>
 <6282FC4D-1D73-446E-A1F5-358D8B49A766@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <CAPfkVH=HeT8-Y3+nsnBYmZ7maog_dRZ3do8MhAaHAG6dLqNggg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi All

Embedding HTTP in HTTPS is still very bad practice, there are many
possible vulnerabilities it can present, outlined here:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Security/MixedContent

Kind regards,
Alex

...


On 9 September 2013 15:59, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Sep 9, 2013, at 3:10 PM, Alex Comninos <alex.comninos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 9 September 2013 15:06, Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org> wrote:
>
> Someone correct me if I am wrong - but this isn't the first time the issue
> of having an insecure registration site has been raised.
>
>
> IGF 2011 had an http registration and I raised it then, 2012 utilised
> HTTPS, I am not sure of the others.
>
>
> Saw this message and shot the secretariat a note, since it's their site.
> Chengetai's response is below.
>
> Cheers
>
> Bill
>
> —————
>
> From: Chengetai Masango <CMASANGO at unog.ch>
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] IGF registration form completely unencrypted
> Date: September 9, 2013 3:37:20 PM GMT+02:00
> To: William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
> Cc: IGF <IGF at unog.ch>
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> We have an https link
>
>
> https://comanche.vervehosting.com/~wgig/igf/cms/wks2013/meeting_attendance_registration_2013_IGF.php
>
> I will add the link to the form.
>
>
> on the server side its all encrypted so that's fine.

From anriette at apc.org  Wed Sep 11 10:02:50 2013
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 16:02:50 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] APC submission to the CSTD WG on EC
Message-ID: <5230780A.9050006@apc.org>

Dear friends

Attached is APC's response to the CSTD WG on EC questionnaire.  We quote
Best Bits's statement.

Anriette



-- 
------------------------------------------------------
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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: APC_response_CSTD_WGEC_FINAL_10092013.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 106815 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130911/7495b6ed/attachment.pdf>

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Wed Sep 11 12:24:39 2013
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 18:24:39 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] IAB Intergovtech initiative
In-Reply-To: <52307EF4.5060709@apc.org>
References: <5230780A.9050006@apc.org>
 <52307EF4.5060709@apc.org>
Message-ID: <mailman.30.1642081801.12520.bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130911/53822f32/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Sep 15 00:16:02 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 09:46:02 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] The Gilder Friday Letter #Net
 Neutrality
In-Reply-To: <52352929.5040707@itforchange.net>
References: <1379098759.49787.YahooMailMobile@web161402.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <5F7BF473-EEC7-4FD5-BC7A-EA9FD94BA49F@gmail.com> <CAHOT-HX8MVZwNRfpJ_5iauVi5oOWtSsN3_ckoRf9nmzNWUoPDw@mail.gmail.com> <653B4C86-61BD-462E-B304-F88FCF491338@gmail.com> <CAHOT-HXR0uZbCdC4-aAcNzBGgUr1nokFOZEQYeN0+JCsyBQa3g@mail.gmail.com> <B14B6C51-A51F-470C-8B77-75454EAC14C2@gmail.com> <37A03E10-EF70-40AB-88F3-92B8E179C9FF@glocom.ac.jp> <52352929.5040707@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <52353482.9050505@itforchange.net>


>
> On Saturday 14 September 2013 08:38 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
>> In the Verizon case in the U.S. I've heard that the judges are 
>> leaning towards allowing telecom and cable broadband providers to 
>> charge OTT players for prioritized network services, but will leave 
>> some other parts of the FCC's Open Internet rules intact.  Meanwhile 
>> in Europe, Commission vice president Neelie Kroes last week released 
>> proposals for major telecom reform aiming to create a single telecom 
>> market which include network neutrality provisions that would allow 
>> telcos to do much the same: they'd be able to differentiate their 
>> offers perhaps by speed and compete on enhanced quality of service.  
>> Thou Kroes is also proposing to prevent throttling of traffic and 
>> blocking of some apps (Skype, WhatsApp etc etc).
>>   Press release for the EC proposals 
>> <http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-828_en.htm>, good summary 
>> <http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-779_en.htm>
>>   If both the U.S. and Europe were to go this way, and not certain in 
>> either case, then guess it might become a bit of a norm for other 
>> country's to allow the same.

Also, all those pious statements that governments should not decide 
things in IG arena are much better directed at US and EU governments, 
instead of developing country governments who havent much to decide on 
with regard to global IG.... Who decided the new EU framework on net 
neutrality, or the US law and norms, which would be the global 
framework??? Let the MS-ists ask this of themselves, and then tell us.. 
This is the debate that needs to take place here...

This is real global Internet governance - and the Northern governments 
are doing it, completely on their own. Please turn your MS guns towards 
them, for whatever they are worth. And please  stop participating in 
their hypocrisy about preaching MSism to others, whom they desperately 
want to keep away from the table where  public policy decisions are 
taken for the whole world....

Let at least civil society people from developing countries take these 
wake up call.... It is in a very undemocratic way that the global 
governance of the Internet is being done today, and they are completely 
out of it.... No, just joining the MS chorus will not get you there, it 
simply plays in the hands to those who want to keep the Internet 
controls in their own hands. The global governance of the Internet needs 
to really be democratised..


parminder




>
>
> Which is a huge problem of global (non) governance of the Internet - 
> that the mighty are able to dictate the architectural framework of the 
> Internet by sheer market/economic, and, also often, political 
> dominance. Civil society has not been able to offer any response to 
> this patently anti democratic situation. Neither has the much touted 
> multistakeholder model any response to this situation.
>
> A bit strange that even after 7 editions of the IGF, while Bali IGF 
> will be full of sessions on multistakeholderism, all these years we 
> could not get one main session on net neutrality (NN) - which to me is 
> almost 'the' paradigmatic public policy issue of IG. In fact, there 
> were really a lot of proposals to get a main session on NN this year 
> but , at the Paris MAG consultations, I had the feeling that these 
> proposals were actively discouraged if not sabotaged by the powers 
> that be.... Perhaps MAG members can help us understand why we could 
> not get a main session on NN, when all kinds of sessions with vague 
> titles made the grade...
>
> This gives grist to the propositions that the exclusive focus on 
> procedural issues at the IGF just helps build a smokescreen preventing 
> the needed global discussions on real public policy issues.
>
> Very unfortunate that while , as per above Adam's email, the die seems 
> to have been cast in terms of a non NN Internet, all these years IGC 
> has still not being able to get over arguing on things like - the 
> meaning of NN is not clear.... I consider it as a major failure of IGC 
> that we could do nothing, much less provide leadership, on this all 
> crucial IG issue.....
>
> parminder
>
>
>>   Adam
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130915/90bc09fd/attachment.htm>

From alex.comninos at gmail.com  Tue Sep 17 13:56:00 2013
From: alex.comninos at gmail.com (Alex Comninos)
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 19:56:00 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] IGF registration form completely unencrypted
Message-ID: <CAPfkVH=7c6iN=+m_eSMYQ-jU3i5eSNbLooMV0pkh==Caxkva6w@mail.gmail.com>

Hi All

I had raised earlier the issue that the IGF online registration form
was on an HTTP connection and thus unencrypted.

I was in part wrong. It turned out the registration form was
encrypted, by embedding an HTTPS form in an HTTP site. Despite this
being very bad practice, and subject to some vulnerabilities, it
offered basic encryption.

It seemed that if someone wanted to register for the IGF, but feared
that their personal information on the registration form may be
intercepted by someone on the same network, they could in effect most
likely do this without worry (for most adversaries). Bob believes that
he can register for the IGF without Alice, who controls the network
finding this out, along with his personal information, including
passport information.  I think that this is a minimum expectation for
an event like the IGF.

However, considering the methodology of delivering confirmation of
registration, Bob was completely mistaken, Alice knows he has
registered for the IGF, In addition, Alice knows his passport number,
email address, date of birth, and other personal information. Why?
Well because the confirmation of registration was provided by means of
an unencrypted HTTP link to a server that contains his registration
document. For example from the email below:

Dear Mr. Alexis Comninos,

Your registration form...For visa issuance facilitation, you are
kindly requested to visit: http://igf2013.or.id/visa-info/.

....snip....

You can download a copy of your registration form at:
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/registration/IGF-Registration-Confirmation-**********_****.********@*********_381.pdf

...snip...

Best regards,

The IGF Secretariat

What happens in this scenario?

Assumptions: Bob has his own device, is using either an offline mail
client that is set to make make encrypted connections to a server, or
an online client (e.g. Gmail using and HTTPS connection) which he
accesses through HTTPS. Bob is however using an intternet connection
through a public connection/wifi hotspot/untrusted network, beknownst,
or unbeknownst to bob, Alice is on the network, running a free easy to
use packet sniffing utility (e.g. Wireshark). Bob opens his email from
the IGF secretariat.

What does Alice find out.

1. Bob accessed a URL
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/registration/IGF-Registration-Confirmation-**********_****.********@*********_381.pdf
2. From the above URL, someone is registering for the internet governance forum
3. From the above URL, Passport or Travel Document Number
4. From the above URL, email address, and thus possibly first and last
names of registration
5. That bob was the 381st person to register for the IGF.

