From mars.techno.cat at gmail.com Sat Apr 5 09:30:06 2014 From: mars.techno.cat at gmail.com (Techno CAT) Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2014 13:30:06 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Dear Senator...The Internet is in serious trouble. Message-ID: Dear Senator _______________: The Internet is in serious trouble. The legacy DOD DARPA Internet was built using a Tin-Can and Kite-String Architecture (TCKS). Naive academics, military funders, computer hackers, idealistic opportunists and cut-throat business people combined to build the early Internet. Anyone with expensive IPv4 ARPA-centric TCP/IP routers could expand the legacy Internet. Unsuspecting consumers had no idea who was processing their packets. Unseen Router Wars shaped the CyberSpace. People refer to this as the Multi-Stakeholder Model. Internet Governance of Aritifically Scarce Network Resources (ASNR) emerged. A Cyber TAX system was constructed using Domain Names (DNS). An Internet Society (1992) was formed to protect jack-booted thugs who claimed to be Internet Engineers. Some did not not even have a high-school diploma. Vigilantes emerged as Internet self-government took on a life of its own. Socialist/Communist structures dominated. Psuedo-Governance Officials [Private Citizens] made up the rules, to suit their PRIVATE financial needs. Corruption, kick-backs, black-listing, red-lining, etc. are common. Off-Shore operations in the Cayman Islands, the Caribbean and Switzerland handle the anonymous opaque financial transactions. Most government officials were intentionally excluded from the early Internet. Other Government officials were "used" as enablers and shields, to hide the development of an insidious cartel. Major telecom carriers were also intentionally excluded. Internet operator groups, dominated by psycho-pathic attention-starved jerks grew to become the hubs of control. The NSF funded NANOG is one example. American consumers, are accustomed to regulated companies, with ethical standards, managing their critical telecom and data facilities. Unsuspecting consumers have been intentionally kept in the dark by the Multi-Stakeholder Cartel (MSC). Juvenile delinquents have been video-taped at various gatherings of the MS Cartel. Consumers have no idea they are vulnerable to these amateur network operators. Self-serving academics coddle the juveniles and distract government scrutiny. With the TCKS Internet Architecture, self-appointed Vigilantes can snoop and spy on individuals and groups. In some cases, they are willing to sell their services to anyone that will pay them. For decades they have demonstrated that their ethical norms are far different from the American telco industry. They pride themselves on being what many people would summarize as, Cyber Bullies. The U.S. Government has been a casual party to many of the legacy Internet evolutions. In the early days, the National Science Foundation NSF meddled in network developments, with mixed results. A few major universities and academic personalities did very well, financially, once they figured out how to game the NSF Grant processes. They obtained Aritifically Scarce Network Resources (ASNR) via NSF Grants and then sold them for private gain. The NSF looked the other way. As commerical companies began to migrate to the legacy Internet, the U.S. Government over-sight shifted from the NSF to the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC). A DOC sub-agency named NTIA handled most of the tasks. An obscur Internet Cartel function called "IANA" was morphed into a California Public Benefit Non-Profit company called ICANN - the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers. In general, non-profit corporations have been used as shells to hide the true financial dealings of the Internet Cartel (MSC). Cyber Bullies openly proclaim that they are non-profit "religions" while secretly banking millions. In some cases they also have a for-profit vest-pocket company. Their ethics are justified under the unwritten rules of the "International" Multi-Stakeholder Model. Since 1998, ICANN has evolved into a corrupt private companion to the Internet Society (ISOC-IETF) founded in 1992. The private ISOC-IETF ICANN-IANA ARIN Eco.System skillfully used the US Government as a shield and enabler for decades. The DNS Cyber Tax system has been used to fund their lavish travel and world-wide outreach programs. ICANN has now been captured by nefarious "International Operatives", primarily from Egypt and the Middle East. The arrogance of the ISOC IANA Eco.System has no bounds. The ISOC IANA Eco.System is carefully structured with Clerics, Insiders, Malitia, Operatives, Thugs, Groupies, and what Lenin and Stalin called Useful Idiots. Aritifically Scarce Network Resources (ASNR) are used to control the Eco.System. Aging dictators control the cartel, supported by people who attend meetings to "see famous people". Elections are not viewed as desirable or possible in the Eco.System - "The Wrong People Might Get Elected". It is ironic, the Eco.System often claims credit for developments that were done to protect USA consumers FROM the Eco.System. Many USA Netizens work hard in normal business roles to AVOID the Eco.System. The vast majority of USA Internet companies avoid the Eco.System. The Eco.System attempts to co-opt key developments with their vast war-chests of money. Some people succumb to the bribes. ICANN-IANA and ISOC-IETF have systematically delayed and derailed competion as they have grown their non-profit empire to billions of dollars and million dollar executive compensation packages. The lack of Term-Limits has allowed individuals to become career Internet politicians. Jaw-dropping compenstion packages and non-profit war chests of cash reserves are used by the Eco.System players to dominate Internet Governance. American citizens have been openly threatened with death by the ISOC-IETF Thugs, who surround the IANA as a protection force. Recently, the U.S. Government, via NTIA, has announced their intention to distance themselves from the Legacy ICANN IANA ISOC Internet. This Diplomatic move has confused many American consumers. Most Americans are not aware of who runs their Internet and from where. The ICANN-IANA ISOC leaders have recently openly joined with South American leaders. Bases have also been opened in Turkey and Singaore. The Eco.System Cartel claims to be "international" and immune from USA laws and scrutiny. The U.S. Congress has directed the NTIA to lead the construction of a new Internet, called FirstNET. Federal funding is being allocated to States that step forward to help. The State of Colorado has landed the Technical Headquarters for FirstNet. The State of Virginia has been selected to handle the FirstNet Administrative Headquarters. FEMA Regions have been suggested for organizing FirstNet. FirstNET does not serve all Netizens. A NEW USA Domestic Internet (SecondNET) is still needed. Netizens in the USA need to rely on an Internet they can trust. The State of ______________________ needs to take the lead in the construction of a USA DOMESTIC Internet. One plan calls for FOUR-State Regions, called SuperStates, to act as the major Hubs for the USA SecondNET. The State of _____________ would be combined with the States of ________________, __________________, ______________. Attached is a map of the SuperStates. Alaska and Hawaii will be handled separately, like terratories such as Puerto Rico. The States of California, Michigan and Texas are divided into two regions to balance the SuperState Regions. Sixteen SuperStates would form the basic structure for the USA DOMESTIC Internet. Since FirstNet plans to leverage existing network facilities, FirstNET would be one of the first customers for the USA DOMESTIC SecondNET. As a US Senator, you would automatically be appointed as a leader of your respective SuperState. By taking a leadership role, at this critical time, you and your State can become part of the critical history of reliable, honest, ethical, telecom and data services in the United States of America. Your next steps would be to meet with your regional partners and begin planning your own destiny. USA Technologists are ready to supply the needed solutions. The Citizens and Netizens of the State of _________________ are also ready to help. Joe Concerned Citizen State of ____________ P.S. The ISOC IANA Eco.System is not going away. They are rapidly moving away from the USA to International venues they can exploit. They advocate splitting the Internet with their IPv6 technology. The USA can protect itself with a unified solution. The USA is a Republic, not a Democracy, and certainly not a MultiStakeholder Street Gang. The Republic of States and SuperStates collectively designing, building and operating a NEW USA Domestic SecondNET will help to protect consumers and visitors to our CyberSpace. From jeanette at wzb.eu Sat Apr 5 10:53:00 2014 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2014 16:53:00 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Dear Senator...The Internet is in serious trouble. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <534018CC.2080906@wzb.eu> http://marc.info/?l=ietf&m=138221867526483&w=2 Jeanette Am 05.04.14 15:30, schrieb Techno CAT: > Dear Senator _______________: > > The Internet is in serious trouble. The legacy DOD DARPA Internet was > built using a Tin-Can and Kite-String Architecture (TCKS). > Naive academics, military funders, computer hackers, idealistic > opportunists and cut-throat business people combined to build the > early Internet. Anyone with expensive IPv4 ARPA-centric TCP/IP routers > could expand the legacy Internet. Unsuspecting consumers had > no idea who was processing their packets. Unseen Router Wars shaped > the CyberSpace. People refer to this as the Multi-Stakeholder Model. > > Internet Governance of Aritifically Scarce Network Resources (ASNR) > emerged. A Cyber TAX system was constructed using Domain Names (DNS). > An Internet Society (1992) was formed to protect jack-booted thugs who > claimed to be Internet Engineers. Some did not not even have > a high-school diploma. Vigilantes emerged as Internet self-government > took on a life of its own. Socialist/Communist structures > dominated. Psuedo-Governance Officials [Private Citizens] made up the > rules, to suit their PRIVATE financial needs. Corruption, > kick-backs, black-listing, red-lining, etc. are common. Off-Shore > operations in the Cayman Islands, the Caribbean and Switzerland > handle the anonymous opaque financial transactions. > > Most government officials were intentionally excluded from the early > Internet. Other Government officials were "used" as enablers > and shields, to hide the development of an insidious cartel. Major > telecom carriers were also intentionally excluded. Internet operator > groups, dominated by psycho-pathic attention-starved jerks grew to > become the hubs of control. The NSF funded NANOG is one example. > > American consumers, are accustomed to regulated companies, with > ethical standards, managing their critical telecom > and data facilities. Unsuspecting consumers have been intentionally > kept in the dark by the Multi-Stakeholder Cartel (MSC). > Juvenile delinquents have been video-taped at various gatherings of > the MS Cartel. Consumers have no idea they are vulnerable to these > amateur network operators. Self-serving academics coddle the juveniles > and distract government scrutiny. > > With the TCKS Internet Architecture, self-appointed Vigilantes can > snoop and spy on individuals and groups. In some cases, they are > willing to sell their services to anyone that will pay them. For > decades they have demonstrated that their ethical norms are far > different from the American telco industry. They pride themselves on > being what many people would summarize as, Cyber Bullies. > > The U.S. Government has been a casual party to many of the legacy > Internet evolutions. In the early days, the National Science > Foundation NSF meddled in network developments, with mixed results. A > few major universities and academic personalities did very > well, financially, once they figured out how to game the NSF Grant > processes. They obtained Aritifically Scarce Network Resources (ASNR) > via NSF Grants and then sold them for private gain. The NSF looked the > other way. > > As commerical companies began to migrate to the legacy Internet, the > U.S. Government over-sight shifted from the NSF to the > U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC). A DOC sub-agency named NTIA handled > most of the tasks. An obscur Internet Cartel function called > "IANA" was morphed into a California Public Benefit Non-Profit company > called ICANN - the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers. > In general, non-profit corporations have been used as shells to hide > the true financial dealings of the Internet Cartel (MSC). > Cyber Bullies openly proclaim that they are non-profit "religions" > while secretly banking millions. In some cases they also have a > for-profit vest-pocket company. Their ethics are justified under the > unwritten rules of the "International" Multi-Stakeholder Model. > > Since 1998, ICANN has evolved into a corrupt private companion to the > Internet Society (ISOC-IETF) founded in 1992. > The private ISOC-IETF ICANN-IANA ARIN Eco.System skillfully used the > US Government as a shield and enabler for decades. > The DNS Cyber Tax system has been used to fund their lavish travel and > world-wide outreach programs. > ICANN has now been captured by nefarious "International Operatives", > primarily from Egypt and the Middle East. > > The arrogance of the ISOC IANA Eco.System has no bounds. The ISOC IANA > Eco.System is carefully structured with Clerics, Insiders, > Malitia, Operatives, Thugs, Groupies, and what Lenin and Stalin called > Useful Idiots. Aritifically Scarce Network Resources (ASNR) > are used to control the Eco.System. Aging dictators control the > cartel, supported by people who attend meetings to "see famous > people". > Elections are not viewed as desirable or possible in the Eco.System - > "The Wrong People Might Get Elected". > > It is ironic, the Eco.System often claims credit for developments that > were done to protect USA consumers FROM the Eco.System. > Many USA Netizens work hard in normal business roles to AVOID the > Eco.System. The vast majority of USA Internet companies avoid the > Eco.System. > The Eco.System attempts to co-opt key developments with their vast > war-chests of money. Some people succumb to the bribes. > > ICANN-IANA and ISOC-IETF have systematically delayed and derailed > competion as they have grown their non-profit empire to billions of > dollars > and million dollar executive compensation packages. The lack of > Term-Limits has allowed individuals to become career Internet > politicians. > Jaw-dropping compenstion packages and non-profit war chests of cash > reserves are used by the Eco.System players to dominate Internet > Governance. > American citizens have been openly threatened with death by the > ISOC-IETF Thugs, who surround the IANA as a protection force. > > Recently, the U.S. Government, via NTIA, has announced their intention > to distance themselves from the Legacy ICANN IANA ISOC Internet. > This Diplomatic move has confused many American consumers. Most > Americans are not aware of who runs their Internet and from where. > The ICANN-IANA ISOC leaders have recently openly joined with South > American leaders. Bases have also been opened in Turkey and Singaore. > The Eco.System Cartel claims to be "international" and immune from USA > laws and scrutiny. > > The U.S. Congress has directed the NTIA to lead the construction of a > new Internet, called FirstNET. Federal funding is being allocated > to States that step forward to help. The State of Colorado has landed > the Technical Headquarters for FirstNet. The State of Virginia > has been selected to handle the FirstNet Administrative Headquarters. > FEMA Regions have been suggested for organizing FirstNet. > > FirstNET does not serve all Netizens. A NEW USA Domestic Internet > (SecondNET) is still needed. Netizens in the USA need to rely on an > Internet they can trust. The State of ______________________ needs to > take the lead in the construction of a USA DOMESTIC Internet. > One plan calls for FOUR-State Regions, called SuperStates, to act as > the major Hubs for the USA SecondNET. > > The State of _____________ would be combined with the States of > ________________, __________________, ______________. Attached is a > map > of the SuperStates. Alaska and Hawaii will be handled separately, like > terratories such as Puerto Rico. The States of California, Michigan > and Texas are divided into two regions to balance the SuperState Regions. > > Sixteen SuperStates would form the basic structure for the USA > DOMESTIC Internet. Since FirstNet plans to leverage existing network > facilities, FirstNET would be one of the first customers for the USA > DOMESTIC SecondNET. As a US Senator, you would automatically be > appointed as a leader of your respective SuperState. > > By taking a leadership role, at this critical time, you and your State > can become part of the critical history of reliable, honest, > ethical, telecom and data services in the United States of America. > Your next steps would be to meet with your regional partners > and begin planning your own destiny. USA Technologists are ready to > supply the needed solutions. > > The Citizens and Netizens of the State of _________________ are also > ready to help. > > Joe Concerned Citizen > State of ____________ > > P.S. The ISOC IANA Eco.System is not going away. They are rapidly > moving away from the USA to International venues they can exploit. > They advocate splitting the Internet with their IPv6 technology. The > USA can protect itself with a unified solution. > The USA is a Republic, not a Democracy, and certainly not a > MultiStakeholder Street Gang. The Republic of States and SuperStates > collectively designing, building and operating a NEW USA Domestic > SecondNET will help to protect consumers and visitors to our > CyberSpace. > From mars.techno.cat at gmail.com Sun Apr 6 09:15:48 2014 From: mars.techno.cat at gmail.com (Techno CAT) Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2014 13:15:48 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] FORTVALLEY #FORTVALLEY FORT.VALLEY FORT-VALLEY FORT--VALLEY Message-ID: .FV #FV #dotFV #FVCOIN FORTVALLEY #FORTVALLEY FORT.VALLEY FORT-VALLEY FORT--VALLEY FORT_VALLEY 32.551114 -83.879939 -------------------- 32.347174 -86.266114 30.455108 -84.253419 33.762909 -84.422675 34.029783 -80.896566 -------------------- FV.GZ 32.64 83.95 GA 1331096 02403649 Fort Valley city 25 A 19380882 37802 7.483 0.015 32.551114 -83.879939 AL 0151000 02404289 Montgomery city 25 A 413880712 4516776 159.800 1.744 32.347174 -86.266114 Alabama AL 194.1.149.230 202.28.99.196 147.28.0.39 192.36.125.2 194.119.192.3 194.119.192.4 193.0.12.3 FL 1270600 02405563 Tallahassee city 25 A 259914077 8300400 100.353 3.205 30.455108 -84.253419 GA 1304000 02403126 Atlanta city 25 A 344731097 2217157 133.101 0.856 33.762909 -84.422675 Georgia GA 217.77.71.33 217.77.71.1 192.93.0.4 193.0.12.81 SC 4516000 02404107 Columbia city 25 A 344605260 7033534 133.053 2.716 34.029783 -80.896566 South Carolina SC 199.254.59.1 199.254.60.1 199.254.61.1 199.254.62.1 202.72.100.47 199.249.116.1 199.249.124.1 -- 3DNB - Real Banking for Your VIRTUAL Worlds http://3DNB.COM Login: ZOOM Password: BOX @Techno_CAT_r http://Twitter.com/Techno_CAT_r From ca at cafonso.ca Sun Apr 6 09:25:26 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2014 10:25:26 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] FORTVALLEY #FORTVALLEY FORT.VALLEY FORT-VALLEY FORT--VALLEY In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <534155C6.2060806@cafonso.ca> No idea what the purpose of these messages from tCAT is... or even who tCAT is... --c.a. On 04/06/2014 10:15 AM, Techno CAT wrote: > .FV #FV > #dotFV #FVCOIN > FORTVALLEY #FORTVALLEY FORT.VALLEY FORT-VALLEY FORT--VALLEY FORT_VALLEY > > 32.551114 -83.879939 > -------------------- > 32.347174 -86.266114 > 30.455108 -84.253419 > 33.762909 -84.422675 > 34.029783 -80.896566 > -------------------- > FV.GZ 32.64 83.95 > > GA 1331096 02403649 Fort Valley city 25 A 19380882 > 37802 7.483 0.015 32.551114 -83.879939 > > AL 0151000 02404289 Montgomery city 25 A 413880712 > 4516776 159.800 1.744 32.347174 -86.266114 > > Alabama AL > 194.1.149.230 > 202.28.99.196 > 147.28.0.39 > 192.36.125.2 > 194.119.192.3 > 194.119.192.4 > 193.0.12.3 > > FL 1270600 02405563 Tallahassee city 25 A 259914077 > 8300400 100.353 3.205 30.455108 -84.253419 > > GA 1304000 02403126 Atlanta city 25 A 344731097 > 2217157 133.101 0.856 33.762909 -84.422675 > > Georgia GA > 217.77.71.33 > 217.77.71.1 > 192.93.0.4 > 193.0.12.81 > > SC 4516000 02404107 Columbia city 25 A 344605260 > 7033534 133.053 2.716 34.029783 -80.896566 > > South Carolina SC > 199.254.59.1 > 199.254.60.1 > 199.254.61.1 > 199.254.62.1 > 202.72.100.47 > 199.249.116.1 > 199.249.124.1 > > From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Sun Apr 6 09:55:36 2014 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2014 21:55:36 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] FORTVALLEY #FORTVALLEY FORT.VALLEY FORT-VALLEY FORT--VALLEY In-Reply-To: <534155C6.2060806@cafonso.ca> References: <534155C6.2060806@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: On 6 Apr 2014, at 9:25 pm, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > No idea what the purpose of these messages from tCAT is... or even who > tCAT is... I'm passing this to the interim steering committee to determine whether it's a case of abusive behaviour of the list warranting suspension of posting privileges. -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Sun Apr 6 10:41:24 2014 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2014 11:41:24 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] FORTVALLEY #FORTVALLEY FORT.VALLEY FORT-VALLEY FORT--VALLEY In-Reply-To: References: <534155C6.2060806@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: This guy is a proper troll. Meeting of 1net steering in Singapore was very good indeed (proper multistakeholder conversation, without .gov, of course). There was some good debate on George's proposal for a "code of conduct". Will be pushing here for finalizing the minutes and make them public... plus, moving to action... I recognize we at the 1net steering is acting slow (lot of people, different interests, busy agendas...but good will for a dialogue, lets see how we can speed this up). Nevertheless, in situations were people are not focused on reaching a concrete outcome, I tend to think that mailing lists are not the most productive way.. a lot of good ideas get lost in the cloud... but that's just me frustrated. ;) On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 6 Apr 2014, at 9:25 pm, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > > No idea what the purpose of these messages from tCAT is... or even who > > tCAT is... > > I'm passing this to the interim steering committee to determine whether > it's a case of abusive behaviour of the list warranting suspension of > posting privileges. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see > http://jere.my/l/pgp. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew at gp-digital.org Sun Apr 6 11:24:41 2014 From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2014 16:24:41 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] FORTVALLEY #FORTVALLEY FORT.VALLEY FORT-VALLEY FORT--VALLEY In-Reply-To: References: <534155C6.2060806@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: I¹m happy for him to be taken off - I¹ve no idea what he¹s talking about any of the time Andrew Puddephatt Global Partners Digital Andrew at gp-digital.org Tel mobile +44 (0)771 339 9597 Tel office +44 (0)207 549 0350 On 06/04/2014 14:55, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: >On 6 Apr 2014, at 9:25 pm, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> No idea what the purpose of these messages from tCAT is... or even who >> tCAT is... > >I'm passing this to the interim steering committee to determine whether >it's a case of abusive behaviour of the list warranting suspension of >posting privileges. > >-- >Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com >Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see >http://jere.my/l/pgp. > From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Mon Apr 7 09:29:21 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 09:29:21 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Launch of Geneva Internet Platform, tomorrow Tuesday 8th April In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Stephanie Borg Psaila" Date: Apr 7, 2014 9:15 AM Subject: Launch of Geneva Internet Platform, tomorrow Tuesday 8th April To: Cc: Friends, The Geneva Internet Platform - a Swiss initiative operated by Diplo - is being officially launched tomorrow, Tuesday 8th April, at the World Meteorological Organization Building in Geneva. If you're based in Geneva, we invite you to attend the launch. More details (and registration link) are available at http://giplatform.org/official-launch-geneva-internet-platform or ttp:// www.diplomacy.edu/blog/official-launch-geneva-internet-platform-tuesday-8th-april You can read more about this new initiative on the GIP website at http://giplatform.org. Best, Stephanie -- Stephanie Borg Psaila DiploFoundation www.diplomacy.edu *The latest from Diplo...* *Join our Internet governance community at www.diplointernetgovernance.org ** * To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to igcbp+unsubscribe at diplomacy.edu. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nashton at consensus.pro Mon Apr 7 10:27:18 2014 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 16:27:18 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Launch of Geneva Internet Platform, tomorrow Tuesday 8th April In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1453c95fdd0.2762.9387b8a9f30986f905fcc4cfa238b71f@consensus.pro> Dear all if you plan to attend ensure you pre register as space is running low On 7 April 2014 15:29:41 Carolina Rossini wrote: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Stephanie Borg Psaila" > Date: Apr 7, 2014 9:15 AM > Subject: Launch of Geneva Internet Platform, tomorrow Tuesday 8th April > To: > Cc: > > Friends, > > The Geneva Internet Platform - a Swiss initiative operated by Diplo - is > being officially launched tomorrow, Tuesday 8th April, at the World > Meteorological Organization Building in Geneva. > > If you're based in Geneva, we invite you to attend the launch. More details > (and registration link) are available at > http://giplatform.org/official-launch-geneva-internet-platform or ttp:// > www.diplomacy.edu/blog/official-launch-geneva-internet-platform-tuesday-8th-april > > You can read more about this new initiative on the GIP website at > http://giplatform.org. > > Best, > Stephanie > -- > Stephanie Borg Psaila > DiploFoundation > www.diplomacy.edu > > *The latest from Diplo...* *Join our Internet governance community at > www.diplointernetgovernance.org ** > * > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to igcbp+unsubscribe at diplomacy.edu. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bkilic at citizen.org Mon Apr 7 10:37:16 2014 From: bkilic at citizen.org (Burcu Kilic) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 09:37:16 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] USTR report on data, criticizes EU Message-ID: <7EAF272369C6F04CBEFC04A7A354D7AC0BA6FD8C81@MBX22.exg5.exghost.com> Thought this might be of interest to some of you here. Burcu From: Jeffrey Chester [mailto:jeff at democraticmedia.org] Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2014 10:40 AM To: ttip-info at tacd.org Subject: [TACD TTIP] USTR report on data, criticizes EU excerpt: ...the European Union (EU), where a variety of voices, including a leading German telecommunications supplier, are openly advocating for trade-distortive restrictions on data flows, purportedly justified on privacy grounds. ...Recent proposals from countries within the European Union to create a Europe-only electronic network (dubbed a "Schengen cloud" by advocates) or to create national-only electronic networks could potentially lead to effective exclusion or discrimination against foreign service suppliers that are directly offering network services, or dependent on them. In particular, Deutsche Telekom AG (DTAG), Germany's biggest phone company, is publicly advocating for EU-wide statutory requirements that electronic transmissions between EU residents stay within the territory of the EU, in the name of stronger privacy protection.6 Specifically, DTAG has called for statutory requirements that all data generated within the EU not be unnecessarily routed outside of the EU; and has called for revocation of the U.S.-EU "Safe Harbor" Framework, which has provided a practical mechanism for both U.S companies and their business partners in Europe to export data to the United States, while adhering to EU privacy requirements. The United States and the EU share common interests in protecting their citizens' privacy, but the draconian approach proposed by DTAG and others appears to be a means of providing protectionist advantage to EU-based ICT suppliers. Given the breath of legitimate services that rely on geographically-dispersed data processing and storage, a requirement to route all traffic involving EU consumers within Europe, would decrease efficiency and stifle innovation. For example, a supplier may transmit, store, and process its data outside the EU more efficiently, depending on the location of its data centers. An innovative supplier from outside of Europe may refrain from offering its services in the EU because it may find EU-based storage and processing requirements infeasible for nascent services launched from outside of Europe. Furthermore, any mandatory intra-EU routing may raise questions with respect to compliance with the EU's trade obligations with respect to Internet-enabled services. Accordingly, USTR will be carefully monitoring the development of any such proposals. USTR Targets Telecommunications Trade Barriers Annual Report Highlights Cross-border Data Flows, Competition Issues, Legal Restrictions on Foreign Access, and Local Content Requirements, Other Roadblocks Faced by U.S. Telecom Suppliers and Exporters Washington, D.C. - United States Trade Representative Michael Froman today http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2014/March/USTR-Targets-Telecommunications-Trade-Barriers Jeffrey Chester Center for Digital Democracy 1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 550 Washington, DC 20009 www.democraticmedia.org www.digitalads.org 202-986-2220 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shawna at apc.org Mon Apr 7 11:58:22 2014 From: shawna at apc.org (Shawna Finnegan) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 10:58:22 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] A Global Conversation for a Feminist Internet Message-ID: <5342CB1E.9@apc.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear all, (Apologies for cross-posting) APC's 'Take Back The Tech' campaign is hosting a global conversation this week about how you imagine a feminist internet. These conversations will input to an evolving framework of Feminist Principles of the Internet to be developed at a global meeting on Gender, Sexuality and the Internet that will take place in Malaysia from this Friday, April 12th. You can join the conversation on Twitter, and/or reply to this message with your thoughts. *A Global Conversation for a Feminist Internet* Is a feminist internet possible? How has the internet shifted the way we understand power, politics, activism and agency? Join us in a global conversation on how the internet can strengthen and better facilitate feminist activism and what you think are key issues we need to engage with and interrogate to realise its transformative potential. How are we discussing the commodification of our bodies, behaviors, thoughts and data? How has the internet disrupted or reinforced capitalist frameworks? Is the internet enabling greater diversity of sexual expression or growing opportunities for the policing of sexuality? Do we rely too much on the internet for our work? Does activism 2.0 simply satisfy our need to "do something" without truly effecting change? Take part in the debate. Define and question what it takes to create a feminist internet. Join the conversation all week on Twitter. #imagineafeministinternet #takebackthetech @takebackthetech - -- Shawna Finnegan Human rights and the Internet Programme Worker Association for Progressive Communications @shawnafinnegan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQGcBAEBAgAGBQJTQsseAAoJEAZqUsH4P1GKtMgL/j2Ygs6zmMH55PF9618Qn+et W5zVPwxyTbZKkinp/ooWnLVmVihRrSbBJhBfqmrJWzcAm0NAEwcxwZe/8xlRrwcS Oi0pAjqgPNzgICIo7yfOdqyvIzQJvpk31UWjMG2yay5/nN+ZVTPTuHoer7ccmZn+ ebFsYSboUfbuJFiALwx4TY3yv2mcCzt3JO2uwHSlahgUpvAUkChrLcyufqO330VC Af/KhI4TU4aGmNqztnTTTKigMUt94O10zT46Kd60/SjVL2m8uzOGYeinxlxJp5SD n0qelDEiLf1VamNVXnJp6QbfhniscHXICq6l+/QfRvWFdPlxZcI+442m0GbB8o2z h9phekNtitNpZV8wsH6aepWD/6yreGbNo4pGp0EKg755n4Iu5kvaFj/FD6B6U/Qt MrIBl8T/sY4PVPUcDcojfR++6bfj7LCgJJCEIBm34xqaCs1tIUtK6uAp0gwfzpDl M8jdSqITM13xTUAG1XPqtYpmARnOtrRhhzucfqG7/A== =LcWe -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From pouzin at well.com Mon Apr 7 12:10:09 2014 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 18:10:09 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] USTR report on data, criticizes EU In-Reply-To: <7EAF272369C6F04CBEFC04A7A354D7AC0BA6FD8C81@MBX22.exg5.exghost.com> References: <7EAF272369C6F04CBEFC04A7A354D7AC0BA6FD8C81@MBX22.exg5.exghost.com> Message-ID: Such US centric piece of lamentations is pretending not to see the connection with NSA mass surveillance. Who sows the wind reaps a whirlwind. . Louis - - - On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 4:37 PM, Burcu Kilic wrote: > Thought this might be of interest to some of you here. > > Burcu > > > > *From:* Jeffrey Chester [mailto:jeff at democraticmedia.org] > *Sent:* Saturday, April 05, 2014 10:40 AM > *To:* ttip-info at tacd.org > *Subject:* [TACD TTIP] USTR report on data, criticizes EU > > > > excerpt: ...the European Union (EU), where a variety of voices, > including a leading German telecommunications supplier, are openly > advocating for trade-distortive restrictions on data flows, purportedly > justified on privacy grounds. ...Recent proposals from countries within the > European Union to create a Europe-only electronic network (dubbed a > "Schengen cloud" by advocates) or to create national-only electronic > networks could potentially lead to effective exclusion or discrimination > against foreign service suppliers that are directly offering network > services, or dependent on them. > > In particular, Deutsche Telekom AG (DTAG), Germany's biggest phone > company, is publicly advocating for EU-wide statutory requirements that > electronic transmissions between EU residents stay within the territory of > the EU, in the name of stronger privacy protection.6 Specifically, DTAG > has called for statutory requirements that all data generated within the EU > not be unnecessarily routed outside of the EU; and has called for > revocation of the U.S.-EU "Safe Harbor" Framework, which has provided a > practical mechanism for both U.S companies and their business partners in > Europe to export data to the United States, while adhering to EU privacy > requirements. The United States and the EU share common interests in > protecting their citizens' privacy, but the draconian approach proposed by > DTAG and others appears to be a means of providing protectionist advantage > to EU-based ICT suppliers. Given the breath of legitimate services that > rely on geographically-dispersed data processing and storage, a requirement > to route all traffic involving EU consumers within Europe, would decrease > efficiency and stifle innovation. For example, a supplier may transmit, > store, and process its data outside the EU more efficiently, depending on > the location of its data centers. An innovative supplier from outside of > Europe may refrain from offering its services in the EU because it may find > EU-based storage and processing requirements infeasible for nascent > services launched from outside of Europe. Furthermore, any mandatory > intra-EU routing may raise questions with respect to compliance with the > EU's trade obligations with respect to Internet-enabled services. > Accordingly, USTR will be carefully monitoring the development of any such > proposals. > > > USTR Targets Telecommunications Trade Barriers > > *Annual Report Highlights Cross-border Data Flows, Competition Issues,* > > *Legal Restrictions on Foreign Access, and Local Content Requirements, > Other Roadblocks Faced by U.S. Telecom Suppliers and Exporters* > > *Washington, D.C.* - United States Trade Representative Michael Froman > today > > > http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2014/March/USTR-Targets-Telecommunications-Trade-Barriers > > > > Jeffrey Chester > > Center for Digital Democracy > > 1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 550 > > Washington, DC 20009 > > www.democraticmedia.org > > www.digitalads.org > > 202-986-2220 > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pranesh at cis-india.org Tue Apr 8 11:56:47 2014 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2014 11:56:47 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Wikileaks releases Penultimate NetMundial Outcome Document Message-ID: <53441C3F.4010005@cis-india.org> PDF link: http://goo.gl/z5bFXm https://wikileaks.org/netmundial-outcome/ NETmundial Executive Stakeholder Committee (EMC) Outcome Document Tuesday 8 April 2014, 15:30 GMT Today WikiLeaks released the penultimate draft agreement ("Outcome Document") going into NETmundial 2014 - the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance. NETmundial is an international conference of twelve nations and other internet stakeholders, to be hosted in São Paulo, Brazil, April 23-24, convened to lay down a roadmap for internet governance. It is co-hosted by the twelve goverments of Argentina, Brazil, France, Ghana, Germany, India, Indonesia, South Africa, South Korea, Tunisia, Turkey and the United States of America. The document was prepared by the NETmundial Executive Multistakeholder Committee (EMC) from the 180 NETmundial submissions and has been submitted to the High Level Multistakeholder Committee (HLMC) for final comment. The HLMC comprises ministerial level representation from the twelve co-hosting nations and is due to give its feedback tomorrow, on April 9. Outcome Document ---------------- This document has been created by the Executive Multistakeholder Committee (EMC) and is submitted to the High-Level Multistakeholder Committee (HLMC). Last Updated: April 3rd, 2014 ### **[0. Introduction](#introduction)** The Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance, also known as NETmundial, is convened to discuss two important issues relevant for the future evolution of the Internet, in an open and Multistakeholder fashion: - Internet Governance Principles, and - Roadmap for the future evolution of the Internet Governance Ecosystem The recommendations in this document have been prepared with the view to guiding NETmundial to consensus. This has been a collaborative effort among representatives of all stakeholder groups. More than 180 contributions have been received from all stakeholders around the globe. Those contributions have been taken as the basis for the elaboration of the recommendations here submitted to the participants of NETmundial towards the development of broad consensus. The recommendations of NETmundial are intended to constitute valuable contribution to be used in other Internet Governance related fora and entities. ### **[1. Internet Governance Principles Introduction.](#internet_governance_principles)** NETmundial identified a set of common principles and important values that may serve as the foundation for an inclusive, Multistakeholder, effective, legitimate, and evolving Internet Governance framework. Human Rights Principles related to Human Rights. Human rights are central values that should underpin Internet governance principles. Rights that people have offline must also be protected online, in accordance with international human rights law, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Those rights include, but are not limited to: - Access to information and the free flow of information - Freedom of association - Freedom of expression: Everyone has the right to hold and express opinions, and to seek, receive, and impart information on the Internet without arbitrary interference. - Privacy: People should be able to exercise their right to privacy online the same way they do offline, including avoiding arbitrary or unlawful collection of personal data and surveillance. - Accessibility: People with disabilities should be granted full access to online resources. - Culture and linguistic diversity: Cultural and linguistic diversity should be encouraged and supported in a non-discriminatory manner. - Development: The Internet has a vital role to play in helping to achieve the full realization of internationally agreed sustainable development goals. ### **[Internet Infrastructure](#internet_infrastructure)** Principles related to the Internet infrastructure. To preserve an unfragmented, interconnected, interoperable, secure, stable, resilient, sustainable, and trustworthy Internet. SECURITY, STABILITY AND RESILIENCY Internet as an universal global resource, should remain a secure, stable, resilient and trustworthy network. Effectiveness in handling security depends on strong and constant cooperation among different stakeholders. - Security, stability, robustness and resilience of the Internet should be