If alice then follows the link, she downloads the publically
available-to-anyone-with-the-link-pdf and finds out: Title, Last Name,
First Name, Email, Date of birth, Delegation/Country, Organisation or
Agency, Stakeholder Group, Region, Passport/Identity document number,
Type of Identity Document and validity, Country of Issue of identity
document, Telephone Number and
Permanent Official Address.

tl;dr dont download your confirmation of registration on an
unencrypted connection, someone may see some of your personal
information. A censored version of the email I received in
confirmation of registration is below. It is similar to the one you
may receive, should you have you registered for the IGF, it has the
same vulnerabilities.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Internet Governance Forum <igf at unog.ch>
Date: 17 September 2013 18:29
Subject: Confirmation of your registering to the 8th IGF meeting in Indonesia
To: alex.comninos at gmail.com


Dear Mr. Alexis Comninos,

Your registration form has been processed and you have been registered
as a participant at the Eighth Meeting of the IGF. The Meeting will
take place at the Bali Nusa Dua Convention Center (BNDCC) in Bali,
Indonesia, from 22 to 25 October 2013. Please visit the Host Country's
Web site for logistical details at http://igf2013.or.id/. For visa
issuance facilitation, you are kindly requested to visit:
http://igf2013.or.id/visa-info/.

=== Badging ===

Badges will be issued on site before the Meeting starts. Participants
are required to go to the badging desks at the BNDCC with a printed
copy of the registration form and a government issued picture ID.

The badging desks will be open from Saturday 19 October 10:00 hours
and participants are encouraged to collect their badges as early as
possible after arrival to avoid congestion.

You can download a copy of your registration form at:
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/registration/IGF-Registration-Confirmation-**********_alex.comninos at gmail.com_381.pdf

This registration confirmation will also help you through your visa
application. Kindly attach a copy of this form to your application.

We look forward to your participation at the IGF Meeting in Bali.

Best regards,

The IGF Secretariat

Email: igf at unog.ch



...
Alex Comninos | doctoral candidate


On 9 September 2013 17:09, Alex Comninos <alex.comninos at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi All
>
> Embedding HTTP in HTTPS is still very bad practice, there are many
> possible vulnerabilities it can present, outlined here:
> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Security/MixedContent
>
> Kind regards,
> Alex
>
> ...
>
>
> On 9 September 2013 15:59, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> On Sep 9, 2013, at 3:10 PM, Alex Comninos <alex.comninos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 9 September 2013 15:06, Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org> wrote:
>>
>> Someone correct me if I am wrong - but this isn't the first time the issue
>> of having an insecure registration site has been raised.
>>
>>
>> IGF 2011 had an http registration and I raised it then, 2012 utilised
>> HTTPS, I am not sure of the others.
>>
>>
>> Saw this message and shot the secretariat a note, since it's their site.
>> Chengetai's response is below.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> —————
>>
>> From: Chengetai Masango <CMASANGO at unog.ch>
>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] IGF registration form completely unencrypted
>> Date: September 9, 2013 3:37:20 PM GMT+02:00
>> To: William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
>> Cc: IGF <IGF at unog.ch>
>>
>> Hi Bill,
>>
>> We have an https link
>>
>>
>> https://comanche.vervehosting.com/~wgig/igf/cms/wks2013/meeting_attendance_registration_2013_IGF.php
>>
>> I will add the link to the form.
>>
>>
>> on the server side its all encrypted so that's fine.

From ellery.biddle at gmail.com  Tue Sep 17 17:14:21 2013
From: ellery.biddle at gmail.com (Ellery Biddle)
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 14:14:21 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] GV blogger detained in Bahrain -- we need your help!
Message-ID: <CAGYy+8QcftQKj3SJ+J_CPc2BBQvE36v8KagRDqoX393+UoCRGg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

As many of you have seen in recent weeks, Global Voices has been working to
advocate for the release of Bahraini blogger Mohammed Hassan (Safybh), a GV
author who has been in detention in Bahrain for over six weeks now. This press
release<http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/2013/09/03/press-release-internet-activists-demand-release-of-bahraini-blogger-mohammed-hassan/>contains
basic details that we've been able to gather from friends and
people in country about his situation.

We are growing more and more worried about his situation every day -- those
on the ground are fairly certain that he has been tortured and forced to
confess to charges related to participating in demonstrations, "inciting
hatred" against the government, etc.

Safy, as he's known online, is a thoughtful young guy who has been very
involved with non-violent movements for progressive reforms in Bahrain. He
has also worked as a media "fixer", helping foreign media teams navigate
the country, connect with sources, etc.

In addition to quieter things that I won't discuss here, we've been trying
to get more international attention on his case, through media, NGO
statements, etc. Thus far, there's been plenty of activity on Twitter
(#FreeSafy) and we have a beautiful Tumblr <http://freesafy.tumblr.com/>of
#FreeSafy pictures, but not much response from big media "influencers".

If any of you can help in any way, have ideas on what we can do to keep
pushing this forward, or have expert knowledge on Bahrain, please let me
know. Happy to discuss on or off list.

Thanks all,

Ellery

-- 
Ellery Roberts Biddle
*ellerybiddle.com* | global voices
online<http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/author/ellery-roberts-biddle/>|
@ellerybiddle <https://twitter.com/#%21/ellerybiddle>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130917/730bf533/attachment.htm>

From joy at apc.org  Tue Sep 17 22:26:11 2013
From: joy at apc.org (joy)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 14:26:11 +1200
Subject: [bestbits] GV blogger detained in Bahrain -- we need your help!
In-Reply-To: <CAGYy+8QcftQKj3SJ+J_CPc2BBQvE36v8KagRDqoX393+UoCRGg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGYy+8QcftQKj3SJ+J_CPc2BBQvE36v8KagRDqoX393+UoCRGg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <52390F43.1050206@apc.org>

Hi Ellery - let me raise this with the APC person in Geneva for HRC 24
and see if our networks can reach out there: I believe there are some
other Bahraini NGOs there as well.
Cheers
Joy
On 18/09/2013 9:14 a.m., Ellery Biddle wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As many of you have seen in recent weeks, Global Voices has been
> working to advocate for the release of Bahraini blogger Mohammed
> Hassan (Safybh), a GV author who has been in detention in Bahrain for
> over six weeks now. This press release
> <http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/2013/09/03/press-release-internet-activists-demand-release-of-bahraini-blogger-mohammed-hassan/>
> contains basic details that we've been able to gather from friends and
> people in country about his situation.
>
> We are growing more and more worried about his situation every day --
> those on the ground are fairly certain that he has been tortured and
> forced to confess to charges related to participating in
> demonstrations, "inciting hatred" against the government, etc.
>
> Safy, as he's known online, is a thoughtful young guy who has been
> very involved with non-violent movements for progressive reforms in
> Bahrain. He has also worked as a media "fixer", helping foreign media
> teams navigate the country, connect with sources, etc.
>
> In addition to quieter things that I won't discuss here, we've been
> trying to get more international attention on his case, through media,
> NGO statements, etc. Thus far, there's been plenty of activity on
> Twitter (#FreeSafy) and we have a beautiful Tumblr
> <http://freesafy.tumblr.com/>of #FreeSafy pictures, but not much
> response from big media "influencers".
>
> If any of you can help in any way, have ideas on what we can do to
> keep pushing this forward, or have expert knowledge on Bahrain, please
> let me know. Happy to discuss on or off list.
>
> Thanks all,
>
> Ellery
>
> -- 
> Ellery Roberts Biddle 
> _ellerybiddle.com <http://ellerybiddle.com>_ | global voices online
> <http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/author/ellery-roberts-biddle/>
> | @ellerybiddle <https://twitter.com/#%21/ellerybiddle>
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130918/46b459c9/attachment.htm>

From dbu at donnybu.com  Wed Sep 18 01:21:07 2013
From: dbu at donnybu.com (Donny B.U.)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 12:21:07 +0700
Subject: [bestbits] URGENT: Need 2 Reps of CSO for HLLM / pre-IGF 2013
Message-ID: <CAJOH5-xfoXAd38Mmh8dSSE24E7ptWc+Cr5FDzXqZQGV_FFYekg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear fellows,

straight to the point,

one day prior IGF2013, which is 21 October 2013, there will be the High
Level Leaders Meeting (HLLM). Therefore:

1. we have to submit 2 (two) names from global CSOs representative to
become panelist, together with representatives from private (probably:
Google and Indonesian Telkom), gov (probably: china and US) and technical
community (probably: APNIC and ISOC). each panelist will have about 5
minutes to share and/or give comment about the topic and presentation.


please kindly help me to decide and propose 2 names from CSOs, to be
submitted to the HLLM committee, as soon as possible not more than
tomorrow. because the HLLM formal invitation will be start to distribute on
friday.

Sorry such a hurry, because I just received the draft of term of reference
by yesterday night. I attached the TOR here. please consider the TOR as
limited (not for redistributed).


2. for you that want to attend the HLLM, please send email to
anisa at igf2013.or.id (cc: dbu at donnybu.com). the invitation will be come from
MCIT.


best regards,

-dbu-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130918/0ba326f3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: draft - HLLM TOR Bali Dec- ver10-1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 373409 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130918/0ba326f3/attachment.pdf>

From nb at bollow.ch  Wed Sep 18 03:56:33 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 09:56:33 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] URGENT: Need 2 Reps of CSO for HLLM / pre-IGF 2013
In-Reply-To: <CAJOH5-xfoXAd38Mmh8dSSE24E7ptWc+Cr5FDzXqZQGV_FFYekg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJOH5-xfoXAd38Mmh8dSSE24E7ptWc+Cr5FDzXqZQGV_FFYekg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130918095633.01652c78@quill>

Hi Donny

Do I understand this correctly that
1) you want specifically this mailing list to discuss civil society
representation on the *panel* for the HLLM, and
2) civil society people interested in simply attending the HLLM
(without necessarily expressing an interest in being on the panel) 
should directly email anisa at igf2013.or.id (cc: dbu at donnybu.com)
???

Should people who are interested in simply attending the HLLM include
information on why they consider it appropriate for them to be invited
to a “high level leaders” event?

Is there a deadline for part 2?

Greetings,
Norbert
co-coordinator of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus 

Am Wed, 18 Sep 2013 12:21:07 +0700
schrieb "Donny B.U." <dbu at donnybu.com>:

> Dear fellows,
> 
> straight to the point,
> 
> one day prior IGF2013, which is 21 October 2013, there will be the
> High Level Leaders Meeting (HLLM). Therefore:
> 
> 1. we have to submit 2 (two) names from global CSOs representative to
> become panelist, together with representatives from private (probably:
> Google and Indonesian Telkom), gov (probably: china and US) and
> technical community (probably: APNIC and ISOC). each panelist will
> have about 5 minutes to share and/or give comment about the topic and
> presentation.
> 
> 
> please kindly help me to decide and propose 2 names from CSOs, to be
> submitted to the HLLM committee, as soon as possible not more than
> tomorrow. because the HLLM formal invitation will be start to
> distribute on friday.
> 
> Sorry such a hurry, because I just received the draft of term of
> reference by yesterday night. I attached the TOR here. please
> consider the TOR as limited (not for redistributed).
> 
> 
> 2. for you that want to attend the HLLM, please send email to
> anisa at igf2013.or.id (cc: dbu at donnybu.com). the invitation will be
> come from MCIT.
> 
> 
> best regards,
> 
> -dbu-


From william.drake at uzh.ch  Wed Sep 18 04:13:10 2013
From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 10:13:10 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] URGENT: Need 2 Reps of CSO for HLLM / pre-IGF 2013
Message-ID: <1F157056-9325-4FF0-99A1-44CC47472C23@uzh.ch>

Hi Donny

Thanks for sharing this interesting document.  Would it be possible to have a little information about it origins and development, e.g. who wrote it, to what extent it was vetted with the participating governments and stakeholders, etc?  It reads very similarly to material the Chinese government has had circulated at prior IGFs.  Personally, I'm not entirely sure it's accurate to say that "all Internet communities have a common perception and concern in building safe, peace and harmony in cyberspace" [sic], that there is a "necessity to harmonize national laws" regarding appropriate speech and behavior, etc., but I guess we will see...

Understanding the process and thinking behind the proposed declaration would be helpful in identifying CS representatives and related activities.

Best,

Bill




On Sep 18, 2013, at 7:21 AM, Donny B.U. <dbu at donnybu.com> wrote:

> 
> Dear fellows,
> 
> straight to the point,
> 
> one day prior IGF2013, which is 21 October 2013, there will be the High Level Leaders Meeting (HLLM). Therefore:
> 
> 1. we have to submit 2 (two) names from global CSOs representative to become panelist, together with representatives from private (probably: Google and Indonesian Telkom), gov (probably: china and US) and technical community (probably: APNIC and ISOC). each panelist will have about 5 minutes to share and/or give comment about the topic and presentation.
> 
> 
> please kindly help me to decide and propose 2 names from CSOs, to be submitted to the HLLM committee, as soon as possible not more than tomorrow. because the HLLM formal invitation will be start to distribute on friday.
> 
> Sorry such a hurry, because I just received the draft of term of reference by yesterday night. I attached the TOR here. please consider the TOR as limited (not for redistributed).
> 
> 
> 2. for you that want to attend the HLLM, please send email to anisa at igf2013.or.id (cc: dbu at donnybu.com). the invitation will be come from MCIT.
> 
> 
> best regards,
> 
> -dbu-
> 
> 
> <draft - HLLM TOR Bali Dec- ver10-1.pdf>

**********************************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h),
  www.williamdrake.org
***********************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130918/eb31aaed/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Sep 18 04:16:48 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 13:46:48 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] URGENT: Need 2 Reps of CSO for HLLM / pre-IGF 2013
In-Reply-To: <CAJOH5-xfoXAd38Mmh8dSSE24E7ptWc+Cr5FDzXqZQGV_FFYekg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJOH5-xfoXAd38Mmh8dSSE24E7ptWc+Cr5FDzXqZQGV_FFYekg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <52396170.2070407@itforchange.net>

Hi Donny

Can you please share some information with us about the drafting process 
for the proposed statement on cyber ethic....

BTW, I will strongly recommend you to involve UNESCO in any effort in 
this area. The have worked a lot on issues of ethics in science and 
technology, including ICTs. UNESCO leads the action line on ethics of 
information society and had recently come out with a document on this 
subject..

Since time seems to be short, I am cc-ing this email to Xianhong Hu of 
UNESCO's Communication and Information Sector who I know would be in Bali.

Thanks and best regards

parminder

On Wednesday 18 September 2013 10:51 AM, Donny B.U. wrote:
>
> Dear fellows,
>
> straight to the point,
>
> one day prior IGF2013, which is 21 October 2013, there will be the 
> High Level Leaders Meeting (HLLM). Therefore:
>
> 1. we have to submit 2 (two) names from global CSOs representative to 
> become panelist, together with representatives from private (probably: 
> Google and Indonesian Telkom), gov (probably: china and US) and 
> technical community (probably: APNIC and ISOC). each panelist will 
> have about 5 minutes to share and/or give comment about the topic and 
> presentation.
>
>
> please kindly help me to decide and propose 2 names from CSOs, to be 
> submitted to the HLLM committee, as soon as possible not more than 
> tomorrow. because the HLLM formal invitation will be start to 
> distribute on friday.
>
> Sorry such a hurry, because I just received the draft of term of 
> reference by yesterday night. I attached the TOR here. please consider 
> the TOR as limited (not for redistributed).
>
>
> 2. for you that want to attend the HLLM, please send email to 
> anisa at igf2013.or.id <mailto:anisa at igf2013.or.id> (cc: dbu at donnybu.com 
> <mailto:dbu at donnybu.com>). the invitation will be come from MCIT.
>
>
> best regards,
>
> -dbu-
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130918/4fed3117/attachment.htm>

From dbu at donnybu.com  Wed Sep 18 04:29:27 2013
From: dbu at donnybu.com (Donny B.U.)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 15:29:27 +0700
Subject: [bestbits] URGENT: Need 2 Reps of CSO for HLLM / pre-IGF 2013
In-Reply-To: <52396170.2070407@itforchange.net>
References: <CAJOH5-xfoXAd38Mmh8dSSE24E7ptWc+Cr5FDzXqZQGV_FFYekg@mail.gmail.com>
	<52396170.2070407@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CAJOH5-y1GDKN8q_960augb8dn5HY4c_b8CT9chjaCYBaALB02w@mail.gmail.com>

 hi norbert,

1. yes correct
2. yes correct. the deadline is as soon as possible, within next week.

actually the host, which is MCIT, need no additional information.
only the details (name, country, passport data) for invitation process...



-dbu-

On Wednesday, September 18, 2013, Norbert Bollow wrote:

> Hi Donny
>
> Do I understand this correctly that
> 1) you want specifically this mailing list to discuss civil society
> representation on the *panel* for the HLLM, and
> 2) civil society people interested in simply attending the HLLM
> (without necessarily expressing an interest in being on the panel)
> should directly email anisa at igf2013.or.id (cc: dbu at donnybu.com)
> ???
>
> Should people who are interested in simply attending the HLLM include
> information on why they consider it appropriate for them to be invited
> to a “high level leaders” event?
>
> Is there a deadline for part 2?
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> co-coordinator of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus
>
> Am Wed, 18 Sep 2013 12:21:07 +0700
> schrieb "Donny B.U." <dbu at donnybu.com>:
>
> > Dear fellows,
> >
> > straight to the point,
> >
> > one day prior IGF2013, which is 21 October 2013, there will be the
> > High Level Leaders Meeting (HLLM). Therefore:
> >
> > 1. we have to submit 2 (two) names from global CSOs representative to
> > become panelist, together with representatives from private (probably:
> > Google and Indonesian Telkom), gov (probably: china and US) and
> > technical community (probably: APNIC and ISOC). each panelist will
> > have about 5 minutes to share and/or give comment about the topic and
> > presentation.
> >
> >
> > please kindly help me to decide and propose 2 names from CSOs, to be
> > submitted to the HLLM committee, as soon as possible not more than
> > tomorrow. because the HLLM formal invitation will be start to
> > distribute on friday.
> >
> > Sorry such a hurry, because I just received the draft of term of
> > reference by yesterday night. I attached the TOR here. please
> > consider the TOR as limited (not for redistributed).
> >
> >
> > 2. for you that want to attend the HLLM, please send email to
> > anisa at igf2013.or.id (cc: dbu at donnybu.com). the invitation will be
> > come from MCIT.
> >
> >
> > best regards,
> >
> > -dbu-
>
>

-- 
e: dbu at donnybu.com | t: @donnybu | f: donnybu | w: donnybu.com | p:
+62818930932
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130918/41f848ee/attachment.htm>

From nnenna75 at gmail.com  Wed Sep 18 04:29:35 2013
From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 08:29:35 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] URGENT: Need 2 Reps of CSO for HLLM / pre-IGF 2013
In-Reply-To: <52396170.2070407@itforchange.net>
References: <CAJOH5-xfoXAd38Mmh8dSSE24E7ptWc+Cr5FDzXqZQGV_FFYekg@mail.gmail.com>
	<52396170.2070407@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CADFgh10pL9xFENkmYd-bZmmnGfnOQu6-QUXbiWaNPbn8LJrehw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Donny

Thanks for all the effort.