a key objective of all stakeholders in Internet governance. SINGLE AND UNFRAGMENTED SPACE The Internet should continue to be a globally coherent interconnected, unfragmented, scalable and accessible network which allows the free flow of data packets throughout the community, with: - A common set of unique identifiers - A stable and globally coherent Internet operations OPEN AND DISTRIBUTED ARCHITECTURE The Internet should be preserved as a fertile and innovative environment and an open system architecture, with voluntary collaboration, collective stewardship and participation, recognizing technical management principles for efficient and improved network operation and preserving: - End-to-end nature of the network - Equal treatment to all protocols and data, delivered by the underlying communications ENABLING ENVIRONMENT FOR INNOVATION The ability to innovate has been at the heart of the remarkable growth of the Internet and it brought great value to the global society. For the preservation of its dynamism, Internet must continue to allow permission-less innovation through an enabling environment. OPEN ACCESS/PLATFORM The Internet should be an open and accessible platform, promoting fair access to any content, applications and services at the user's choice. Internet should be a tool for equal opportunity and development, based on: - Minimal barriers: There should be no unreasonable barriers or unnecessary burdens to entry for new users - Universality: Access to the Internet should become universal as an effective tool for human development and social inclusion. - Agility: Policies for access to Internet service should be future oriented and technology neutral, able to accommodate rapidly developing technologies and different types of use. - Neutrality: The Internet should remain a neutral, free from discrimination, so as to encourage free expression, the free flow of information and ideas, creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship - Intermediary liability should be limited in line with international best practice - Diversity: The Internet must respect and promote diversity in all its forms ### **[Internet Governance Process](#internet_governance_process)** Principles related to Internet governance decision-making processes and arrangements. Internet governance should be open, participatory, Multistakeholder, technology-neutral, sensitive to human rights and based on principles of transparency, accountability and inclusiveness, among others: - Multistakeholder: with the full participation of governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community, the academia and users in their respective roles and responsibilities. - Open, participatory, process driven governance: The development of international Internet-related public policies and Internet governance arrangements should enable full and balanced participation of all stakeholders from around the globe. - Transparent: it should be easy to understand how decisions are made, processes should be clearly documented and follow agreed procedures; procedures which should have been developed and agreed through Multistakeholder processes. - Accountable: mechanisms for checks and balances as well as for redress should exist. - Inclusive: Internet governance institutions and processes should be inclusive and open to all interested stakeholders. Processes should be bottom-up, enabling the full involvement of all stakeholders in a way does not disadvantage any category of stakeholder. - Distributed: A governance characterized by distributed and Multistakeholder mechanisms and organizations. - Collaborative: Internet governance should be based on and encourage collaborative and cooperative approaches to policy development that reflect the inputs and interests of stakeholders. - Enabling meaningful participation: All stakeholders should be able to participate in any internet governance process. Particularly, Internet governance institutions and processes should support capacity building for newcomers, especially stakeholders from developing countries and underrepresented groups. ### **[Standards](#standards)** Principles related to the technical standardization of the Internet OPEN STANDARDS The Internet should be unique, interoperable, resilient, decentralized, secure, interconnected, and based on open public standards, embracing: - Openness: allows for sharing and innovation, respecting rights and accessibility enabling global competition; - Interoperability: Open Standards facilitate interoperability and enable all to fully participate in the global network. - Stability: The open nature of the Internet allows its continued growth, resilience and stability. - Open development: Informed by individual and collective expertise and practical experience, decisions made by open consensus rather than voting. - Innovation: Open Standards serve as building blocks for further innovation and contribute to the creation of global communities. - Human rights: Standards must respect human rights contributing to the creation of global communities. - Availability: Open standards specifications on which the Internet is based should be made accessible to all for implementation and deployment. ### **[2. Roadmap for the future evolution of the Internet Governance](#roadmap)** ### **[I. Introduction](#roadmap_introduction)** The objective of this roadmap is to recommend the steps forward in the process of continuously improving the existing Internet governance framework ensuring full involvement of all stakeholders. Internet governance framework is a distributed and coordinated ecosystem involving various organizations and fora. It must be inclusive, transparent and accountable, and its structures and operations must follow a model that enable the participation of all stakeholders in order to address the interests of all those who benefit from the Internet. The implementation of the Tunis Agenda has demonstrated the value of the Multistakeholder model in Internet governance. The valuable contribution of all stakeholders to Internet governance should be recognized. Due to the successful experiences this model should be further strengthened, improved and evolved. Internet governance should serve as a catalyst for development and for promotion of human rights. Participation should reflect geographic balance and include stakeholders from developing and least developed countries. Issues that deserve attention of the community in the Internet governance future evolution. - Internet governance decisions are sometimes taken without the meaningful participation of all stakeholders. It is important that Multistakeholder decision-making and policy formulation are improved in order to ensure the full participation of all interested parties, recognizing the different roles played by different stakeholders. - Enhanced cooperation to address international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet must be fully implemented on a consensual basis. It is important that all stakeholders commit to advancing this discussion through the working group created to this purpose under UN CSTD and/or other international Multistakeholder dialogues. - Stakeholder representatives appointed to Multistakeholder Internet governance processes should be selected through open and transparent processes. Different stakeholder groups should self-manage their processes based on publicly known mechanisms. - There is a need to develop Multistakeholder mechanisms at the local level since a good portion of Internet governance issues should be tackled at this level. Local Multistakeholder mechanisms should serve as a link between local discussions and regional and global instances. Therefore a fluent coordination and dialogue across those different dimensions is essential. - There should be meaningful participation by all interested parties in Internet governance discussions and decision-making, with attention to geographic, stakeholder and gender balance in order to avoid asymmetries. - The establishment of enabling mechanisms including capacity building and empowerment mechanisms, such as remote participation or adequate funding, and access to meaningful and timely information are essential for promoting inclusive and effective Internet governance. - All stakeholders must renew their commitment to build a people centered, inclusive and development oriented Information Society. Therefore in pursuing the improvements of the Internet governance ecosystem, the focus on Digital Development Agenda should be retained. - Internet governance discussions would benefit from improved communication and coordination between technical and non-technical communities, providing a better understanding about the policy implications in technical decisions and technical implications in policy decision. ### **[Issues dealing with institutional improvements.](#issues_inst_improvements)** - There is a need for mechanisms to consider emerging topics and issues that are not currently being adequately addressed by existing Internet governance arrangements and usually referred as orphan issues. - There is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum (IGF). Important recommendations to that end were made by the UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. Improvements should include inter-alia: - Improved outcomes. Even keeping the nature of IGF as a non-decision-making body, improvements can be implemented including creative ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of policy options. - Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms, and considering the IGF as a permanent forum. - Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the IGF is essential. - The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide discussions between meetings. The 1Net initiative could possibly provide a platform for Multistakeholder intercessional dialogue. A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for discussing those orphans and emerging issues already mentioned in the previous point with a view to contributing to the identification of possible ways to address them. - There should be adequate communication and coordination among existing forums, task forces and organizations of the Internet governance ecosystem. Periodical reports, formal liaisons and timely feedbacks are examples of mechanisms that could be implemented to that end. It would be recommendable to analyze the option of creating Internet governance coordination mechanisms to perform on-going monitoring, analysis, and information-sharing functions. - In the follow up to the recent announcement of US Government with regard to its intent to transition the stewardship of IANA functions, the discussion about mechanisms for guaranteeing the transparency and accountability of those functions after the US Government role ends, has to take place through an open process with the participation of all stakeholders extending beyond the ICANN community. The IANA functions are currently performed under policies developed in processes hosted by several organizations and forums. Any adopted mechanism should protect the bottom up, open and participatory nature of those policy development processes and ensure the stability and resilience of the Internet. It is desirable to keep an adequate separation between the policy process and its operational aspects. This transition should be completed by September 2015. - It is expected that the process of globalization of ICANN speeds up leading to a truly international and global organization with an independent status and clear accountability mechanisms that satisfy requirements from its own stakeholders and from the global community. The relevant, balanced, and active representation from all regions and stakeholders in the ICANN structure is a key issue in the process of a successful globalization. ### **[Issues dealing with specific Internet Governance topics](#issues_governance_topics)** ​1. Security and Stability - It is necessary to continue working pursuing international agreements on topics such jurisdiction, law enforcement assistance to promote cybersecurity and prevent cybercrime. Discussions about those frameworks should be held in a Multistakeholder manner. International agreements should include measures of restraining cyber weapons development and deployment. - Initiatives to improve cybersecurity and address security threats should involve collaboration among private sector, researchers, technical experts, governments and NGOs. There are stakeholders that still need to become more involved with cybersecurity, for example network operators and software developers. - There is room for new forums and initiatives, they should not duplicate, but to add to current structures. All stakeholders should aim to leverage from and improve these already existing cybersecurity organizations. The experience accumulated by several of them, for example the Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams (FIRST) and Computer Incident Response Teams (CERTs/CSIRTs), demonstrates that, in order to be effective, any cybersecurity initiative depends on cooperation among different stakeholders, and it can't be achieved via a single organization or structure. ​2. Internet Surveillance ? Mass and arbitrary surveillance undermines trust in the Internet and trust in the Internet Governance ecosystem. Mass surveillance and contradicts some of the principles proposed in this document. Surveillance should be conducted in accordance with the ?Necessary and Proportionate? principles. More dialogue is needed on this topic at the international level using forums like IGF and the Human Rights Council aiming to develop a common understanding on all the related aspects. ​3. Capacity building - One of the key requirements for realization of Internet governance principles is ensuring that diverse stakeholders have not merely the opportunity for nominal participation, but in fact the formation and the resources for effective participation. Capacity building is important to support the emergence of true Multistakeholder communities, especially in those regions where the participation of some stakeholders group needs to be further strengthened. ### **[Points to be further discussed beyond NETmundial:](#points_further_disc)** Several contributions to NETmundial identified points that need further discussion and better understanding regarding the following: - Different roles and responsibilities of stakeholders on the Internet governance ecosystem, including the meaning and application of equal footing. - Jurisdiction issues and how they relate to Internet governance. - A principles based code of conduct and related indicators for the Internet governance ecosystem. ### **[Key messages](#key_messages)** The Internet governance ecosystem needs to continuously evolve as described above, strengthening the Multistakeholder model across the entire ecosystem. Capacity building is a crucial aspect to enhance the participation of all stakeholders in a meaningful way. The IGF should be strengthened. There are issues that are not being treated properly by existing Internet governance mechanisms. IGF is one of the venues for discussing ways to deal with those issues. It is expected that ICANN continues working in evolving the organization toward a more global organization with a balanced participation of all stakeholders. The US Government?s special role with regard to the IANA functions should end in a short term and the transition should be conducted in an open, participatory and responsible manner. All the organizations with responsibilities in Internet governance ecosystem have to develop principles for transparency, accountability and inclusiveness and implement them. All the organizations should prepare periodical reports on their progresses and status about these issues. Those reports should be made publicly available. Further discussion is required to reach consensus on the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders in Internet governance. All the organizations, forums and processes of the Internet Governance ecosystem are expected to commit to implementing, as well as explicitly adhere, to all the principles agreed in NETmundial. It is expected that the NETmundial findings and outcomes feed other processes and forums, such as WSIS+10, IGF and all Internet governance discussions held in different organizations and bodies at all levels. The follow up and future discussions of topics listed in this document should prompt the creation of expert groups, task forces or groups of facilitators convened by existing entities or bodies. They should present reports of their works in major Internet governance meetings. -- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org ------------------- Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From nnenna75 at gmail.com Tue Apr 8 12:09:48 2014 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 16:09:48 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Wikileaks releases Penultimate NetMundial Outcome Document In-Reply-To: <53441C3F.4010005@cis-india.org> References: <53441C3F.4010005@cis-india.org> Message-ID: Still reading.. N On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Pranesh Prakash wrote: > PDF link: http://goo.gl/z5bFXm > > https://wikileaks.org/netmundial-outcome/ > > NETmundial Executive Stakeholder Committee (EMC) Outcome Document > Tuesday 8 April 2014, 15:30 GMT > > Today WikiLeaks released the penultimate draft agreement ("Outcome > Document") going into NETmundial 2014 - the Global Multistakeholder Meeting > on the Future of Internet Governance. NETmundial is an international > conference of twelve nations and other internet stakeholders, to be hosted > in São Paulo, Brazil, April 23-24, convened to lay down a roadmap for > internet governance. It is co-hosted by the twelve goverments of Argentina, > Brazil, France, Ghana, Germany, India, Indonesia, South Africa, South > Korea, Tunisia, Turkey and the United States of America. The document was > prepared by the NETmundial Executive Multistakeholder Committee (EMC) from > the 180 NETmundial submissions and has been submitted to the High Level > Multistakeholder Committee (HLMC) for final comment. The HLMC comprises > ministerial level representation from the twelve co-hosting nations and is > due to give its feedback tomorrow, on April 9. > > > > Outcome Document > ---------------- > > This document has been created by the Executive Multistakeholder Committee > (EMC) and is submitted to the High-Level Multistakeholder Committee (HLMC). > > Last Updated: April 3rd, 2014 > > ### **[0. Introduction](#introduction)** > > The Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance, > also known as NETmundial, is convened to discuss two important issues > relevant for the future evolution of the Internet, in an open and > Multistakeholder fashion: > > - Internet Governance Principles, and > - Roadmap for the future evolution of the Internet Governance Ecosystem > > The recommendations in this document have been prepared with the view to > guiding NETmundial to consensus. This has been a collaborative effort among > representatives of all stakeholder groups. > > More than 180 contributions have been received from all stakeholders > around the globe. Those contributions have been taken as the basis for the > elaboration of the recommendations here submitted to the participants of > NETmundial towards the development of broad consensus. > > The recommendations of NETmundial are intended to constitute valuable > contribution to be used in other Internet Governance related fora and > entities. > > ### **[1. Internet Governance Principles Introduction.](#internet_ > governance_principles)** > > NETmundial identified a set of common principles and important values that > may serve as the foundation for an inclusive, Multistakeholder, effective, > legitimate, and evolving Internet Governance framework. Human Rights > > Principles related to Human Rights. > > Human rights are central values that should underpin Internet governance > principles. Rights that people have offline must also be protected online, > in accordance with international human rights law, including the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenants on Civil and > Political Rights and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Those rights > include, but are not limited to: > > - Access to information and the free flow of information > - Freedom of association > - Freedom of expression: Everyone has the right to hold and express > opinions, and to seek, receive, and impart information on the Internet > without arbitrary interference. > - Privacy: People should be able to exercise their right to privacy > online the same way they do offline, including avoiding arbitrary or > unlawful collection of personal data and surveillance. > - Accessibility: People with disabilities should be granted full access > to online resources. > - Culture and linguistic diversity: Cultural and linguistic diversity > should be encouraged and supported in a non-discriminatory manner. > - Development: The Internet has a vital role to play in helping to > achieve the full realization of internationally agreed sustainable > development goals. > > ### **[Internet Infrastructure](#internet_infrastructure)** > > Principles related to the Internet infrastructure. > > To preserve an unfragmented, interconnected, interoperable, secure, > stable, resilient, sustainable, and trustworthy Internet. > > SECURITY, STABILITY AND RESILIENCY > > Internet as an universal global resource, should remain a secure, stable, > resilient and trustworthy network. Effectiveness in handling security > depends on strong and constant cooperation among different stakeholders. > > - Security, stability, robustness and resilience of the Internet should > be a key objective of all stakeholders in Internet governance. > > SINGLE AND UNFRAGMENTED SPACE > > The Internet should continue to be a globally coherent interconnected, > unfragmented, scalable and accessible network which allows the free flow of > data packets throughout the community, with: > > - A common set of unique identifiers > - A stable and globally coherent Internet operations > > OPEN AND DISTRIBUTED ARCHITECTURE > > The Internet should be preserved as a fertile and innovative environment > and an open system architecture, with voluntary collaboration, collective > stewardship and participation, recognizing technical management principles > for efficient and improved network operation and preserving: > > - End-to-end nature of the network > - Equal treatment to all protocols and data, delivered by the underlying > communications > > ENABLING ENVIRONMENT FOR INNOVATION > > The ability to innovate has been at the heart of the remarkable growth of > the Internet and it brought great value to the global society. For the > preservation of its dynamism, Internet must continue to allow > permission-less innovation through an enabling environment. > > OPEN ACCESS/PLATFORM > > The Internet should be an open and accessible platform, promoting fair > access to any content, applications and services at the user's choice. > Internet should be a tool for equal opportunity and development, based on: > > - Minimal barriers: There should be no unreasonable barriers or > unnecessary burdens to entry for new users > - Universality: Access to the Internet should become universal as an > effective tool for human development and social inclusion. > - Agility: Policies for access to Internet service should be future > oriented and technology neutral, able to accommodate rapidly developing > technologies and different types of use. > - Neutrality: The Internet should remain a neutral, free from > discrimination, so as to encourage free expression, the free flow of > information and ideas, creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship > - Intermediary liability should be limited in line with international > best practice > - Diversity: The Internet must respect and promote diversity in all its > forms > > ### **[Internet Governance Process](#internet_governance_process)** > > Principles related to Internet governance decision-making processes and > arrangements. > > Internet governance should be open, participatory, Multistakeholder, > technology-neutral, sensitive to human rights and based on principles of > transparency, accountability and inclusiveness, among others: > > - Multistakeholder: with the full participation of governments, the > private sector, civil society, the technical community, the academia and > users in their respective roles and responsibilities. > - Open, participatory, process driven governance: The development of > international Internet-related public policies and Internet governance > arrangements should enable full and balanced participation of all > stakeholders from around the globe. > - Transparent: it should be easy to understand how decisions are made, > processes should be clearly documented and follow agreed procedures; > procedures which should have been developed and agreed through > Multistakeholder processes. > - Accountable: mechanisms for checks and balances as well as for redress > should exist. > - Inclusive: Internet governance institutions and processes should be > inclusive and open to all interested stakeholders. Processes should be > bottom-up, enabling the full involvement of all stakeholders in a way does > not disadvantage any category of stakeholder. > - Distributed: A governance characterized by distributed and > Multistakeholder mechanisms and organizations. > - Collaborative: Internet governance should be based on and encourage > collaborative and cooperative approaches to policy development that reflect > the inputs and interests of stakeholders. > - Enabling meaningful participation: All stakeholders should be able to > participate in any internet governance process. Particularly, Internet > governance institutions and processes should support capacity building for > newcomers, especially stakeholders from developing countries and > underrepresented groups. > > ### **[Standards](#standards)** > > Principles related to the technical standardization of the Internet > > OPEN STANDARDS > > The Internet should be unique, interoperable, resilient, decentralized, > secure, interconnected, and based on open public standards, embracing: > > - Openness: allows for sharing and innovation, respecting rights and > accessibility enabling global competition; > - Interoperability: Open Standards facilitate interoperability and > enable all to fully participate in the global network. > - Stability: The open nature of the Internet allows its continued > growth, resilience and stability. > - Open development: Informed by individual and collective expertise and > practical experience, decisions made by open consensus rather than voting. > - Innovation: Open Standards serve as building blocks for further > innovation and contribute to the creation of global communities. > - Human rights: Standards must respect human rights contributing to the > creation of global communities. > - Availability: Open standards specifications on which the Internet is > based should be made accessible to all for implementation and deployment. > > ### **[2. Roadmap for the future evolution of the Internet > Governance](#roadmap)** > > ### **[I. Introduction](#roadmap_introduction)** > > The objective of this roadmap is to recommend the steps forward in the > process of continuously improving the existing Internet governance > framework ensuring full involvement of all stakeholders. Internet > governance framework is a distributed and coordinated ecosystem involving > various organizations and fora. It must be inclusive, transparent and > accountable, and its structures and operations must follow a model that > enable the participation of all stakeholders in order to address the > interests of all those who benefit from the Internet. The implementation of > the Tunis Agenda has demonstrated the value of the Multistakeholder model > in Internet governance. The valuable contribution of all stakeholders to > Internet governance should be recognized. Due to the successful experiences > this model should be further strengthened, improved and evolved. Internet > governance should serve as a catalyst for development and for promotion of > human rights. Participation should reflect geographic balance and include > stakeholders from developing and least developed countries. > > Issues that deserve attention of the community in the Internet governance > future evolution. > > - Internet governance decisions are sometimes taken without the > meaningful participation of all stakeholders. It is important that > Multistakeholder decision-making and policy formulation are improved in > order to ensure the full participation of all interested parties, > recognizing the different roles played by different stakeholders. > - Enhanced cooperation to address international public policy issues > pertaining to the Internet must be fully implemented on a consensual basis. > It is important that all stakeholders commit to advancing this discussion > through the working group created to this purpose under UN CSTD and/or > other international Multistakeholder dialogues. > - Stakeholder representatives appointed to Multistakeholder Internet > governance processes should be selected through open and transparent > processes. Different stakeholder groups should self-manage their processes > based on publicly known mechanisms. > - There is a need to develop Multistakeholder mechanisms at the local > level since a good portion of Internet governance issues should be tackled > at this level. Local Multistakeholder mechanisms should serve as a link > between local discussions and regional and global instances. Therefore a > fluent coordination and dialogue across those different dimensions is > essential. > - There should be meaningful participation by all interested parties in > Internet governance discussions and decision-making, with attention to > geographic, stakeholder and gender balance in order to avoid asymmetries. > - The establishment of enabling mechanisms including capacity building > and empowerment mechanisms, such as remote participation or adequate > funding, and access to meaningful and timely information are essential for > promoting inclusive and effective Internet governance. > - All stakeholders must renew their commitment to build a people > centered, inclusive and development oriented Information Society. Therefore > in pursuing the improvements of the Internet governance ecosystem, the > focus on Digital Development Agenda should be retained. > - Internet governance discussions would benefit from improved > communication and coordination between technical and non-technical > communities, providing a better understanding about the policy implications > in technical decisions and technical implications in policy decision. > > ### **[Issues dealing with institutional improvements.](#issues_inst_ > improvements)** > > - There is a need for mechanisms to consider emerging topics and issues > that are not currently being adequately addressed by existing Internet > governance arrangements and usually referred as orphan issues. > - There is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum (IGF). > Important recommendations to that end were made by the UN CSTD working > group on IGF improvements. Improvements should include inter-alia: > > - Improved outcomes. Even keeping the nature of IGF as a > non-decision-making body, improvements can be implemented including > creative ways of providing outcomes/recommendations and the analysis of > policy options. > - Extending the IGF mandate beyond five-year terms, and considering > the IGF as a permanent forum. > - Ensuring guaranteed stable and predictable funding for the IGF is > essential. > - The IGF should adopt mechanisms to promote worldwide discussions > between meetings. The 1Net initiative could possibly provide a platform for > Multistakeholder intercessional dialogue. > > A strengthened IGF could better serve as a platform for discussing > those orphans and emerging issues already mentioned in the previous point > with a view to contributing to the identification of possible ways to > address them. > > - There should be adequate communication and coordination among existing > forums, task forces and organizations of the Internet governance ecosystem. > Periodical reports, formal liaisons and timely feedbacks are examples of > mechanisms that could be implemented to that end. It would be recommendable > to analyze the option of creating Internet governance coordination > mechanisms to perform on-going monitoring, analysis, and > information-sharing functions. > - In the follow up to the recent announcement of US Government with > regard to its intent to transition the stewardship of IANA functions, the > discussion about mechanisms for guaranteeing the transparency and > accountability of those functions after the US Government role ends, has to > take place through an open process with the participation of all > stakeholders extending beyond the ICANN community. The IANA functions are > currently performed under policies developed in processes hosted by several > organizations and forums. Any adopted mechanism should protect the bottom > up, open and participatory nature of those policy development processes and > ensure the stability and resilience of the Internet. It is desirable to > keep an adequate separation between the policy process and its operational > aspects. This transition should be completed by September 2015. > - It is expected that the process of globalization of ICANN speeds up > leading to a truly international and global organization with an > independent status and clear accountability mechanisms that satisfy > requirements from its own stakeholders and from the global community. The > relevant, balanced, and active representation from all regions and > stakeholders in the ICANN structure is a key issue in the process of a > successful globalization. > > ### **[Issues dealing with specific Internet Governance > topics](#issues_governance_topics)** > > 1. Security and Stability > > - It is necessary to continue working pursuing international agreements > on topics such jurisdiction, law enforcement assistance to promote > cybersecurity and prevent cybercrime. Discussions about those frameworks > should be held in a Multistakeholder manner. International agreements > should include measures of restraining cyber weapons development and > deployment. > - Initiatives to improve cybersecurity and address security threats > should involve collaboration among private sector, researchers, technical > experts, governments and NGOs. There are stakeholders that still need to > become more involved with cybersecurity, for example network operators and > software developers. > - There is room for new forums and initiatives, they should not > duplicate, but to add to current structures. All stakeholders should aim to > leverage from and improve these already existing cybersecurity > organizations. The experience accumulated by several of them, for example > the Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams (FIRST) and Computer > Incident Response Teams (CERTs/CSIRTs), demonstrates that, in order to be > effective, any cybersecurity initiative depends on cooperation among > different stakeholders, and it can't be achieved via a single organization > or structure. > > 2. Internet Surveillance ? Mass and arbitrary surveillance undermines > trust in the Internet and trust in the Internet Governance ecosystem. Mass > surveillance and contradicts some of the principles proposed in this > document. Surveillance should be conducted in accordance with the > ?Necessary and Proportionate? principles. More dialogue is needed on this > topic at the international level using forums like IGF and the Human Rights > Council aiming to develop a common understanding on all the related aspects. > > 3. Capacity building - One of the key requirements for realization of > Internet governance principles is ensuring that diverse stakeholders have > not merely the opportunity for nominal participation, but in fact the > formation and the resources for effective participation. Capacity building > is important to support the emergence of true Multistakeholder communities, > especially in those regions where the participation of some stakeholders > group needs to be further strengthened. > > ### **[Points to be further discussed beyond NETmundial:](#points_further_ > disc)** > > Several contributions to NETmundial identified points that need further > discussion and better understanding regarding the following: > > - Different roles and responsibilities of stakeholders on the Internet > governance ecosystem, including the meaning and application of equal > footing. > - Jurisdiction issues and how they relate to Internet governance. > - A principles based code of conduct and related indicators for the > Internet governance ecosystem. > > ### **[Key messages](#key_messages)** > > The Internet governance ecosystem needs to continuously evolve as > described above, strengthening the Multistakeholder model across the entire > ecosystem. > > Capacity building is a crucial aspect to enhance the participation of all > stakeholders in a meaningful way. > > The IGF should be strengthened. > > There are issues that are not being treated properly by existing Internet > governance mechanisms. IGF is one of the venues for discussing ways to deal > with those issues. > > It is expected that ICANN continues working in evolving the organization > toward a more global organization with a balanced participation of all > stakeholders. > > The US Government?s special role with regard to the IANA functions should > end in a short term and the transition should be conducted in an open, > participatory and responsible manner. > > All the organizations with responsibilities in Internet governance > ecosystem have to develop principles for transparency, accountability and > inclusiveness and implement them. All the organizations should prepare > periodical reports on their progresses and status about these issues. Those > reports should be made publicly available. > > Further discussion is required to reach consensus on the roles and > responsibilities of stakeholders in Internet governance. > > All the organizations, forums and processes of the Internet Governance > ecosystem are expected to commit to implementing, as well as explicitly > adhere, to all the principles agreed in NETmundial. > > It is expected that the NETmundial findings and outcomes feed other > processes and forums, such as WSIS+10, IGF and all Internet governance > discussions held in different organizations and bodies at all levels. > > The follow up and future discussions of topics listed in this document > should prompt the creation of expert groups, task forces or groups of > facilitators convened by existing entities or bodies. They should present > reports of their works in major Internet governance meetings. > > > -- > Pranesh Prakash > Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society > T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org > ------------------- > Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School > M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org > PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rishab.bailey at gmail.com Tue Apr 8 14:01:39 2014 From: rishab.bailey at gmail.com (Rishab Bailey) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 23:31:39 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Letters from Indian Civil Society organisations to the Chair of NetMundial regarding appointment of civil society co-chair Message-ID: Dear All, Further to the letter from Indian civil society groups to the Chair of NetMundial (regarding the appointment of the civil society co-chair for the meeting), please find attached: (a) the original letter from members of Indian civil society to Prof. Virgilio Almeida, (b) follow up email from members of Indian civil society to Prof. Virgilio Almeida; (b) response of Prof. Almeida to Indian civil society groups. Also do note a recent article published in a leading Indian newspaper giving some of the context behind this: http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/executive-of-telecom-giant-that-aided-nsa-spying-is-on-india-s-cyber-security-panel/article1-1205483.aspx Two of the documents referred to in the above article (concerning plagiarism charges) are also attached to this email. Regards, Rishab Bailey (for the Society for Knowledge Commons, India) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Indian CS Email to NetMundial - April 7,2014 .pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 71954 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Letter to India-CS.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 124924 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Subi Chaturvedia. Plagiarism Amrit.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 464270 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Subi Chaturvedia. Plagiarism Turnitin.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 492673 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Appointment of civil society co chair.