I would also appreciate information on drafting. Having gone through the
document itself, I think it is important to work on the Declaration in a
collborative manner.  Can you share information needed  by CS who may want
to submit language or hep with drafting.

Best Regards

Nnenna


On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 8:16 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

>  Hi Donny
>
> Can you please share some information with us about the drafting process
> for the proposed statement on cyber ethic....
>
> BTW, I will strongly recommend you to involve UNESCO in any effort in this
> area. The have worked a lot on issues of ethics in science and technology,
> including ICTs. UNESCO leads the action line on ethics of information
> society and had recently come out with a document on this subject..
>
> Since time seems to be short, I am cc-ing this email to Xianhong Hu of
> UNESCO's Communication and Information Sector who I know would be in Bali.
>
> Thanks and best regards
>
> parminder
>
>  On Wednesday 18 September 2013 10:51 AM, Donny B.U. wrote:
>
>
>  Dear fellows,
>
>  straight to the point,
>
>  one day prior IGF2013, which is 21 October 2013, there will be the High
> Level Leaders Meeting (HLLM). Therefore:
>
>  1. we have to submit 2 (two) names from global CSOs representative to
> become panelist, together with representatives from private (probably:
> Google and Indonesian Telkom), gov (probably: china and US) and technical
> community (probably: APNIC and ISOC). each panelist will have about 5
> minutes to share and/or give comment about the topic and presentation.
>
>
>  please kindly help me to decide and propose 2 names from CSOs, to be
> submitted to the HLLM committee, as soon as possible not more than
> tomorrow. because the HLLM formal invitation will be start to distribute on
> friday.
>
>  Sorry such a hurry, because I just received the draft of term of
> reference by yesterday night. I attached the TOR here. please consider the
> TOR as limited (not for redistributed).
>
>
>  2. for you that want to attend the HLLM, please send email to
> anisa at igf2013.or.id (cc: dbu at donnybu.com). the invitation will be come
> from MCIT.
>
>
>  best regards,
>
>  -dbu-
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130918/cacdeb1f/attachment.htm>

From nb at bollow.ch  Wed Sep 18 05:09:04 2013
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 11:09:04 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] URGENT: Need 2 Reps of CSO for HLLM / pre-IGF 2013
In-Reply-To: <CAJOH5-xfoXAd38Mmh8dSSE24E7ptWc+Cr5FDzXqZQGV_FFYekg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJOH5-xfoXAd38Mmh8dSSE24E7ptWc+Cr5FDzXqZQGV_FFYekg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130918110904.0b5cea71@quill>

Donny B.U. <dbu at donnybu.com> wrote:

> 1. we have to submit 2 (two) names from global CSOs representative to
> become panelist

I would like to hereby express my interest in participating on this
panel.

Key points that I would like to contribute on include that it serves no 
fruitful aim to adopt a superficial declaration of generalities with
which everyone agrees anyway without having to think about them, and
which would in fact likely be weaker than the existing international
human rights law. Rather, in order to contribute to taking us forward,
a declaration of cyber ethics principles must make concrete what key
insights of the literature on ethics, such as that ethics must be
discourse-based (Habermas) and integrative (Ulrich), mean in the
context of the Internet and its use.

These acpects tie well into the debates on multistakerisms that will
have a prominent role at this IGF. 

Hopefully these points will already have been introduced in the “theme
presentation” that precedes the panel, so that I will not have to
start by explaining them from scratch.

Greetings,
Norbert

From dbu at donnybu.com  Wed Sep 18 06:02:09 2013
From: dbu at donnybu.com (Donny B.U.)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 17:02:09 +0700
Subject: [bestbits] Re: URGENT: Need 2 Reps of CSO for HLLM / pre-IGF 2013
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh10pL9xFENkmYd-bZmmnGfnOQu6-QUXbiWaNPbn8LJrehw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJOH5-xfoXAd38Mmh8dSSE24E7ptWc+Cr5FDzXqZQGV_FFYekg@mail.gmail.com>
	<52396170.2070407@itforchange.net>
	<CADFgh10pL9xFENkmYd-bZmmnGfnOQu6-QUXbiWaNPbn8LJrehw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJOH5-x2Ke1KMmubmzmVC9mQxBx+9SKvsbp00uCU6t5a4wUfag@mail.gmail.com>

please kindly informed, at this moment on, i'm very much lack of
resources( in term of time and energy) to keep my eyes on the IGF
preparation. because along the way, we have to keep the process
transparant, accountable and based on the spirit of multistakeholder.

for the content of the TOR, I'm not sure that we can do several major
changes. because it's already wrapped up by MCIT.

regards,

-dbu-



On Wednesday, September 18, 2013, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote:

> Hi Donny
>
> Thanks for all the effort.
>
> I would also appreciate information on drafting. Having gone through the
> document itself, I think it is important to work on the Declaration in a
> collborative manner.  Can you share information needed  by CS who may want
> to submit language or hep with drafting.
>
> Best Regards
>
> Nnenna
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 8:16 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'parminder at itforchange.net');>
> > wrote:
>
>>  Hi Donny
>>
>> Can you please share some information with us about the drafting process
>> for the proposed statement on cyber ethic....
>>
>> BTW, I will strongly recommend you to involve UNESCO in any effort in
>> this area. The have worked a lot on issues of ethics in science and
>> technology, including ICTs. UNESCO leads the action line on ethics of
>> information society and had recently come out with a document on this
>> subject..
>>
>> Since time seems to be short, I am cc-ing this email to Xianhong Hu of
>> UNESCO's Communication and Information Sector who I know would be in Bali.
>>
>> Thanks and best regards
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>  On Wednesday 18 September 2013 10:51 AM, Donny B.U. wrote:
>>
>>
>>  Dear fellows,
>>
>>  straight to the point,
>>
>>  one day prior IGF2013, which is 21 October 2013, there will be the High
>> Level Leaders Meeting (HLLM). Therefore:
>>
>>  1. we have to submit 2 (two) names from global CSOs representative to
>> become panelist, together with representatives from private (probably:
>> Google and Indonesian Telkom), gov (probably: china and US) and technical
>> community (probably: APNIC and ISOC). each panelist will have about 5
>> minutes to share and/or give comment about the topic and presentation.
>>
>>
>>  please kindly help me to decide and propose 2 names from CSOs, to be
>> submitted to the HLLM committee, as soon as possible not more than
>> tomorrow. because the HLLM formal invitation will be start to distribute on
>> friday.
>>
>>  Sorry such a hurry, because I just received the draft of term of
>> reference by yesterday night. I attached the TOR here. please consider the
>> TOR as limited (not for redistributed).
>>
>>
>>  2. for you that want to attend the HLLM, please send email to
>> anisa at igf2013.or.id <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'anisa at igf2013.or.id');>(cc:
>> dbu at donnybu.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'dbu at donnybu.com');>). the
>> invitation will be come from MCIT.
>>
>>
>>  best regards,
>>
>>  -dbu-
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
e: dbu at donnybu.com | t: @donnybu | f: donnybu | w: donnybu.com | p:
+62818930932
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130918/3beee1d1/attachment.htm>

From joana at varonferraz.com  Wed Sep 18 14:43:23 2013
From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 15:43:23 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] [call for feedback] visual timeline on IG processes
Message-ID: <CALTAiTo4V8_460XqvhOx2YDT8iZeORzqeoXJgUTLqa6AJaDL_w@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,


In light of recent discussions about the BB Bali agenda and how to frame
the session on engagement in internet governance processes, it seems timely
to share this mapping of global internet governance processes for your
feedback .


 In an effort to better focus our advocacy efforts and understand where
main discussions about global internet governance are taking place over the
next year, Deborah Brown (Access) and Lea (Global Partners Digital), and I
have developed this visual timeline of what we saw as the most relevant
events in global internet governance processes.

We were specifically aiming to: 1) identify forums where internet
governance is being discussed/decided over the next year; and 2) identify
avenues for participation for civil society to influence those processes.
We have taken two particular processes and their relevant outcomes as our
end points – the *ITU Plenipotentiary 2014* and the *WSIS+10 review event
in 2015* – and weaved other forums around them.

Here is the visual timeline: http://bestbits.net/wp-uploads/diagram.html

A few features to make note of:

   -

   We have divided the landscape into several processes – the broader UN
   processes, the ITU processes, the WSIS review process, the IGF and ICANN.
   We did not include OECD as it is not a global process, but it could
   potentially be added (as could other processes).
   -

   The timeline period runs from the beginning of 2013 to the end of 2014,
   but it shall be gradually developed further at least until 2015, as more
   information becomes available;
   -

   Events contain hyperlinks to relevant documentation (e.g. agendas, draft
   resolutions, outcome documents). To access the documents, please, click in
   the respective squares.