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 96336 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jefsey at jefsey.com Tue Apr 8 14:37:33 2014 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2014 20:37:33 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Wikileaks releases Penultimate NetMundial Outcome Document In-Reply-To: <53441C3F.4010005@cis-india.org> References: <53441C3F.4010005@cis-india.org> Message-ID: At 17:56 08/04/2014, Pranesh Prakash wrote: >PDF link: http://goo.gl/z5bFXm >https://wikileaks.org/netmundial-outcome/ > >NETmundial Executive Stakeholder Committee (EMC) Outcome Document >Tuesday 8 April 2014, 15:30 GMT Thank you for the news. All this seems nominal. However, the devil is in details and further misunderstandings. I entered the text under: http://dnsa.org/index.php/Wikileaks:_preparation_of_NETmundial2014 The talk page will list the relevant comments from IUsers point of view. Best jfc From rishab.bailey at gmail.com Tue Apr 8 16:04:04 2014 From: rishab.bailey at gmail.com (Rishab Bailey) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 01:34:04 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Knowledge Commons statement on NetMundial Outcome Document (leaked by Wikileaks) Message-ID: Dear All, You may have seen that Wikileaks released the first draft of the NetMundial outcome document earlier today. Please find appended below, a response from Knowledge Commons which can also be viewed on our website at http://www.knowledgecommons.in/brasil/?page_id=214. Regards, Rishab -------- *Knowledge Commons Statement on Draft NetMundial document leaked by Wikileaks* *8 April 2014* Knowledge Commons has carefully examined the text on the Wikileaks websitethat purports to be the first iteration of the outcome document for NetMundial. Given we have read and analyzed all of the 187 submissions to NetMundial, we believe that the leaked document generally reflects the inputs received. Further, Knowledge Commons makes the following observations and recommendations: First, the document recognises the Internet as a 'universal global resource' [in Section 1. Internet Infrastructure]. Knowledge Commons believes that the Internet has become more than a resource, it is a public good and global commons upon which trade, media, education, health and government systems rely. Second, the document appropriately emphasizes the need for reform to democratize the multistakeholder system, acknowledging that decisions are taken without meaningful participation and in the absence of geographic and gender balance [in Section 2. Roadmap for the future evolution of Internet Governance]. Knowledge Commons believes there would be greater utility in clearly defining the roles and responsibilities of various stakeholders and specifying the elements of a minimum standard set of guidelines, operating procedures, or the identification of an entity to elaborate these modalities for multistakeholder fora. Third, Knowledge Commons strongly welcomes the call for new international agreements on cyber weapons development and deployment [in Section 2. Issues dealing with specific Internet governance topics]. As more and more critical infrastructure resources around the world are maintained and operated through digital mechanisms, ensuring the security of these installations from targeted attacks is critical. Such an agreement is the core business of governments. . A multilateral agreement ensuring cyber peace and de-militarising the Internet is essential if we are not to see the Balkanisation of the Internet. Fourth, the document acknowledges that changes to the IANA function need to take place through discussion rather than announcement and that such discussion is still to take place [in Section 2. Issues dealing with Institutional Improvements]. Knowledge Commons notes that ICANN, which should be an independent entity immune from any jurisdiction, will be charged with the process, but given the document also acknowledges the current flaws in participation and decision making processes, believes that improved modalities and minimum standards should be applied in this discussion and decision making process. Fifth, the document condemns mass surveillance for undermining trust in the Internet. [in Section 2. Issues dealing with Institutional Improvements]. Knowledge Commons believes that democracy itself has been damaged and so too has diplomacy. The NetMundial should be calling for the cessation of the practices of the 5 Eyes countries that violate sovereignty of states and the human rights of citizens. While some countries may unilaterally declare such practices and the operation of secret courts lawful, the NetMundial meeting should more strongly resist the wholesale disregard for human rights including by ensuring that permissible derogation is proportionate and necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Apr 8 16:06:41 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 16:06:41 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] video up - The Global War for Internet Governance with Dr. Laura DeNardis Message-ID: The Global War for Internet Governance with Dr. Laura DeNardis http://newamerica.net/events/2014/global_war_for_internet_governance *Featured Speakers:* *Dr. Laura DeNardis * Author of *The Global War for Internet Governance* Professor in the School of Communication, American University *Benoni Belli* Minister Counselor at the Embassy of Brazil in Washington D.C. *Richard Beaird* Senior International Policy Advisor at Wiley Rein LLP *Emma Llanso* Director of Center for Democracy and Technology's Free Expression Project *Organizer and Moderator:* *Carolina Rossini * Project Director, Open Technology Institute, New America -- *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: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Apr 8 22:53:43 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 22:53:43 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Call for Public Input - IANA Function transitions Message-ID: Call for Public Input: Draft Proposal, Based on Initial Community Feedback, of the Principles and Mechanisms and the Process to Develop a Proposal to Transition NTIA's Stewardship of the IANA Functions http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition/draft-proposal-08apr14-en.htm -- *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: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Apr 8 23:01:24 2014 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 12:01:24 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Call for Public Input - IANA Function transitions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Carolina, we will have discussion at NCSG level regarding this proposal since we are following-up this since the announcement and during ICANN meeting in Singapore. btw here you can find the NCSG statement in response to NTIA announcement : https://community.icann.org/x/_ijRAg Best, Rafik 2014-04-09 11:53 GMT+09:00 Carolina Rossini : > Call for Public Input: Draft Proposal, Based on Initial Community > Feedback, of the Principles and Mechanisms and the Process to Develop a > Proposal to Transition NTIA's Stewardship of the IANA Functions > > > > > http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition/draft-proposal-08apr14-en.htm > > > -- > *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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Apr 10 01:47:25 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 11:17:25 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Letters from Indian Civil Society organisations to the Chair of NetMundial regarding appointment of civil society co-chair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5346306D.8010107@itforchange.net> I wonder if civil society groups have any response to the below... this issue was first brought to the notice to global civil society groups a few weeks back when almost all civil society organisations from India wrote a letter against appointment of Subi as co chair of NetMundial... It was most disappointing to face a stony silence from the global networks with regard to that representation, which is indeed disrespectful of the Indian civil society. Now, we have a newspaper report which not only produces evidence of plagiarism against Subi but , much more importantly, also shows clearly who is behind her installation as NetMundial Co chair - the US big business. And still no response. May I request the IGC co-cos to take up this issue. And also 1Net steering committee members, and civil society members of the executive committee and high level committee. At least please respond to the issue. If civil society reps wont respond to this issue, I am not sure what they would respond to, and in which manner they then 'represent' civil society... Here there is practically the entire Indian civil society involved in IG writing a representation, about issues that are now further exacerbated by the news report in a top national daily of India. And we find no visible support. Thanks parminder On Tuesday 08 April 2014 11:31 PM, Rishab Bailey wrote: > Dear All, > > Further to the letter from Indian civil society groups to the Chair of > NetMundial (regarding the appointment of the civil society co-chair > for the meeting), please find attached: > > (a) the original letter from members of Indian civil society to Prof. > Virgilio Almeida, > (b) follow up email from members of Indian civil society to Prof. > Virgilio Almeida; > (b) response of Prof. Almeida to Indian civil society groups. > > Also do note a recent article published in a leading Indian newspaper > giving some of the context behind this: > http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/executive-of-telecom-giant-that-aided-nsa-spying-is-on-india-s-cyber-security-panel/article1-1205483.aspx > > > Two of the documents referred to in the above article (concerning > plagiarism charges) are also attached to this email. > > Regards, > Rishab Bailey > (for the Society for Knowledge Commons, India) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anriette at apc.org Thu Apr 10 02:26:07 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 08:26:07 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] APC looking for policy comms person Message-ID: <5346397F.7020503@apc.org> Apologies for cross posting. Analia Lavin whom many of you might have met is leaving us soon to do a Phd so we are lookin for someone new.. Spanish and French fluency would be important. Anriette. -------- APC to hire communications officer: http://www.apc.org/en/node/19142 Association for Progressive Communications (apc.org) has an opening for a communications officer to participate in the virtual communications team of the world's oldest online progressive network. The position is 60-80% time on a one-year contract with the option to renew if funding is available. Candidates should be available to begin in June 2014. The deadline for applications is 29 April 2014. *Job profile* You will lead communications work for one of APC's two programmes, our Communications and Internet Policy Programme (CIPP). We are looking for someone who has: * At least five years experience in communications, media relations and social marketing * Developed successful strategies and plans for campaigns, events and publication dissemination * Measurable success with campaigns and dissemination via social media, Twitter in particular * Experience working completely online including managing projects remotely * A concise, creative, confident communication style, with a strong visual sense and excellent English writing and editing skills * Experience working in the non-profit sector, specifically in internet policy * Experience dealing with multiple cultures and languages. Note that fluency in French, Spanish will be a distinct advantage. *Communications, media and social outreach* You will work on a four-person editorial team to produce original news and feature content in English, French and Spanish. A suitable, qualified candidate could also be appointed as editorial chief of our French-language website (APC.org/fr) and our twice-monthly French-language newsletter, APCNouvelles. On issues related to communications and internet policy, you will act as international media liaison and sometimes spokesperson with primarily print, web and radio media in English (and potentially Spanish and French). You will assist the communications team in developing and monitoring relationships with the media and in the production of media releases. You will keep APC up to date in social networking spaces, planning and coordinating strategic approaches to product launches and events. You will join one other communications officer in reporting to the communications manager and will work on a day-to-day basis with the CIPP manager and staff, as well as the entire APC staff and its members. Most of the work takes place in mailing lists. *Remuneration and working conditions* The remuneration for this position is negotiable depending on skills, qualifications and experience. The successful applicant is expected to provide his or her own computer, have easy access to an internet connection, and work during normal office hours. Reimbursement for office supplies and communication costs will be covered by APC. While much of the communications work will take place online, some travel to meetings, conferences and workshops is expected. *How to apply* Your statement of interest is extremely important. Your CV must be included as an attachment. Please consider the following in your statement: * A description of your interest in working with APC in this position * Your experience related to the requirements listed above * A rating of the languages you speak and write * A description of your computer skills * Other information you think might be of importance to our assessment of your application * Two references: names, relationship, contact details; at least one of these should be related to an online communications initiative in which you had a leadership role. Please send this information via email to jobs at apc.org with the subject line: "APC communications officer -- your name" by 29 April. -- Mallory Knodel Communications & Network Development Manager :: mallory at apc.org Association for Progressive Communications :: apc.org twitter. @malloryknodel :: xmpp. malloryk at im.mayfirst.org gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780 -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Apr 10 03:23:21 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 17:23:21 +1000 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Letters from Indian Civil Society organisations to the Chair of NetMundial regarding appointment of civil society co-chair In-Reply-To: <5346306D.8010107@itforchange.net> References: <5346306D.8010107@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <24625ED183D24F89B37AE129F898377D@Toshiba> Hi Parminder, I did respond last time you posted information on this several weeks back, but let me respond again as this is escalating. Firstly, I agree with you and the Indian civil society groups that the appointment and the way it was undertaken was less than optimal. I also agree that far more experienced candidates in the area of internet governance were available – including from India, and including women from India. However, despite her inexperience in internet governance areas, Subi Chaturvedi appears to be quite active in civil society issues, particularly feminist issues. I am concerned that what is happening is that this is becoming an increasingly personal attack on a young Indian woman whose only “crime”, as far as I can see, is being ambitious. And there are plenty more of us who share that. The newspaper article clearly was written with the assistance of some civil society groups or members to discredit her. It is not regular “news”, and may or may not be accurate in all of its assertions. However, it has the elements of a personal attack. So I am personally uncomfortable with pursuing this any further, while recognising that it was important for Indian NGOs to make the initial contact with the Chair to express reservations. Someone has given less than optimal advice to the Chair, and we may not have the best civil society rep appointed, but I believe the most important thing now is not to pursue personal attacks and to work as best we can during NetMundial in the prevailing circumstances. Ian Peter From: parminder Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 3:47 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Letters from Indian Civil Society organisations to the Chair of NetMundial regarding appointment of civil society co-chair I wonder if civil society groups have any response to the below... this issue was first brought to the notice to global civil society groups a few weeks back when almost all civil society organisations from India wrote a letter against appointment of Subi as co chair of NetMundial... It was most disappointing to face a stony silence from the global networks with regard to that representation, which is indeed disrespectful of the Indian civil society. Now, we have a newspaper report which not only produces evidence of plagiarism against Subi but , much more importantly, also shows clearly who is behind her installation as NetMundial Co chair - the US big business. And still no response. May I request the IGC co-cos to take up this issue. And also 1Net steering committee members, and civil society members of the executive committee and high level committee. At least please respond to the issue. If civil society reps wont respond to this issue, I am not sure what they would respond to, and in which manner they then 'represent' civil society... Here there is practically the entire Indian civil society involved in IG writing a representation, about issues that are now further exacerbated by the news report in a top national daily of India. And we find no visible support. Thanks parminder On Tuesday 08 April 2014 11:31 PM, Rishab Bailey wrote: Dear All, Further to the letter from Indian civil society groups to the Chair of NetMundial (regarding the appointment of the civil society co-chair for the meeting), please find attached: (a) the original letter from members of Indian civil society to Prof. Virgilio Almeida, (b) follow up email from members of Indian civil society to Prof. Virgilio Almeida; (b) response of Prof. Almeida to Indian civil society groups. Also do note a recent article published in a leading Indian newspaper giving some of the context behind this: http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/executive-of-telecom-giant-that-aided-nsa-spying-is-on-india-s-cyber-security-panel/article1-1205483.aspx Two of the documents referred to in the above article (concerning plagiarism charges) are also attached to this email. Regards, Rishab Bailey (for the Society for Knowledge Commons, India) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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: From avri at acm.org Thu Apr 10 03:49:05 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 03:49:05 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Letters from Indian Civil Society organisations to the Chair of NetMundial regarding appointment of civil society co-chair In-Reply-To: <24625ED183D24F89B37AE129F898377D@Toshiba> References: <5346306D.8010107@itforchange.net> <24625ED183D24F89B37AE129F898377D@Toshiba> Message-ID: <53464CF1.7070401@acm.org> Ian, Thank you for this. I was afraid to jump into this discussion, but I want to endorse what you have said. avri On 10-Apr-14 03:23, Ian Peter wrote: > Hi Parminder, > > I did respond last time you posted information on this several weeks > back, but let me respond again as this is escalating. > > Firstly, I agree with you and the Indian civil society groups that the > appointment and the way it was undertaken was less than optimal. I also > agree that far more experienced candidates in the area of internet > governance were available – including from India, and including women > from India. > > However, despite her inexperience in internet governance areas, Subi > Chaturvedi appears to be quite active in civil society issues, > particularly feminist issues. I am concerned that what is happening is > that this is becoming an increasingly personal attack on a young Indian > woman whose only “crime”, as far as I can see, is being ambitious. And > there are plenty more of us who share that. > > The newspaper article clearly was written with the assistance of some > civil society groups or members to discredit her. It is not regular > “news”, and may or may not be accurate in all of its assertions. > However, it has the elements of a personal attack. > > So I am personally uncomfortable with pursuing this any further, while > recognising that it was important for Indian NGOs to make the initial > contact with the Chair to express reservations. Someone has given less > than optimal advice to the Chair, and we may not have the best civil > society rep appointed, but I believe the most important thing now is not > to pursue personal attacks and to work as best we can during NetMundial > in the prevailing circumstances. > > Ian Peter > > > > > *From:* parminder > *Sent:* Thursday, April 10, 2014 3:47 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* [governance] Re: [bestbits] Letters from Indian Civil Society > organisations to the Chair of NetMundial regarding appointment of civil > society co-chair > > > I wonder if civil society groups have any response to the below... > > this issue was first brought to the notice to global civil society > groups a few weeks back when almost all civil society organisations from > India wrote a letter against appointment of Subi as co chair of > NetMundial... It was most disappointing to face a stony silence from the > global networks with regard to that representation, which is indeed > disrespectful of the Indian civil society. > > Now, we have a newspaper report > > which not only produces evidence of plagiarism against Subi but , much > more importantly, also shows clearly who is behind her installation as > NetMundial Co chair - the US big business. And still no response. > > May I request the IGC co-cos to take up this issue. And also 1Net > steering committee members, and civil society members of the executive > committee and high level committee. > > At least please respond to the issue. > > If civil society reps wont respond to this issue, I am not sure what > they would respond to, and in which manner they then 'represent' civil > society... Here there is practically the entire Indian civil society > involved in IG writing a representation, about issues that are now > further exacerbated by the news report > > in a top national daily of India. And we find no visible support. > > Thanks > > parminder > > On Tuesday 08 April 2014 11:31 PM, Rishab Bailey wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> Further to the letter from Indian civil society groups to the Chair of >> NetMundial (regarding the appointment of the civil society co-chair >> for the meeting), please find attached: >> >> (a) the original letter from members of Indian civil society to Prof. >> Virgilio Almeida, >> (b) follow up email from members of Indian civil society to Prof. >> Virgilio Almeida; >> (b) response of Prof. Almeida to Indian civil society groups. >> >> Also do note a recent article published in a leading Indian newspaper >> giving some of the context behind this: >> http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/executive-of-telecom-giant-that-aided-nsa-spying-is-on-india-s-cyber-security-panel/article1-1205483.aspx >> >> >> Two of the documents referred to in the above article (concerning >> plagiarism charges) are also attached to this email. >> >> Regards, >> Rishab Bailey >> (for the Society for Knowledge Commons, India) > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 lorena at collaboratory.de Thu Apr 10 04:00:19 2014 From: lorena at collaboratory.