While we put considerable thought into what to include and how to visualize
this, these choices were inevitably arbitrary. To make the tool useful for
the broader BB group, we would be interested to receive your feedback.
Based on your initial feedback, we are planning to work on this tool with a
designer who will help us make it more user-friendly and, hopefully,
interactive. With this in mind, we are particularly interested in hearing
your thoughts on:

   -

   Content: are there other processes or documents you would like to see
   included?
   -

   Presentation: any comments on size of boxes, text, colours, etc. (this
   will be particularly useful in the next stage of the project)
   -

   Interactive: what interactive features would you like to see
   incorporated into the document? Ideas can include option of hiding or
   highlighting certain elements of the map, filtering the map by
   body/process/outcome, etc.

We would appreciate your feedback is *September 30th* (our individual
emails are below)

 We hope this mapping will be a useful tool for civil society to strategize
and are looking forward to presenting it at Best Bits meeting in Bali.

Looking forward to receiving your feedback.


Best,


Joana

Deborah: deborah at accessnow.org
Lea: lea at gp-digital.org

-- 

-- 

Joana Varon Ferraz
@joana_varon
PGP 0x016B8E73
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130918/5984a26e/attachment.htm>

From mshears at cdt.org  Wed Sep 18 15:10:05 2013
From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 20:10:05 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] [call for feedback] visual timeline on IG processes
In-Reply-To: <CALTAiTo4V8_460XqvhOx2YDT8iZeORzqeoXJgUTLqa6AJaDL_w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALTAiTo4V8_460XqvhOx2YDT8iZeORzqeoXJgUTLqa6AJaDL_w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5239FA8D.2000204@cdt.org>

Joana, Deborah, Lea - excellent!

On 18/09/2013 19:43, Joana Varon wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
>
> In light of recent discussions about the BB Bali agenda and how to 
> frame the session on engagement in internet governance processes, it 
> seems timely to share this mapping of global internet governance 
> processes for your feedback .
>
>
> In an effort to better focus our advocacy efforts and understand where 
> main discussions about global internet governance are taking place 
> over the next year, Deborah Brown (Access) and Lea (Global Partners 
> Digital), and I have developed this visual timeline of what we saw as 
> the most relevant events in global internet governance processes.
>
>
> We were specifically aiming to: 1) identify forums where internet 
> governance is being discussed/decided over the next year; and 2) 
> identify avenues for participation for civil society to influence 
> those processes. We have taken two particular processes and their 
> relevant outcomes as our end points – the *ITU Plenipotentiary 2014* 
> and the *WSIS+10 review event in 2015* – and weaved other forums 
> around them.
>
>
> Here is the visual timeline: http://bestbits.net/wp-uploads/diagram.html
>
>
> A few features to make note of:
>
>  *
>
>     We have divided the landscape into several processes – the broader
>     UN processes, the ITU processes, the WSIS review process, the IGF
>     and ICANN. We did not include OECD as it is not a global process,
>     but it could potentially be added (as could other processes).
>
>  *
>
>     The timeline period runs from the beginning of 2013 to the end of
>     2014, but it shall be gradually developed further at least until
>     2015, as more information becomes available;
>
>  *
>
>     Events contain hyperlinks to relevant documentation (e.g. agendas,
>     draft resolutions, outcome documents). To access the documents,
>     please, click in the respective squares.
>
>
> While we put considerable thought into what to include and how to 
> visualize this, these choices were inevitably arbitrary. To make the 
> tool useful for the broader BB group, we would be interested to 
> receive your feedback. Based on your initial feedback, we are planning 
> to work on this tool with a designer who will help us make it more 
> user-friendly and, hopefully, interactive. With this in mind, we are 
> particularly interested in hearing your thoughts on:
>
>  *
>
>     Content: are there other processes or documents you would like to
>     see included?
>
>  *
>
>     Presentation: any comments on size of boxes, text, colours, etc.
>     (this will be particularly useful in the next stage of the project)
>
>  *
>
>     Interactive: what interactive features would you like to see
>     incorporated into the document? Ideas can include option of hiding
>     or highlighting certain elements of the map, filtering the map by
>     body/process/outcome, etc.
>
> We would appreciate your feedback is *September 30th* (our individual 
> emails are below)
>
> We hope this mapping will be a useful tool for civil society to 
> strategize and are looking forward to presenting it at Best Bits 
> meeting in Bali.
>
>
> Looking forward to receiving your feedback.
>
>
> Best,
>
>
> Joana
>
> Deborah: deborah at accessnow.org <mailto:deborah at accessnow.org>
>
> Lea: lea at gp-digital.org <mailto:lea at gp-digital.org>
>
> -- 
>
> -- 
>
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> @joana_varon
> PGP 0x016B8E73

-- 

Matthew Shears
Director and Representative
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org
+44 (0) 771 247 2987
Skype: mshears

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130918/f35663c3/attachment.htm>

From dbu at donnybu.com  Thu Sep 19 12:03:18 2013
From: dbu at donnybu.com (Donny B.U.)
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 23:03:18 +0700
Subject: [bestbits] Re: URGENT: Need 2 Reps of CSO for HLLM / pre-IGF 2013
In-Reply-To: <CAJOH5-x2Ke1KMmubmzmVC9mQxBx+9SKvsbp00uCU6t5a4wUfag@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJOH5-xfoXAd38Mmh8dSSE24E7ptWc+Cr5FDzXqZQGV_FFYekg@mail.gmail.com>
	<52396170.2070407@itforchange.net>
	<CADFgh10pL9xFENkmYd-bZmmnGfnOQu6-QUXbiWaNPbn8LJrehw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJOH5-x2Ke1KMmubmzmVC9mQxBx+9SKvsbp00uCU6t5a4wUfag@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJOH5-xwMvq+dpP8H2a3VLw1pe7xRhau7VMypZAJpXDTRvfjnw@mail.gmail.com>

there's two names that strongly proposed already:
- Prof Ronald Diebert of Citizen Lab
- DR Jovan Kurbalija of DiploFoundation

I will proposed the names to the HLLM committee, by tomorrow.

best regards,

-dbu-

On Wednesday, September 18, 2013, Donny B.U. wrote:

> please kindly informed, at this moment on, i'm very much lack of
> resources( in term of time and energy) to keep my eyes on the IGF
> preparation. because along the way, we have to keep the process
> transparant, accountable and based on the spirit of multistakeholder.
>
> for the content of the TOR, I'm not sure that we can do several major
> changes. because it's already wrapped up by MCIT.
>
> regards,
>
> -dbu-
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, September 18, 2013, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote:
>
>> Hi Donny
>>
>> Thanks for all the effort.
>>
>> I would also appreciate information on drafting. Having gone through the
>> document itself, I think it is important to work on the Declaration in a
>> collborative manner.  Can you share information needed  by CS who may want
>> to submit language or hep with drafting.
>>
>> Best Regards
>>
>> Nnenna
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 8:16 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:
>>
>>>  Hi Donny
>>>
>>> Can you please share some information with us about the drafting process
>>> for the proposed statement on cyber ethic....
>>>
>>> BTW, I will strongly recommend you to involve UNESCO in any effort in
>>> this area. The have worked a lot on issues of ethics in science and
>>> technology, including ICTs. UNESCO leads the action line on ethics of
>>> information society and had recently come out with a document on this
>>> subject..
>>>
>>> Since time seems to be short, I am cc-ing this email to Xianhong Hu of
>>> UNESCO's Communication and Information Sector who I know would be in Bali.
>>>
>>> Thanks and best regards
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>>  On Wednesday 18 September 2013 10:51 AM, Donny B.U. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>  Dear fellows,
>>>
>>>  straight to the point,
>>>
>>>  one day prior IGF2013, which is 21 October 2013, there will be the High
>>> Level Leaders Meeting (HLLM). Therefore:
>>>
>>>  1. we have to submit 2 (two) names from global CSOs representative to
>>> become panelist, together with representatives from private (probably:
>>> Google and Indonesian Telkom), gov (probably: china and US) and technical
>>> community (probably: APNIC and ISOC). each panelist will have about 5
>>> minutes to share and/or give comment about the topic and presentation.
>>>
>>>
>>>  please kindly help me to decide and propose 2 names from CSOs, to be
>>> submitted to the HLLM committee, as soon as possible not more than
>>> tomorrow. because the HLLM formal invitation will be start to distribute on
>>> friday.
>>>
>>>  Sorry such a hurry, because I just received the draft of term of
>>> reference by yesterday night. I attached the TOR here. please consider the
>>> TOR as limited (not for redistributed).
>>>
>>>
>>>  2. for you that want to attend the HLLM, please send email to
>>> anisa at igf2013.or.id (cc: dbu at donnybu.com). the invitation will be come
>>> from MCIT.
>>>
>>>
>>>  best regards,
>>>
>>>  -dbu-
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --
> e: dbu at donnybu.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'dbu at donnybu.com');> | t:
> @donnybu | f: donnybu | w: donnybu.com | p: +62818930932
>
>

-- 
e: dbu at donnybu.com | t: @donnybu | f: donnybu | w: donnybu.com | p:
+62818930932
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130919/6a1035ca/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Thu Sep 19 21:28:47 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 09:28:47 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] Re: URGENT: Need 2 Reps of CSO for HLLM / pre-IGF
 2013
In-Reply-To: <CAJOH5-xwMvq+dpP8H2a3VLw1pe7xRhau7VMypZAJpXDTRvfjnw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJOH5-xfoXAd38Mmh8dSSE24E7ptWc+Cr5FDzXqZQGV_FFYekg@mail.gmail.com> <52396170.2070407@itforchange.net> <CADFgh10pL9xFENkmYd-bZmmnGfnOQu6-QUXbiWaNPbn8LJrehw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJOH5-x2Ke1KMmubmzmVC9mQxBx+9SKvsbp00uCU6t5a4wUfag@mail.gmail.com> <CAJOH5-xwMvq+dpP8H2a3VLw1pe7xRhau7VMypZAJpXDTRvfjnw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C65A8FD0-6019-471C-96BD-89D16CF84663@ciroap.org>

Although it is late, can I suggest a woman be included, and preferably from the South? Within the list that we compiled already of volunteers from the Best Bits list (see previous email 7 Sept) are the following women:

Anja Kovacs, Internet Democracy Project
Deborah Brown, Access
Joana Varon Ferraz, CTS/FGV
Joy Liddicoat, APC
Marianne Franklin, IRP
Mishi Choudhary, SFLC.in
Nnenna Nwakanma, Africa IGF
Sana Saleem, Bolobhi

(I haven't had the opportunity to reconfirm with them as I am travelling.)