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lorena_Jaume-Palas=ED?=) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 10:00:19 +0200 Subject: AW: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Letters from Indian Civil Society organisations to the Chair of NetMundial regarding appointment of civil society co-chair Message-ID: +1 Von Samsung Galaxy Note gesendetAvri Doria hat geschrieben: Ian, Thank you for this.  I was afraid to jump into this discussion, but I want to endorse what you have said. avri On 10-Apr-14 03:23, Ian Peter wrote: > Hi Parminder, >  > I did respond last time you posted information on this several weeks > back, but let me respond again as this is escalating. >  > Firstly, I agree with you and the Indian civil society groups that the > appointment and the way it was undertaken was less than optimal. I also > agree that far more experienced candidates in the area of internet > governance were available – including from India, and including women > from India. >  > However, despite her inexperience in internet governance areas, Subi > Chaturvedi appears to be quite active in civil society issues, > particularly feminist issues. I am concerned that what is happening is > that this is becoming an increasingly personal attack on a young Indian > woman whose only “crime”, as far as I can see, is being ambitious. And > there are plenty more of us who share that. >  > The newspaper article clearly was written with the assistance of some > civil society groups or members to discredit her. It is not regular > “news”, and may or may not be accurate in all of its assertions. > However, it has the elements of a personal attack. >  > So I am personally uncomfortable with pursuing this any further, while > recognising that it was important for Indian NGOs to make the initial > contact with the Chair to express reservations. Someone has given less > than optimal advice to the Chair, and we may not have the best civil > society rep appointed, but I believe the most important thing now is not > to pursue personal attacks and to work as best we can during NetMundial > in the prevailing circumstances. >  > Ian Peter >  >  >  >  > *From:* parminder > *Sent:* Thursday, April 10, 2014 3:47 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* [governance] Re: [bestbits] Letters from Indian Civil Society > organisations to the Chair of NetMundial regarding appointment of civil > society co-chair >  > > I wonder if civil society groups have any response to the below... > > this issue was first brought to the notice to global civil society > groups a few weeks back when almost all civil society organisations from > India wrote a letter against appointment of Subi as co chair of > NetMundial... It was most disappointing to face a stony silence from the > global networks with regard to that representation, which is indeed > disrespectful of the Indian civil society. > > Now, we have a newspaper report > > which not only produces evidence of plagiarism against Subi but , much > more importantly, also shows clearly who is behind her installation as > NetMundial Co chair - the US big business. And still no response. > > May I request the IGC co-cos to take up this issue. And also 1Net > steering committee members, and civil society members of the executive > committee and high level committee. > > At least please respond to the issue. > > If civil society reps wont respond to this issue, I am not sure what > they would respond to, and in which manner they then 'represent' civil > society... Here there is practically the entire Indian civil society > involved in IG writing a representation, about issues that are now > further exacerbated by the news report > > in a top national daily of India. And we find no visible support. > > Thanks > > parminder > > On Tuesday 08 April 2014 11:31 PM, Rishab Bailey wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> Further to the letter from Indian civil society groups to the Chair of >> NetMundial (regarding the appointment of the civil society co-chair >> for the meeting), please find attached: >> >> (a) the original letter from members of Indian civil society to Prof. >> Virgilio Almeida, >> (b) follow up email from members of Indian civil society to Prof. >> Virgilio Almeida; >> (b) response of Prof. Almeida to Indian civil society groups. >> >> Also do note a recent article published in a leading Indian newspaper >> giving some of the context behind this: >> http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/executive-of-telecom-giant-that-aided-nsa-spying-is-on-india-s-cyber-security-panel/article1-1205483.aspx >> >> >> Two of the documents referred to in the above article (concerning >> plagiarism charges) are also attached to this email. >> >> Regards, >> Rishab Bailey >> (for the Society for Knowledge Commons, India) > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Apr 10 05:10:30 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 14:40:30 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Letters from Indian Civil Society organisations to the Chair of NetMundial regarding appointment of civil society co-chair In-Reply-To: <24625ED183D24F89B37AE129F898377D@Toshiba> References: <5346306D.8010107@itforchange.net> <24625ED183D24F89B37AE129F898377D@Toshiba> Message-ID: <53466006.80804@itforchange.net> Ian Your response is well I dont know whether I should call it shocking or amusing... As the article shows, it is not about Subi but what and who is behind her. One question occurs to me to ask you and I will be happy if you respond to it. Would you have been as indifferent if you had learnt on considerable evidence that someone had been planted into the position of civil society co chair of NetMundial by say, the Iranian government? Why would a similar subversive act of US big business look any different to you, and your supporters here? parminder PS: The shocking part are the considerable allegations your email below makes about the Indian civil society groups involved and the journalist/ newspaper who wrote the article... I simply dont know what to make of your stance. On Thursday 10 April 2014 12:53 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Hi Parminder, > I did respond last time you posted information on this several weeks > back, but let me respond again as this is escalating. > Firstly, I agree with you and the Indian civil society groups that the > appointment and the way it was undertaken was less than optimal. I > also agree that far more experienced candidates in the area of > internet governance were available – including from India, and > including women from India. > However, despite her inexperience in internet governance areas, Subi > Chaturvedi appears to be quite active in civil society issues, > particularly feminist issues. I am concerned that what is happening is > that this is becoming an increasingly personal attack on a young > Indian woman whose only “crime”, as far as I can see, is being > ambitious. And there are plenty more of us who share that. > The newspaper article clearly was written with the assistance of some > civil society groups or members to discredit her. It is not regular > “news”, and may or may not be accurate in all of its assertions. > However, it has the elements of a personal attack. > So I am personally uncomfortable with pursuing this any further, while > recognising that it was important for Indian NGOs to make the initial > contact with the Chair to express reservations. Someone has given less > than optimal advice to the Chair, and we may not have the best civil > society rep appointed, but I believe the most important thing now is > not to pursue personal attacks and to work as best we can during > NetMundial in the prevailing circumstances. > Ian Peter > *From:* parminder > *Sent:* Thursday, April 10, 2014 3:47 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > ; > mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* [governance] Re: [bestbits] Letters from Indian Civil > Society organisations to the Chair of NetMundial regarding appointment > of civil society co-chair > > I wonder if civil society groups have any response to the below... > > this issue was first brought to the notice to global civil society > groups a few weeks back when almost all civil society organisations > from India wrote a letter against appointment of Subi as co chair of > NetMundial... It was most disappointing to face a stony silence from > the global networks with regard to that representation, which is > indeed disrespectful of the Indian civil society. > > Now, we have a newspaper report > > which not only produces evidence of plagiarism against Subi but , much > more importantly, also shows clearly who is behind her installation as > NetMundial Co chair - the US big business. And still no response. > > May I request the IGC co-cos to take up this issue. And also 1Net > steering committee members, and civil society members of the executive > committee and high level committee. > > At least please respond to the issue. > > If civil society reps wont respond to this issue, I am not sure what > they would respond to, and in which manner they then 'represent' civil > society... Here there is practically the entire Indian civil society > involved in IG writing a representation, about issues that are now > further exacerbated by the news report > > in a top national daily of India. And we find no visible support. > > Thanks > > parminder > > On Tuesday 08 April 2014 11:31 PM, Rishab Bailey wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> Further to the letter from Indian civil society groups to the Chair >> of NetMundial (regarding the appointment of the civil society >> co-chair for the meeting), please find attached: >> >> (a) the original letter from members of Indian civil society to Prof. >> Virgilio Almeida, >> (b) follow up email from members of Indian civil society to Prof. >> Virgilio Almeida; >> (b) response of Prof. Almeida to Indian civil society groups. >> >> Also do note a recent article published in a leading Indian newspaper >> giving some of the context behind this: >> http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/executive-of-telecom-giant-that-aided-nsa-spying-is-on-india-s-cyber-security-panel/article1-1205483.aspx >> >> >> Two of the documents referred to in the above article (concerning >> plagiarism charges) are also attached to this email. >> >> Regards, >> Rishab Bailey >> (for the Society for Knowledge Commons, India) > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Thu Apr 10 05:42:43 2014 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 17:42:43 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Proposed Best Bits steering committee election process In-Reply-To: References: <86D12485-F984-4F59-944A-CA456618A1B0@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <89DF0B96-2FE2-499A-9E9F-B08F54B8BCA0@Malcolm.id.au> Dear all, Following on from the annual report that the interim steering committee of Best Bits that was circulated earlier, we also undertook to propose a process for the appointment of a new steering committee. A rough-consensus based process had already been proposed last year (see http://bestbits.net/wiki/main/procedures/ since then), but subsequent to our Bali meeting a few criticisms of it were made on the list, so we have gone back to the drawing board. The new proposal for renewing the Best Bits steering committee is a cross between the earlier version, and the method used by the Internet Governance Caucus, which many of you will already be familiar with: essentially it is a more traditional election process. Here is what we are proposing: Election will be called for 1 June 2014, running for 14 days Anyone can claim voting rights if they: have been subscribed to the list for 2 months prior to the election being called; and agree to the existing statement of objectives (see http://bestbits.net/organizer/best-bits/). Voting is for each of 5 regional positions (voting for each separately) and 3 non-geographical positions (voting together): Regions are Africa, Asia-Pacific, Latin America and Caribbean, Europe, North America/Other Total 8 positions, but "no candidate" is also an option which may result in fewer positions filled Candidates can run for a regional position or for a non-geographical position simultaneously, ie. they need not elect for one position or the other. Votes are counted using a "first past the post" system Across the whole committee there must be at least 40% each gender - if not, the election will be run again, unless there is a broad consensus amongst all voters to validate the election notwithstanding the failure to reach this standard. Candidates can serve a minimum term of 1 year, maximum of 3 years, with a 1 year gap before reappointment. Candidacy is open to civil society participants only. Between now and 1 May 2014 comments on the proposed election procedure are open, then from 1 May 2014, assuming no changes to the procedure have been made in the interim, we will open for nominations for the steering committee. From that time, candidates may post their platform for election to the list. Hopefully this revised procedure, being a more conventional election process, addresses the concerns that were raised earlier. If anyone has any thoughts or comments, please post them to the list for discussion. -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From anriette at apc.org Thu Apr 10 05:45:42 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 11:45:42 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Letters from Indian Civil Society organisations to the Chair of NetMundial regarding appointment of civil society co-chair In-Reply-To: <53465BD5.303@apc.org> References: <53465BD5.303@apc.org> Message-ID: <53466846.3040208@apc.org> Resending this. Seems not to have gone through earlier. Anriette ----------- Dear Parminder and all I shared the concerns expressed in the original letter from civil society to the Chair of the NetMundial, and feel that the selection process of the co-chairs were simply not 'solid' enough. Concerns have been raised by some of the other co-chairs too. I think it was important for Indian civil society to send this letter. There are many examples when selection of non-governmental stakeholders is done in a pretty roughshod personalised ways. It affects CS most of all, but in this case selection of the business co-chair has also been questioned. It is an example of the lack of maturity/clarity etc. in multi-stakeholder processes which so many of you have discussed. But I believe that the point has been made, and that the best way to move forward is to focus on the event, on civil society's voice at the event, and on our influence on the outcomes. Engaging in taking this forward at this point would, I believe, put these at risk, and possibly harm the legitimacy of the overall process. Consider all the hard work that civil society colleagues in Brazil have put into this event. They are working very, very hard to make it inclusive, to get people CS to Sao Paulo, and to make sure that the process gives everyone equal voice. I am not saying the process is perfect, but I think effort has been made to keep it inclusive and transparent. This is clearly an example of certain decisions being problematicm - this being one of them. But I think that they have acknowledged it, and we should move on, and use this event as the strategic opportunity I still believe it can be. Co-chair selection should not be seen as a primary way of recognising CS. It is pretty ceremonial. Far more important for us to look at whether our views are reflected in the draft outcome docs. I also believe that continuing with this campaign will damage civil society in other ways. It is not a constructive struggle. Attacks of a personal nature against anyone tends to be negative and rarely have positive outcomes. At this point we should be looking at the bigger picture of the substantive issues that we want to be discussed at NetMundial. For example, I am concerned that surveillance is getting far less focus than it deserves to. There is just a short reference to mass surveillance in the draft outcome doc. Going forward the important challenge for us is to find ways of these processes become less adhoc in the future. Anriette On 10/04/2014 07:47, parminder wrote: > > I wonder if civil society groups have any response to the below... > > this issue was first brought to the notice to global civil society > groups a few weeks back when almost all civil society organisations > from India wrote a letter against appointment of Subi as co chair of > NetMundial... It was most disappointing to face a stony silence from > the global networks with regard to that representation, which is > indeed disrespectful of the Indian civil society. > > Now, we have a newspaper report > > which not only produces evidence of plagiarism against Subi but , much > more importantly, also shows clearly who is behind her installation as > NetMundial Co chair - the US big business. And still no response. > > May I request the IGC co-cos to take up this issue. And also 1Net > steering committee members, and civil society members of the executive > committee and high level committee. > > At least please respond to the issue. > > If civil society reps wont respond to this issue, I am not sure what > they would respond to, and in which manner they then 'represent' civil > society... Here there is practically the entire Indian civil society > involved in IG writing a representation, about issues that are now > further exacerbated by the news report > > in a top national daily of India. And we find no visible support. > > Thanks > > parminder > > On Tuesday 08 April 2014 11:31 PM, Rishab Bailey wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> Further to the letter from Indian civil society groups to the Chair >> of NetMundial (regarding the appointment of the civil society >> co-chair for the meeting), please find attached: >> >> (a) the original letter from members of Indian civil society to Prof. >> Virgilio Almeida, >> (b) follow up email from members of Indian civil society to Prof. >> Virgilio Almeida; >> (b) response of Prof. Almeida to Indian civil society groups. >> >> Also do note a recent article published in a leading Indian newspaper >> giving some of the context behind this: >> http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/executive-of-telecom-giant-that-aided-nsa-spying-is-on-india-s-cyber-security-panel/article1-1205483.aspx >> >> >> Two of the documents referred to in the above article (concerning >> plagiarism charges) are also attached to this email. >> >> Regards, >> Rishab Bailey >> (for the Society for Knowledge Commons, India) > -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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: From mctimconsulting at gmail.com Thu Apr 10 06:39:51 2014 From: mctimconsulting at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 06:39:51 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Proposed Best Bits steering committee election process In-Reply-To: <89DF0B96-2FE2-499A-9E9F-B08F54B8BCA0@Malcolm.id.au> References: <86D12485-F984-4F59-944A-CA456618A1B0@Malcolm.id.au> <89DF0B96-2FE2-499A-9E9F-B08F54B8BCA0@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: Jeremy, I think overall it is solid, except for the gender bits. Are you really proposing to invalidate the election if the 40% threshold isn't met? Wouldn't it be better to mandate that a number (say 50%) of candidates be women or the election won't be run? Invalidating an election should only be done if there improprieties in the process IMHO. rgds, McTim On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Dear all, > > Following on from the annual report that the interim steering committee of > Best Bits that was circulated earlier, we also undertook to propose a > process for the appointment of a new steering committee. A rough-consensus > based process had already been proposed last year (see > http://bestbits.net/wiki/main/procedures/ since then), but subsequent to our > Bali meeting a few criticisms of it were made on the list, so we have gone > back to the drawing board. > > The new proposal for renewing the Best Bits steering committee is a cross > between the earlier version, and the method used by the Internet Governance > Caucus, which many of you will already be familiar with: essentially it is a > more traditional election process. Here is what we are proposing: > > Election will be called for 1 June 2014, running for 14 days > Anyone can claim voting rights if they: > > have been subscribed to the list for 2 months prior to the election being > called; and > agree to the existing statement of objectives (see > http://bestbits.net/organizer/best-bits/). > > Voting is for each of 5 regional positions (voting for each separately) and > 3 non-geographical positions (voting together): > > Regions are Africa, Asia-Pacific, Latin America and Caribbean, Europe, North > America/Other > Total 8 positions, but "no candidate" is also an option which may result in > fewer positions filled > > Candidates can run for a regional position or for a non-geographical > position simultaneously, ie. they need not elect for one position or the > other. > Votes are counted using a "first past the post" system > Across the whole committee there must be at least 40% each gender - if not, > the election will be run again, unless there is a broad consensus amongst > all voters to validate the election notwithstanding the failure to reach > this standard. > Candidates can serve a minimum term of 1 year, maximum of 3 years, with a 1 > year gap before reappointment. > Candidacy is open to civil society participants only. > > > Between now and 1 May 2014 comments on the proposed election procedure are > open, then from 1 May 2014, assuming no changes to the procedure have been > made in the interim, we will open for nominations for the steering > committee. From that time, candidates may post their platform for election > to the list. > > Hopefully this revised procedure, being a more conventional election > process, addresses the concerns that were raised earlier. If anyone has any > thoughts or comments, please post them to the list for discussion. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From iza at anr.org Thu Apr 10 06:52:02 2014 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 19:52:02 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Letters from Indian Civil Society organisations to the Chair of NetMundial regarding appointment of civil society co-chair In-Reply-To: References: <5346306D.8010107@itforchange.net> <24625ED183D24F89B37AE129F898377D@Toshiba> <53466006.80804@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi, I also share the discomfort expressed by Indian civil society groups on the selection process, but was afraid to say more than that as I have little capacity and interest in examining what is true or who is right inside Indian CS community. Thus I echo with Anriette's fairly neutral, honest and constructive approach. Let's move on. Izumi 2014年4月10日木曜日、McTimさんは書きました: > I agree with Ian. > > These seem to be unfounded allegations. In short a smear campaign > with zero evidence behind it. > > "Deepening the controversy, Bhatia also appears to be particularly > close to one of the civil society bodies on the MAG. Media for Change > is a trust operated by Subi Chaturvedi, an assistant professor at > Delhi-based Lady Shri Ram College for women. " > > Being "particularly close" is not evidence of any wrongdoing. > > I agree with Anriette. It is also impolitic. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 5:10 AM, parminder > wrote: > > Ian > > > > Your response is well I dont know whether I should call it shocking or > > amusing... As the article shows, it is not about Subi but what and who is > > behind her. One question occurs to me to ask you and I will be happy if > you > > respond to it. Would you have been as indifferent if you had learnt on > > considerable evidence that someone had been planted into the position of > > civil society co chair of NetMundial by say, the Iranian government? Why > > would a similar subversive act of US big business look any different to > you, > > and your supporters here? > > > > parminder > > > > PS: The shocking part are the considerable allegations your email below > > makes about the Indian civil society groups involved and the journalist/ > > newspaper who wrote the article... I simply dont know what to make of > your > > stance. > > > > > > On Thursday 10 April 2014 12:53 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > > Hi Parminder, > > > > I did respond last time you posted information on this several weeks > back, > > but let me respond again as this is escalating. > > > > Firstly, I agree with you and the Indian civil society groups that the > > appointment and the way it was undertaken was less than optimal. I also > > agree that far more experienced candidates in the area of internet > > governance were available - including from India, and including women > from > > India. > > > > However, despite her inexperience in internet governance areas, Subi > > Chaturvedi appears to be quite active in civil society issues, > particularly > > feminist issues. I am concerned that what is happening is that this is > > becoming an increasingly personal attack on a young Indian woman whose > only > > “crime”, as far as I can see, is being ambitious. And there are plenty > more > > of us who share that. > > > > The newspaper article clearly was written with the assistance of some > civil > > society groups or members to discredit her. It is not regular “news”, and > > may or may not be accurate in all of its assertions. However, it has the > > elements of a personal attack. > > > > So I am personally uncomfortable with pursuing this any further, while > > recognising that it was important for Indian NGOs to make the initial > > contact with the Chair to express reservations. Someone has given less > than > > optimal advice to the Chair, and we may not have the best civil society > rep > > appointed, but I believe the most important thing now is not to pursue > > personal attacks and to work as best we can during NetMundial in the > > prevailing circumstances. > > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > > > > > From: parminder > > Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 3:47 PM > > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Letters from Indian Civil Society > > organisations to the Chair of NetMundial regarding appointment of civil > > society co-chair > > > > > > I wonder if civil society groups have any response to the below... > > > > this issue was first brought to the notice to global civil society > groups a > > few weeks back when almost all civil society organisations from India > wrote > > a letter against appointment of Subi as co chair of NetMundial... It was > > most disappointing to face a stony silence from the global networks with > > regard to that representation, which is indeed disrespectful of the > Indian > > civil society. > > > > Now, we have a newspaper report which not only produces evidence of > > plagiarism against Subi but , much more importantly, also shows clearly > who > > is behind her installation as NetMundial Co chair - the US big business. > And > > still no response. > > > > May I request the IGC co-cos to take up this issue. And also 1Net > steering > > committee members, and civil society members of the executive committee > and > > high level committee. > > > > At least please respond to the issue. > > > > If civil society reps wont respond to this issue, I am not sure what they > > would respond to, and in which manner they then 'represent' civil > society... > > Here there is practically the entire Indian civil society involved in IG > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Thu Apr 10 09:21:48 2014 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 21:21:48 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Proposed Best Bits steering committee election process In-Reply-To: References: <86D12485-F984-4F59-944A-CA456618A1B0@Malcolm.id.au> <89DF0B96-2FE2-499A-9E9F-B08F54B8BCA0@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <25618984-88E5-4E7A-8B9D-F78673A8AB74@Malcolm.id.au> On 10 Apr 2014, at 6:39 pm, McTim wrote: > I think overall it is solid, except for the gender bits. Are you > really proposing to invalidate the election if the 40% threshold isn't > met? > > Wouldn't it be better to mandate that a number (say 50%) of candidates > be women or the election won't be run? Thanks. It's a good suggestion and I agree that it would make sense to apply this to the candidates who put themselves forward for election. But based on someone else's previous suggestion (I don't remember whose, sorry) that it be "at least x% of each gender" rather than "at least x% women", we should keep the threshold to 40%, so that an imbalance of up to 10% of either gender won't prevent the election from being run. -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Apr 10 09:32:18 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 22:32:18 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Letters from Indian Civil Society organisations to the Chair of NetMundial regarding appointment of civil society co-chair In-Reply-To: References: <5346306D.8010107@itforchange.net> <24625ED183D24F89B37AE129F898377D@Toshiba> <53466006.80804@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1430C804-72AC-4848-8309-BAB3C80B8D0C@glocom.ac.jp> On Apr 10, 2014, at 9:56 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > In this discussion we seem to be missing the most important issue; as Suresh wrote earlier in this thread "most people on the list don't know her from adam". If we can demonstrate in a more concrete manner that the statement is true, and not simply an individual opinion, then that should be communicated to the meeting organisers and to the general community. Whoever the "representative of civil society" is, he/she should be recognised by civil society as coming from among them. After members of a number of Indian civil society organizations raised this matter a few weeks ago, we asked for clarification through the executive multistakeholder committee. We were told the selection of co-chairs was the prerogative of the host country chair of the meeting. This is not unusual, for example the selection of Chair of the IGF and IGF session chairs is the choice of the host country. It seems no stakeholder group was consulted about these appointments, civil society has not been treated differently (that of course does not make it right.) So it doesn't really matter if we "don't know her from adam" (hello :-)). I am not saying this is the correct way to continue, and hopefully we'll see relevant text about the broader issue of selection for such positions in the NETmundial drafts. As for the content of the newspaper article, there's a lot of conjecture and not very much relevant fact. That is not to dismiss the concerns of the organizations raising the complaint, but there's not much hard evidence. I agree with Anriette's comments. Adam > Apart from that I agree with Anriette and others that we should be focussing our energy on the preliminary documents for the meeting. > Deirdre > > > On 10 April 2014 06:52, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Hi, > I also share the discomfort expressed by Indian civil society groups on the selection process, but was afraid to say more than that as I have little capacity and interest in examining what is true or who is right inside Indian CS community. > > Thus I echo with Anriette's fairly neutral, honest and constructive approach. > > Let's move on. > > Izumi > > > 2014年4月10日木曜日、McTimさんは書きました: > > I agree with Ian. > > These seem to be unfounded allegations. In short a smear campaign > with zero evidence behind it. > > "Deepening the controversy, Bhatia also appears to be particularly > close to one of the civil society bodies on the MAG. Media for Change > is a trust operated by Subi Chaturvedi, an assistant professor at > Delhi-based Lady Shri Ram College for women. " > > Being "particularly close" is not evidence of any wrongdoing. > > I agree with Anriette. It is also impolitic. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 5:10 AM, parminder wrote: > > Ian > > > > Your response is well I dont know whether I should call it shocking or > > amusing... As the article shows, it is not about Subi but what and who is > > behind her. One question occurs to me to ask you and I will be happy if you > > respond to it. Would you have been as indifferent if you had learnt on > > considerable evidence that someone had been planted into the position of > > civil society co chair of NetMundial by say, the Iranian government? Why > > would a similar subversive act of US big business look any different to you, > > and your supporters here? > > > > parminder > > > > PS: The shocking part are the considerable allegations your email below > > makes about the Indian civil society groups involved and the journalist/ > > newspaper who wrote the article... I simply dont know what to make of your > > stance. > > > > > > On Thursday 10 April 2014 12:53 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > > Hi Parminder, > > > > I did respond last time you posted information on this several weeks back, > > but let me respond again as this is escalating. > > > > Firstly, I agree with you and the Indian civil society groups that the > > appointment and the way it was undertaken was less than optimal. I also > > agree that far more experienced candidates in the area of internet > > governance were available – including from India, and including women from > > India. > > > > However, despite her inexperience in internet governance areas, Subi > > Chaturvedi appears to be quite active in civil society issues, particularly > > feminist issues. I am concerned that what is happening is that this is > > becoming an increasingly personal attack on a young Indian woman whose only > > “crime”, as far as I can see, is being ambitious. And there are plenty more > > of us who share that. > > > > The newspaper article clearly was written with the assistance of some civil > > society groups or members to discredit her. It is not regular “news”, and > > may or may not be accurate in all of its assertions. However, it has the > > elements of a personal attack. > > > > So I am personally uncomfortable with pursuing this any further, while > > recognising that it was important for Indian NGOs to make the initial > > contact with the Chair to express reservations. Someone has given less than > > optimal advice to the Chair, and we may not have the best civil society rep > > appointed, but I believe the most important thing now is not to pursue > > personal attacks and to work as best we can during NetMundial in the > > prevailing circumstances. > > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > > > > > From: parminder > > Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 3:47 PM > > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Letters from Indian Civil Society > > organisations to the Chair of NetMundial regarding appointment of civil > > society co-chair > > > > > > I wonder if civil society groups have any response to the below... > > > > this issue was first brought to the notice to global civil society groups a > > few weeks back when almost all civil society organisations from India wrote > > a letter against appointment of Subi as co chair of NetMundial... It was > > most disappointing to face a stony silence from the global networks with > > regard to that representation, which is indeed disrespectful of the Indian > > civil society. > > > > Now, we have a newspaper report which not only produces evidence of > > plagiarism against Subi but , much more importantly, also shows clearly who > > is behind her installation as NetMundial Co chair - the US big business. And > > still no response. > > > > May I request the IGC co-cos to take up this issue. And also 1Net steering > > committee members, and civil society members of the executive committee and > > high level committee. > > > > At least please respond to the issue. > > > > If civil society reps wont respond to this issue, I am not sure what they > > would respond to, and in which manner they then 'represent' civil society... > > Here there is practically the entire Indian civil society involved in IG > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 bkilic at citizen.org Thu Apr 10 10:45:45 2014 From: bkilic at citizen.org (Burcu Kilic) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 09:45:45 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] USTR Warns That EU-Only Cloud To Avoid NSA Surveillance May Violate Trade Agreements Message-ID: <7EAF272369C6F04CBEFC04A7A354D7AC0BA6FD91B7@MBX22.exg5.exghost.com> More on USTR's review of compliance with telecommunications trade agreements. EU-Only Cloud would be a sticking point in TTIP/ TAFTA negotiations. Got that, Europeans? If you dare to try to protect yourselves by creating a slightly more secure EU-only cloud in response to the NSA breaking into everything and anything, you may find yourself referred to the World Trade Organization or something.... USTR Warns That EU-Only Cloud To Avoid NSA Surveillance May Violate Trade Agreements http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140409/08121226855/ustr-makes-ill-judged-criticism-european-plans-to-create-eu-only-cloud-response-to-nsa-spying.shtml Glyn Moody The USTR seems to have a worrying need to blame other countries. Alongside the infamous Special 301 Report which puts a selection of nations on the naughty step because of their failure to bend to the will of the US copyright industries, there's the less well-known Section 1377 Review , which considers "Compliance with Telecommunications Trade Agreements." Here's some information about the latest one (pdf): The Section 1377 Review ("Review") is based on public comments filed by interested parties and information developed from ongoing contact with industry, private sector, and foreign government representatives in various countries. This year USTR received four comments and two reply comments from the private sector, and one comment from a foreign government. Clearly something of a specialist area, then. One of those comments comes from the United States Council for International Business, which describes itself as "among the premier pro-trade, pro-market liberalization organizations." A concern it raises is the following: The ability to send, access and manage data remotely across borders is integral to global services, including converged and hybrid services such as cloud services. However, the tremendous increase in cross-border data flows has raised concerns on the part of many governments. Given that cross-border services trade is, at its essence, the exchange of data, unnecessary restrictions on data flows have the effect of creating barriers to trade in services. That seems to be reflected in the following section of the USTR's review: Recent proposals from countries within the European Union to create a Europe-only electronic network (dubbed a "Schengen cloud" by advocates) or to create national-only electronic networks could potentially lead to effective exclusion or discrimination against foreign service suppliers that are directly offering network services, or dependent on them. In particular: Deutsche Telekom AG (DTAG), Germany's biggest phone company, is publicly advocating for EU-wide statutory requirements that electronic transmissions between EU residents stay within the territory of the EU, in the name of stronger privacy protection. Specifically, DTAG has called for statutory requirements that all data generated within the EU not be unnecessarily routed outside of the EU; and has called for revocation of the U.S.