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate, geek 
host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.



On 20 Sep, 2013, at 12:03 AM, "Donny B.U." <dbu at donnybu.com> wrote:

> there's two names that strongly proposed already:
> - Prof Ronald Diebert of Citizen Lab
> - DR Jovan Kurbalija of DiploFoundation
> 
> I will proposed the names to the HLLM committee, by tomorrow.
> 
> best regards,
> 
> -dbu-
> 
> On Wednesday, September 18, 2013, Donny B.U. wrote:
>> please kindly informed, at this moment on, i'm very much lack of resources( in term of time and energy) to keep my eyes on the IGF preparation. because along the way, we have to keep the process transparant, accountable and based on the spirit of multistakeholder.
>> 
>> for the content of the TOR, I'm not sure that we can do several major changes. because it's already wrapped up by MCIT.
>> 
>> regards,
>> 
>> -dbu-
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wednesday, September 18, 2013, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote:
>>> Hi Donny
>>> 
>>> Thanks for all the effort.
>>> 
>>> I would also appreciate information on drafting. Having gone through the document itself, I think it is important to work on the Declaration in a collborative manner.  Can you share information needed  by CS who may want to submit language or hep with drafting.
>>> 
>>> Best Regards
>>> 
>>> Nnenna
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 8:16 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>>> Hi Donny
>>>> 
>>>> Can you please share some information with us about the drafting process for the proposed statement on cyber ethic.... 
>>>> 
>>>> BTW, I will strongly recommend you to involve UNESCO in any effort in this area. The have worked a lot on issues of ethics in science and technology, including ICTs. UNESCO leads the action line on ethics of information society and had recently come out with a document on this subject..
>>>> 
>>>> Since time seems to be short, I am cc-ing this email to Xianhong Hu of UNESCO's Communication and Information Sector who I know would be in Bali.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks and best regards
>>>> 
>>>> parminder
>>>> 
>>>> On Wednesday 18 September 2013 10:51 AM, Donny B.U. wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dear fellows,
>>>>> 
>>>>> straight to the point,
>>>>> 
>>>>> one day prior IGF2013, which is 21 October 2013, there will be the High Level Leaders Meeting (HLLM). Therefore:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1. we have to submit 2 (two) names from global CSOs representative to become panelist, together with representatives from private (probably: Google and Indonesian Telkom), gov (probably: china and US) and technical community (probably: APNIC and ISOC). each panelist will have about 5           minutes to share and/or give comment about the topic and presentation.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> please kindly help me to decide and propose 2 names from CSOs, to be submitted to the HLLM committee, as soon as possible not more than tomorrow. because the HLLM formal invitation will be start to distribute on friday.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sorry such a hurry, because I just received the draft of term of reference by yesterday night. I attached the TOR here. please consider the TOR as limited (not for redistributed).
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2. for you that want to attend the HLLM, please send email to anisa at igf2013.or.id (cc: dbu at donnybu.com). the invitation will be come from MCIT.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> best regards,
>>>>> 
>>>>> -dbu-
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> e: dbu at donnybu.com | t: @donnybu | f: donnybu | w: donnybu.com | p: +62818930932
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> e: dbu at donnybu.com | t: @donnybu | f: donnybu | w: donnybu.com | p: +62818930932
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130920/c800dcdb/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Fri Sep 20 04:53:39 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 16:53:39 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] Registration now open for Best Bits 2013, Bali, 19-20
 October
Message-ID: <837053D0-BDE6-44BC-9353-3CB71014A42A@ciroap.org>

Register for Best Bits 2013 now at http://bestbits.net/bestbits2013

In a year when the confidence of Internet users in the Internet governance status quo was shattered by revelations of systematic and indiscriminate governance surveillance, there is a greater need than ever before for civil society organisations engaged on Internet governance and Internet rights freedom issues to come together to share and strategise. The 2013 meeting of the Best Bits network will address key issues at the intersection of Internet policy and human rights, for direct application over the next twelve months.

Through the shared outputs of this meeting and the indirect benefits of participation, we expect to empower civil society organisations and individual activists to create more informed, effective, inclusive and complementary advocacy outcomes, in which the public interest is better reflected in high-level policy discussions and in the outputs that these discussions produce. The meeting will also place Best Bits itself on a firmer institutional footing, in order to enhance its legitimacy as a broad-based civil society advocacy network and improve its long-term sustainability.

Objectives
To raise the level of shared understanding about related groups, initiatives and issues and their political contexts.
To broaden and diversify participation in the initiatives that participants are undertaking individually or in smaller networks (in particular dissolving North-South divides).
To amplify the voice of civil society at upcoming multilateral Internet governance and Internet rights meetings.
To produce tangible shared outputs addressing pressing current issues that can be used in advocacy at important upcoming Internet governance and Internet rights events.
Development of an inclusive and sustainable civil society network for Internet governance and Internet rights issues.

Agenda (subject to change) 

Day 1, Saturday, 19 October 2013
[9:00 -13:00] Global Internet governance principles, enhanced cooperation and the IGF
Facilitators: Parminder Jeet Singh and Valeria Betancourt

What is multi-stakeholderism?
Stock-taking of current efforts to compile and explicate high-level Internet policy principles at the IGF and the OECD.
Reporting to and from the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation.
Developing a shared civil society position on the evolution of Internet governance arrangements at the global level.
Priorities for civil society input to particular sessions of the 2013 IGF.
IGF plus - how an IGF with powers to make soft law recommendations would work in a multi-stakeholder environment.
Sustainability of the IGF - protecting it from corporate capture, finding a sustainable funding model, reaching out to powerful allies.
Issues for developing countries access and national internet governance processes, capacity building and best practice among others.
Output: Further submission to the CSTD Working Group on model/s for a new enhanced cooperation framework or mechanism.
Output: Statement to the IGF, MAG, UNDESA, etc about the imperative of addressing funding consistency and transparency and other issues related to the future of the IGF.


[13:00 - 14:00] Lunch and networking break

[14:00 - 18:00] The ITU and the WSIS+10 process
Facilitators: Joana Varon Ferraz and Matthew Shears

Clearinghouse on Internet governance fora including ITU Council Working Group on international Internet-related public policy issues, Internet Freedom Coalition, London-Budapest-Seoul Conference on Cyberspace.
Engagement with the ITU’s Council Working Group on Internet Governance.
Visualisation of Internet governance processes towards WSIS+10.
What next for the Brazilian proposal on operationalising the role of governments in Internet governance.
Civil society participation and substantive issues for the ITU Plenipotentiary 2014.
Civil society participation and substantive issues for the WSIS+10 review and the Multistakeholder Preparatory Platform.
Output: TBC


Day 2, Sunday, 20 October 2013

[9:00 - 13:00] State surveillance and human rights
Facilitators: Andrew Puddephatt and Deborah Brown

Updates on the interventions made so far to the Human Rights Council, US Congress and PCLOB.
International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance.
Implications of trends in the range of invasive and threatening actions being taken by diverse governments and then at the strategies for civil society to respond.
Strategising around pressure points for governments, civil society support for whistleblowers, maintaining public rage.
Calling on technology companies to embed “human rights defaults” into their technology.
Working business models or proof of concepts that can present an alternative to big company commodity services like email or
social networking.
How competition and consumer protection laws can promote freedom of expression, access to knowledge and privacy.
Output: Action plan for next intervention.

[13:00 - 14:00] Lunch and networking break

[14:00 - 18:00] Best Bits
Facilitator: Jeremy Malcolm and Anja Kovacs

What are our goals – short presentation and discussion.
What are the most appropriate structures to accomplish these goals? (Do we require a charter? A steering committee? Incorporation? What level of transparency? How do we interact with other groups?)
What funding is required to support this, and how, and by whom, should we go about raising it?
What procedures should we set in place for selecting a steering committee, producing statements, creating working group mailing lists, nominating stakeholder representatives, hosting a Best Bits side-meeting, hosting a Best Bits multi-stakeholder workshop?
Launch and demonstration of new website features.
Output: Draft statements of goals and procedures.

You can register for the meeting whether you are planning to participate remotely or in person.  Even if you're not sure that you can make it without assistance, you can register and click the "Subject to funding" checkbox.  With thanks to Access, we are crowdfunding to provide support to participants who could not otherwise attend.

-- 
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

Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.

WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130920/0e6d6ffc/attachment.htm>

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Fri Sep 20 07:26:27 2013
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 13:26:27 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] N/Yes
In-Reply-To: <837053D0-BDE6-44BC-9353-3CB71014A42A@ciroap.org>
References: <837053D0-BDE6-44BC-9353-3CB71014A42A@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <mailman.32.1642081801.12520.bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org>

http://www.cryptogon.com/?p=37041

for old records: http://www.securityfocus.com/news/7388
jfc


From valeriab at apc.org  Fri Sep 20 11:39:42 2013
From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt)
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 10:39:42 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] IG on the 24th HRC session
Message-ID: <38C22055-BF4D-473C-87EB-97ADD54ED06A@apc.org>

Dear all,

Sharing this information with you all.

Pakistan, speaking on behalf of Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Uganda,  
Ecuador, Russia, Indonesia, Bolivia, Iran, and China, highlighted at  
HRC24 the need to protect the right to privacy as an essential element  
of free expression, citing the International Covenant on Civil and  
Political Rights (ICCPR) and La Rue’s report. The statement explicitly  
criticized the role of major international internet and  
telecommunication technology companies in violating privacy. It also  
explicitly made the links between the allegations of mass state  
surveillance and the need for reforming global internet governance. To  
quote the statement directly:

"The existing mechanisms like the Internet Governance Forum  
established under paragraph 72 of the World Summit on Information  
Society- Tunis Agenda have not been able to deliver the desired  
results. A strategic rethinking of the global internet governance  
mechanism is inevitable. Further development of an international  
mechanism in the context of ‘Enhanced cooperation’ within the WSIS  
Tunis Agenda can be a concrete way forward. However we will need to be  
sincere in our efforts to ensure a transparent, free, fair and  
respectful international intergovernmental mechanism of internet  
governance and one that also ensures the right to privacy."

The full intervention by Pakistan is available at http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/HRC24_Pakistan_20130919.pdf

Best,

Valeria 

From valeriab at apc.org  Fri Sep 20 11:42:47 2013
From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt)
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 10:42:47 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] IG on the 24th HRC session
In-Reply-To: <38C22055-BF4D-473C-87EB-97ADD54ED06A@apc.org>
References: <38C22055-BF4D-473C-87EB-97ADD54ED06A@apc.org>
Message-ID: <DC052FD4-989B-45C5-8DCB-E8AD9399D1B7@apc.org>

If I am not wrong, it is the first time this issue is raised at the  
HRC by a group of countries.

Valeria


On 20/09/2013, at 10:39, Valeria Betancourt wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Sharing this information with you all.
>
> Pakistan, speaking on behalf of Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Uganda,  
> Ecuador, Russia, Indonesia, Bolivia, Iran, and China, highlighted at  
> HRC24 the need to protect the right to privacy as an essential  
> element of free expression, citing the International Covenant on  
> Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and La Rue’s report. The  
> statement explicitly criticized the role of major international  
> internet and telecommunication technology companies in violating  
> privacy. It also explicitly made the links between the allegations  
> of mass state surveillance and the need for reforming global  
> internet governance. To quote the statement directly:
>
> "The existing mechanisms like the Internet Governance Forum  
> established under paragraph 72 of the World Summit on Information  
> Society- Tunis Agenda have not been able to deliver the desired  
> results. A strategic rethinking of the global internet governance  
> mechanism is inevitable. Further development of an international  
> mechanism in the context of ‘Enhanced cooperation’ within the WSIS  
> Tunis Agenda can be a concrete way forward. However we will need to  
> be sincere in our efforts to ensure a transparent, free, fair and  
> respectful international intergovernmental mechanism of internet  
> governance and one that also ensures the right to privacy."
>
> The full intervention by Pakistan is available at http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/HRC24_Pakistan_20130919.pdf
>
> Best,
>
> Valeria







From william.drake at uzh.ch  Fri Sep 20 12:08:36 2013
From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 18:08:36 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] IG on the 24th HRC session
In-Reply-To: <DC052FD4-989B-45C5-8DCB-E8AD9399D1B7@apc.org>
References: <38C22055-BF4D-473C-87EB-97ADD54ED06A@apc.org> <DC052FD4-989B-45C5-8DCB-E8AD9399D1B7@apc.org>
Message-ID: <1C3F1313-2938-4CB2-8495-62BF7679E82B@uzh.ch>

And wow, what a group it is!   

On Sep 20, 2013, at 5:42 PM, Valeria Betancourt <valeriab at apc.org> wrote:

> If I am not wrong, it is the first time this issue is raised at the HRC by a group of countries.
> 
> Valeria
> 
> 
> On 20/09/2013, at 10:39, Valeria Betancourt wrote:
> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> Sharing this information with you all.
>> 
>> Pakistan, speaking on behalf of Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Uganda, Ecuador, Russia, Indonesia, Bolivia, Iran, and China, highlighted at HRC24 the need to protect the right to privacy as an essential element of free expression, citing the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and La Rue’s report. The statement explicitly criticized the role of major international internet and telecommunication technology companies in violating privacy. It also explicitly made the links between the allegations of mass state surveillance and the need for reforming global internet governance. To quote the statement directly:
>> 
>> "The existing mechanisms like the Internet Governance Forum established under paragraph 72 of the World Summit on Information Society- Tunis Agenda have not been able to deliver the desired results. A strategic rethinking of the global internet governance mechanism is inevitable. Further development of an international mechanism in the context of ‘Enhanced cooperation’ within the WSIS Tunis Agenda can be a concrete way forward. However we will need to be sincere in our efforts to ensure a transparent, free, fair and respectful international intergovernmental mechanism of internet governance and one that also ensures the right to privacy."
>> 
>> The full intervention by Pakistan is available at http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/HRC24_Pakistan_20130919.pdf
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Valeria
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130920/3091553e/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Sep 20 12:20:02 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 21:50:02 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] IG on the 24th HRC session
In-Reply-To: <1C3F1313-2938-4CB2-8495-62BF7679E82B@uzh.ch>
References: <38C22055-BF4D-473C-87EB-97ADD54ED06A@apc.org> <DC052FD4-989B-45C5-8DCB-E8AD9399D1B7@apc.org> <1C3F1313-2938-4CB2-8495-62BF7679E82B@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <523C75B2.7090405@itforchange.net>


On Friday 20 September 2013 09:38 PM, William Drake wrote:
> And wow, what a group it is!


Similar sentiment may be expressed when the US issues statements about 
open, transparent and multistakeholder Internet governance, when it 
conducts much of its real Internet governance in non-transparent, 
non-inclusive manner - be it internally in the US, in terms of 
Washington- Silicon valley relationships, or even internationally, in 
TPP or ACTA kind of agreements. Why do those hypocritical statements by 
the US get so enthusiastically lapped up by much of civil society.... 
Sure, criticise the line up of countries issuing this, otherwise 
excellent, statement, but please do make the same distinction when, as 
they say, the shoe is on the other foot....

parminder
>
> On Sep 20, 2013, at 5:42 PM, Valeria Betancourt <valeriab at apc.org 
> <mailto:valeriab at apc.org>> wrote:
>
>> If I am not wrong, it is the first time this issue is raised at the 
>> HRC by a group of countries.
>>
>> Valeria
>>
>>
>> On 20/09/2013, at 10:39, Valeria Betancourt wrote:
>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> Sharing this information with you all.
>>>
>>> Pakistan, speaking on behalf of Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Uganda, 
>>> Ecuador, Russia, Indonesia, Bolivia, Iran, and China, highlighted at 
>>> HRC24 the need to protect the right to privacy as an essential 
>>> element of free expression, citing the International Covenant on 
>>> Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and La Rue’s report. The 
>>> statement explicitly criticized the role of major international 
>>> internet and telecommunication technology companies in violating 
>>> privacy. It also explicitly made the links between the allegations 
>>> of mass state surveillance and the need for reforming global 
>>> internet governance. To quote the statement directly:
>>>
>>> "The existing mechanisms like the Internet Governance Forum 
>>> established under paragraph 72 of the World Summit on Information 
>>> Society- Tunis Agenda have not been able to deliver the desired 
>>> results. A strategic rethinking of the global internet governance 
>>> mechanism is inevitable. Further development of an international 
>>> mechanism in the context of ‘Enhanced cooperation’ within the WSIS 
>>> Tunis Agenda can be a concrete way forward. However we will need to 
>>> be sincere in our efforts to ensure a transparent, free, fair and 
>>> respectful international intergovernmental mechanism of internet 
>>> governance and one that also ensures the right to privacy."
>>>
>>> The full intervention by Pakistan is available at 
>>> http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/HRC24_Pakistan_20130919.pdf
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Valeria
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130920/7a1eda72/attachment.htm>

From rguerra at privaterra.org  Fri Sep 20 13:35:19 2013
From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 13:35:19 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] IG on the 24th HRC session
In-Reply-To: <38C22055-BF4D-473C-87EB-97ADD54ED06A@apc.org>
References: <38C22055-BF4D-473C-87EB-97ADD54ED06A@apc.org>
Message-ID: <A55AF6CA-5F0B-4FB8-8BBA-D3FFEFDB3805@privaterra.org>

Interesting Indonesia joined pack of like minded countries. Will be interesting if they try to advance a document or statement at the high level meeting in Bali.

Robert
--
R. Guerra
Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081
Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom 
Email: rguerra at privaterra.org

On 2013-09-20, at 11:39 AM, Valeria Betancourt wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> Sharing this information with you all.
> 
> Pakistan, speaking on behalf of Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Uganda, Ecuador, Russia, Indonesia, Bolivia, Iran, and China, highlighted at HRC24 the need to protect the right to privacy as an essential element of free expression, citing the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and La Rue’s report. The statement explicitly criticized the role of major international internet and telecommunication technology companies in violating privacy. It also explicitly made the links between the allegations of mass state surveillance and the need for reforming global internet governance. To quote the statement directly:
> 
> "The existing mechanisms like the Internet Governance Forum established under paragraph 72 of the World Summit on Information Society- Tunis Agenda have not been able to deliver the desired results. A strategic rethinking of the global internet governance mechanism is inevitable. Further development of an international mechanism in the context of ‘Enhanced cooperation’ within the WSIS Tunis Agenda can be a concrete way forward. However we will need to be sincere in our efforts to ensure a transparent, free, fair and respectful international intergovernmental mechanism of internet governance and one that also ensures the right to privacy."
> 
> The full intervention by Pakistan is available at http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/HRC24_Pakistan_20130919.pdf
> 
> Best,
> 
> Valeria


From william.drake at uzh.ch  Fri Sep 20 15:07:44 2013
From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 21:07:44 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] IG on the 24th HRC session
In-Reply-To: <A55AF6CA-5F0B-4FB8-8BBA-D3FFEFDB3805@privaterra.org>
References: <38C22055-BF4D-473C-87EB-97ADD54ED06A@apc.org> <A55AF6CA-5F0B-4FB8-8BBA-D3FFEFDB3805@privaterra.org>
Message-ID: <8EA84850-3108-4E17-897E-1C402FF26763@uzh.ch>

Hi Robert

You didn't see the text circulated here the other day proposing an intergovernmental declaration on harmony?

Apparently it was quickly withdrawn (there may be an interesting story here) and there will now be a meeting summary doc instead.

Bill

On Sep 20, 2013, at 7:35 PM, Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org> wrote:

> Interesting Indonesia joined pack of like minded countries. Will be interesting if they try to advance a document or statement at the high level meeting in Bali.
> 
> Robert
> --
> R. Guerra
> Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081
> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom 
> Email: rguerra at privaterra.org
> 
> On 2013-09-20, at 11:39 AM, Valeria Betancourt wrote:
> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> Sharing this information with you all.
>> 
>> Pakistan, speaking on behalf of Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Uganda, Ecuador, Russia, Indonesia, Bolivia, Iran, and China, highlighted at HRC24 the need to protect the right to privacy as an essential element of free expression, citing the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and La Rue’s report. The statement explicitly criticized the role of major international internet and telecommunication technology companies in violating privacy. It also explicitly made the links between the allegations of mass state surveillance and the need for reforming global internet governance. To quote the statement directly:
>> 
>> "The existing mechanisms like the Internet Governance Forum established under paragraph 72 of the World Summit on Information Society- Tunis Agenda have not been able to deliver the desired results. A strategic rethinking of the global internet governance mechanism is inevitable. Further development of an international mechanism in the context of ‘Enhanced cooperation’ within the WSIS Tunis Agenda can be a concrete way forward. However we will need to be sincere in our efforts to ensure a transparent, free, fair and respectful international intergovernmental mechanism of internet governance and one that also ensures the right to privacy."
>> 
>> The full intervention by Pakistan is available at http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/HRC24_Pakistan_20130919.pdf
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Valeria
> 


From gurstein at gmail.com  Mon Sep 30 14:33:57 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 11:33:57 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] Blogpost: "Snowden isn't just about Surveillance. It is
 much, Much, MUCH worse...
Message-ID: <03f701cebe0b$a887e8c0$f997ba40$@gmail.com>

"Snowden isn't just about Surveillance. It is much, Much, MUCH worse..." 

http://wp.me/pJQl5-cS

M




From deborah at accessnow.org  Mon Sep 30 17:41:31 2013
From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown)
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 17:41:31 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] [call for feedback] visual timeline on IG processes
In-Reply-To: <5240156D.3080108@apc.org>
References: <CALTAiTo4V8_460XqvhOx2YDT8iZeORzqeoXJgUTLqa6AJaDL_w@mail.gmail.com>
	<5240156D.3080108@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CALU7RQYjdGNOPk4cDnuFfFruoy9wxwF2HqgnBbug69wFXV0jMg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Anriette, all,

We had initially set Monday, 30 Sept as the cut off point for comments, but
we've extended it a bit. If you could send any additional feedback by
Wednesday, 2 October, by the end of the day wherever you are, it would be
much appreciated. Please feel free to reply onlist or offlist to any of the
contacts listed below.

And thanks so much to those who have sent feedback already. We are working
on incorporating all feedback into an improved version of the visualization.

Best,
Deborah

Joana: joana at varonferraz.com

Deborah: deborah at accessnow.org
Lea: lea at gp-digital.org


On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 6:18 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>wrote:

>  Hi all.. I gave a bit of feedback on an early draft of this and would
> like to give more.. but just don't have time right now.
>
> I do find it very useful.. so thank you very much to Joana, Lea and
> Deborah for your work on this.
>
> What is the cut off point for comments?
>
> Anriette
>
>
> On 18/09/2013 20:43, Joana Varon wrote:
>
>  Dear all,
>
>
>  In light of recent discussions about the BB Bali agenda and how to frame
> the session on engagement in internet governance processes, it seems timely
> to share this mapping of global internet governance processes for your
> feedback .
>
>
>   In an effort to better focus our advocacy efforts and understand where
> main discussions about global internet governance are taking place over the
> next year, Deborah Brown (Access) and Lea (Global Partners Digital), and I
> have developed this visual timeline of what we saw as the most relevant
> events in global internet governance processes.
>
>  We were specifically aiming to: 1) identify forums where internet
> governance is being discussed/decided over the next year; and 2) identify
> avenues for participation for civil society to influence those processes.
> We have taken two particular processes and their relevant outcomes as our
> end points – the *ITU Plenipotentiary 2014* and the *WSIS+10 review event
> in 2015* – and weaved other forums around them.
>
>  Here is the visual timeline: http://bestbits.net/wp-uploads/diagram.html
>
>  A few features to make note of:
>
>    -
>
>    We have divided the landscape into several processes – the broader UN
>    processes, the ITU processes, the WSIS review process, the IGF and ICANN.
>    We did not include OECD as it is not a global process, but it could
>    potentially be added (as could other processes).
>     -
>
>    The timeline period runs from the beginning of 2013 to the end of
>    2014, but it shall be gradually developed further at least until 2015, as
>    more information becomes available;
>     -
>
>    Events contain hyperlinks to relevant documentation (e.g. agendas,
>    draft resolutions, outcome documents). To access the documents, please,
>    click in the respective squares.
>
>
>  While we put considerable thought into what to include and how to
> visualize this, these choices were inevitably arbitrary. To make the tool
> useful for the broader BB group, we would be interested to receive your
> feedback. Based on your initial feedback, we are planning to work on this
> tool with a designer who will help us make it more user-friendly and,
> hopefully, interactive. With this in mind, we are particularly interested
> in hearing your thoughts on:
>
>    -
>
>    Content: are there other processes or documents you would like to see
>    included?
>     -
>
>    Presentation: any comments on size of boxes, text, colours, etc. (this
>    will be particularly useful in the next stage of the project)
>     -
>
>    Interactive: what interactive features would you like to see
>    incorporated into the document? Ideas can include option of hiding or
>    highlighting certain elements of the map, filtering the map by
>    body/process/outcome, etc.
>
> We would appreciate your feedback is *September 30th* (our individual
> emails are below)
>
>  We hope this mapping will be a useful tool for civil society to
> strategize and are looking forward to presenting it at Best Bits meeting in
> Bali.
>
>  Looking forward to receiving your feedback.
>
>
>  Best,
>
>
>  Joana
>
> Deborah: deborah at accessnow.org
> Lea: lea at gp-digital.org
>
> --
>
> --
>
> Joana Varon Ferraz
> @joana_varon
>  PGP 0x016B8E73
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
> executive director, association for progressive communicationswww.apc.org
> po box 29755, melville 2109
> south africa
> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>
>


-- 
Deborah Brown
Senior Policy Analyst
Access | AccessNow.org
E. deborah at accessnow.org
@deblebrown
PGP 0x5EB4727D
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130930/9ed20338/attachment.htm>

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Mon Sep 30 21:16:36 2013
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2013 03:16:36 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Blogpost: "Snowden isn't just about
  Surveillance. It is much, Much, MUCH worse...
In-Reply-To: <03f701cebe0b$a887e8c0$f997ba40$@gmail.com>
References: <03f701cebe0b$a887e8c0$f997ba40$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <mailman.50.1642081807.12520.bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org>

At 20:33 30/09/2013, michael gurstein wrote:
>Content-Type: text/plain;
>         charset="us-ascii"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Content-Language: en-us
>
>"Snowden isn't just about Surveillance. It is much, Much, MUCH worse..."
>http://wp.me/pJQl5-cS

Thank you Michael for publishing the reality's real stuff.

The cyberspace is only a fifth military/police theater (land, see, 
air, space, cyber). The same rules, concerns, behaviors .. apply with 
the same risks and threats for our digital nudity. This is why we all 
need our own Personal Reality Information System Mononitor.

FYI have initiated a DSA, Digital Security and Awareness, discussion 
zone at the IUCG 
(http://iucg.org/wiki/Main_Page#Digital_Security_and_Awareness).
jfc