-EU "Safe Harbor" Framework, which has provided a practical mechanism for both U.S companies and their business partners in Europe to export data to the United States, while adhering to EU privacy requirements. Of course, Deutsche Telekom is not the only one calling for Safe Harbor to be revoked: the European Parliament's inquiry into the mass surveillance of EU citizens has also proposed that, along with a complete rejection of TAFTA/TTIP unless it respects the rights of Europeans. Strangely, the USTR doesn't mention that fact in its complaint, but goes on to say: The United States and the EU share common interests in protecting their citizens' privacy, but the draconian approach proposed by DTAG and others appears to be a means of providing protectionist advantage to EU-based ICT suppliers. You've got to love the idea that too much privacy protection is "draconian". The USTR continues to tiptoe around the real reason that not just Deutsche Telekom but even Germany's Chancellor, Angela Merkel, are both keen on the idea of an EU-only cloud: Given the breath of legitimate services that rely on geographically-dispersed data processing and storage, a requirement to route all traffic involving EU consumers within Europe, would decrease efficiency and stifle innovation. For example, a supplier may transmit, store, and process its data outside the EU more efficiently, depending on the location of its data centers. An innovative supplier from outside of Europe may refrain from offering its services in the EU because it may find EU-based storage and processing requirements infeasible for nascent services launched from outside of Europe. The USTR saves what it obviously sees as its killer punch for last: Furthermore, any mandatory intra-EU routing may raise questions with respect to compliance with the EU's trade obligations with respect to Internet-enabled services. Accordingly, USTR will be carefully monitoring the development of any such proposals. Got that, Europeans? If you dare to try to protect yourselves by creating a slightly more secure EU-only cloud in response to the NSA breaking into everything and anything, you may find yourself referred to the World Trade Organization or something.... It's interesting that the USTR brings up this issue -- doubtless a reflection of the huge direct losses that revelations about massive surveillance on Europeans and others are likely to cause the US computing industry. But trying to paint itself as the wronged party here is not going to endear the USTR to European politicians. At a time when Safe Harbor and even the TAFTA/TTIP negotiations are being called into question in the EU, such an aggressive and insulting stance seems a very stupid move. ----- Burcu Kilic, Ph.D. Public Citizen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Thu Apr 10 11:26:51 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 11:26:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Letters from Indian Civil Society organisations to the Chair of NetMundial regarding appointment of civil society co-chair In-Reply-To: References: <5346306D.8010107@itforchange.net> <24625ED183D24F89B37AE129F898377D@Toshiba> <53466006.80804@itforchange.net> <1430C804-72AC-4848-8309-BAB3C80B8D0C@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <5346B83B.7020502@acm.org> On 10-Apr-14 10:46, Deirdre Williams wrote: > For myself I had never heard of her before the announcement and had some > difficulty finding any information. (And I do know Adam :-) ) Just to say, I had been on several panels with her in previous years and knew her as well as I know many people on the CS lists, better than I know some, and less well than others. Just did not want the meme that no one knew her to get set too firmly set. avri From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Apr 10 11:48:51 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 12:48:51 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Letters from Indian Civil Society organisations to the Chair of NetMundial regarding appointment of civil society co-chair In-Reply-To: <53466846.3040208@apc.org> References: <53465BD5.303@apc.org> <53466846.3040208@apc.org> Message-ID: <5346BD63.5050508@cafonso.ca> I obviously (writing in my personal capacity, not representing anyone) agree with Anriette. I respect the internal divergences and political struggles within India, but this "war on Chaturvedi" got out of proportion, particularly because the locus of concrete decisions regarding NETmundial is *not* in the meeting's chairship. A "war", incidentally, which I did not see when she was appointed to the MAG, but then it might have happened and escaped me. As the issue seems to be recurrent now, I am really concerned our excellent and combative CS reps from India might take this as *the* issue in the scant two days we will have in Sampa. Prioritize, please! fraternal regards --c.a. On 04/10/2014 06:45 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Resending this. Seems not to have gone through earlier. > > Anriette > > ----------- > > Dear Parminder and all > > I shared the concerns expressed in the original letter from civil > society to the Chair of the NetMundial, and feel that the selection > process of the co-chairs were simply not 'solid' enough. Concerns have > been raised by some of the other co-chairs too. I think it was important > for Indian civil society to send this letter. There are many examples > when selection of non-governmental stakeholders is done in a pretty > roughshod personalised ways. It affects CS most of all, but in this case > selection of the business co-chair has also been questioned. It is an > example of the lack of maturity/clarity etc. in multi-stakeholder > processes which so many of you have discussed. > > But I believe that the point has been made, and that the best way to > move forward is to focus on the event, on civil society's voice at the > event, and on our influence on the outcomes. > > Engaging in taking this forward at this point would, I believe, put > these at risk, and possibly harm the legitimacy of the overall process. > Consider all the hard work that civil society colleagues in Brazil have > put into this event. They are working very, very hard to make it > inclusive, to get people CS to Sao Paulo, and to make sure that the > process gives everyone equal voice. > > I am not saying the process is perfect, but I think effort has been made > to keep it inclusive and transparent. This is clearly an example of > certain decisions being problematicm - this being one of them. But I > think that they have acknowledged it, and we should move on, and use > this event as the strategic opportunity I still believe it can be. > Co-chair selection should not be seen as a primary way of recognising > CS. It is pretty ceremonial. Far more important for us to look at > whether our views are reflected in the draft outcome docs. > > I also believe that continuing with this campaign will damage civil > society in other ways. It is not a constructive struggle. Attacks of a > personal nature against anyone tends to be negative and rarely have > positive outcomes. > > At this point we should be looking at the bigger picture of the > substantive issues that we want to be discussed at NetMundial. For > example, I am concerned that surveillance is getting far less focus than > it deserves to. There is just a short reference to mass surveillance in > the draft outcome doc. > > Going forward the important challenge for us is to find ways of these > processes become less adhoc in the future. > > Anriette > > > On 10/04/2014 07:47, parminder wrote: >> >> I wonder if civil society groups have any response to the below... >> >> this issue was first brought to the notice to global civil society >> groups a few weeks back when almost all civil society organisations >> from India wrote a letter against appointment of Subi as co chair of >> NetMundial... It was most disappointing to face a stony silence from >> the global networks with regard to that representation, which is >> indeed disrespectful of the Indian civil society. >> >> Now, we have a newspaper report >> >> which not only produces evidence of plagiarism against Subi but , much >> more importantly, also shows clearly who is behind her installation as >> NetMundial Co chair - the US big business. And still no response. >> >> May I request the IGC co-cos to take up this issue. And also 1Net >> steering committee members, and civil society members of the executive >> committee and high level committee. >> >> At least please respond to the issue. >> >> If civil society reps wont respond to this issue, I am not sure what >> they would respond to, and in which manner they then 'represent' civil >> society... Here there is practically the entire Indian civil society >> involved in IG writing a representation, about issues that are now >> further exacerbated by the news report >> >> in a top national daily of India. And we find no visible support. >> >> Thanks >> >> parminder >> >> On Tuesday 08 April 2014 11:31 PM, Rishab Bailey wrote: >>> Dear All, >>> >>> Further to the letter from Indian civil society groups to the Chair >>> of NetMundial (regarding the appointment of the civil society >>> co-chair for the meeting), please find attached: >>> >>> (a) the original letter from members of Indian civil society to Prof. >>> Virgilio Almeida, >>> (b) follow up email from members of Indian civil society to Prof. >>> Virgilio Almeida; >>> (b) response of Prof. Almeida to Indian civil society groups. >>> >>> Also do note a recent article published in a leading Indian newspaper >>> giving some of the context behind this: >>> http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/executive-of-telecom-giant-that-aided-nsa-spying-is-on-india-s-cyber-security-panel/article1-1205483.aspx >>> >>> >>> Two of the documents referred to in the above article (concerning >>> plagiarism charges) are also attached to this email. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Rishab Bailey >>> (for the Society for Knowledge Commons, India) >> > From isolatedn at gmail.com Thu Apr 10 12:02:17 2014 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 21:32:17 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Message relevant to a very small proportion of List participants: from the southern region of India: NETmundial Remote Participation Hub Message-ID: List participants from the southern region of India, who prefer Chennai as a location for participation could take part from this Hub (There are five hubs in India in Total. This is about the Chennai Hub to be organized and operated by the Members of the Internet Society India Chennai) https://plus.google.com/u/0/events/c8qcjlodo83e59npikmbcsqbbcg?authkey=CJ_wlZCKtofiVQ The registration form is at page https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1P6yRl3KR0CdUliOtEQcU4LqJPmBW_zdzKxEC0NuD2a4/viewform Facebook Event page: https://www.facebook.com/events/752247164795246 Google + : https://plus.google.com/u/0/events/c8qcjlodo83e59npikmbcsqbbcg?authkey=CJ_wlZCKtofiVQ If you have friends from this region who may be interested, please share. There is a more importance purpose in looking for participants from this list: Participants familiar with the Internet Governance process and the current issues of relevance to NETmundial could offer an overview to those who are new to Internet Governance. In this hub, there are likely to be many who are new to the Internet Governance multi-stakeholder process and to the issues. Thank you Sivasubramanian M -- Sivasubramanian Muthusamy India +91 99524 03099 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Apr 10 12:11:50 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 01:11:50 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Letters from Indian Civil Society organisations to the Chair of NetMundial regarding appointment of civil society co-chair In-Reply-To: <6B4E431F-233D-4EC0-A8B1-20C55957AC55@hserus.net> References: <5346306D.8010107@itforchange.net> <24625ED183D24F89B37AE129F898377D@Toshiba> <53466006.80804@itforchange.net> <1430C804-72AC-4848-8309-BAB3C80B8D0C@glocom.ac.jp> <5346B83B.7020502@acm.org> <6B4E431F-233D-4EC0-A8B1-20C55957AC55@hserus.net> Message-ID: On Apr 11, 2014, at 12:37 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Good then. Just because parminder & friends haven't ever heard of her Suresh, "parminder & friends" happen to be a very reputable group of civil society organizations with the long history of serious contributions to Internet governance dialogue. They are also a very diverse group, that they are so united in this is a suggestion that we should pay attention. Your knee seems to be jerking again. And I agree with Carlos - "Prioritize, please!" Adam > doesn't mean she isn't reasonably active in igov, from what Avri says. Thanks for pointing that out. > > --srs (iPad) > >> On 10-Apr-2014, at 20:56, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 10-Apr-14 10:46, Deirdre Williams wrote: >>> For myself I had never heard of her before the announcement and had some >>> difficulty finding any information. (And I do know Adam :-) ) >> >> >> Just to say, I had been on several panels with her in previous years and >> knew her as well as I know many people on the CS lists, better than I >> know some, and less well than others. >> >> Just did not want the meme that no one knew her to get set too firmly set. >> >> avri >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 gurstein at gmail.com Thu Apr 10 18:23:27 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 15:23:27 -0700 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Letters from Indian Civil Society organisations to the Chair of NetMundial regarding appointment of civil society co-chair In-Reply-To: References: <5346306D.8010107@itforchange.net> <24625ED183D24F89B37AE129F898377D@Toshiba> <53466006.80804@itforchange.net> <1430C804-72AC-4848-8309-BAB3C80B8D0C@glocom.ac.jp> <5346B83B.7020502@acm.org> <6B4E431F-233D-4EC0-A8B1-20C55957AC55@hserus.net> Message-ID: <01f801cf550b$7f2005c0$7d601140$@gmail.com> Without commenting on the substance of the issues here and leaving aside issues of the suitability of Ms. Chaturvedi's appointment from a "character" perspective, something that perhaps would best be left to our Indian CS colleagues for comment; what is of particular significance to international Civil Society should be her suitability from a "political" perspective. Her evident ties to the corporate sector combined with the murky process of her nomination/appointment as co-Chair of the event without apparent consultation or evident deep ties to or extensive experience in the CS community casts further shadows on the overall legitimacy of the NetMundial multistakeholder process and its outcomes. M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Adam Peake Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 9:12 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian Cc: Avri Doria; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Letters from Indian Civil Society organisations to the Chair of NetMundial regarding appointment of civil society co-chair On Apr 11, 2014, at 12:37 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Good then. Just because parminder & friends haven't ever heard of her Suresh, "parminder & friends" happen to be a very reputable group of civil society organizations with the long history of serious contributions to Internet governance dialogue. They are also a very diverse group, that they are so united in this is a suggestion that we should pay attention. Your knee seems to be jerking again. And I agree with Carlos - "Prioritize, please!" Adam > doesn't mean she isn't reasonably active in igov, from what Avri says. Thanks for pointing that out. > > --srs (iPad) > >> On 10-Apr-2014, at 20:56, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 10-Apr-14 10:46, Deirdre Williams wrote: >>> For myself I had never heard of her before the announcement and had >>> some difficulty finding any information. (And I do know Adam :-) ) >> >> >> Just to say, I had been on several panels with her in previous years >> and knew her as well as I know many people on the CS lists, better >> than I know some, and less well than others. >> >> Just did not want the meme that no one knew her to get set too firmly set. >> >> avri >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 gurstein at gmail.com Thu Apr 10 20:04:46 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 17:04:46 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] FW: LDC's Turning Backs on Multistakeholder Trade Agreements In-Reply-To: <024c01cf5519$11a3bb00$34eb3100$@gmail.com> References: <024c01cf5519$11a3bb00$34eb3100$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <026301cf5519$a7068740$f51395c0$@gmail.com> These “Investor Treaties” are the trade equivalent of multistakeholder governance processes in that they give the private sector equal rights with governments in determining the contents of sectoral trade agreements. M From: sid-l at googlegroups.com [mailto:sid-l at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sid Shniad Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 12:17 PM To: undisclosed-recipients: Subject: Investor Treaties in Trouble http://us5.campaign-archive2.com/?u=fa9cf38799136b5660f367ba6 &id=3990f710bb&e=3f7d5d14f1 SOUTHNEWS No. 52, 10 April 2014 SOUTHNEWS is a service of the South Centre to provide information and news on topical issues from a South perspective. Visit the South Centre’s website: www.southcentre.int. Investor Treaties in Trouble By Martin Khor The tide is turning against investment treaties and free trade agreements that contain the controversial investor-state dispute system, as countries like Indonesia and Germany take action on this. The tide is turning against investment treaties that allow foreign investors to take up cases against host governments and claim compensation of up to billions of dollars. Indonesia has given notice to it will terminate its bilateral investment treaty (BIT) with the Netherlands, according to a statement issued by the Dutch Embassy in Jakarta last week. “The Indonesian Government has also mentioned it intends to terminate all of its 67 bilateral investment treaties”, according to the same statement. The Dutch statement has not been confirmed by Indonesia. But if this is correct, Indonesia joins South Africa, which last year announced it is ending all its BITS. Several other countries are also reviewing their investment treaties. This is prompted by increasing numbers of cases being brought against governments by foreign companies who claim that changes in government policies or contracts affect their future profits. Many countries have been asked to pay large compensations to companies under the treaties. The biggest claim was against Ecuador, which has to compensate an American oil company US$ 2.3 billion for cancelling a contract. The system empowering investors to sue governments in an international tribunal, thus bypassing national laws and courts, is a subject of controversy in Malaysia because it is part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) which the country is negotiating with 11 other countries. The investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system is contained in free trade agreements (especially those involving the United States) and also in BITS which countries sign among themselves to protect foreign investors’ rights. When these treaties containing ISDS were signed, many countries did not know they were opening themselves to legal cases that foreign investors can take up under loosely worded provisions that allow them to win cases where they claim they have not been treated fairly or that there expected revenues have been expropriated. Indonesia and South Africa are among many countries that faced such cases. The Indonesian government has been taken to the ICSID tribunal based in Washington by a British company, Churchill Mining, which claimed the government violated the UK-Indonesia BIT when its contract with a local government in East Kalimantan was cancelled. Reports indicate the company is claiming compensation of US$ 1 billion to US$ 2 billion in losses. This and other cases taken against Indonesia prompted the government to review whether it should retain its many BITS. South Africa had also been sued by a British mining company which claimed losses after the government introduced policies to boost the economic capacity of the blacks to redress apartheid policies. India is also reviewing its BITS, after many companies filed cases after the Supreme Court cancelled their 2G mobile communications licenses in the wake of a high-profile corruption scandal linked to the granting of the licenses. But it is not only developing countries that are getting disillusioned by the ISDS. Europe is getting cold feet over the investor-state dispute mechanism in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) it is negotiating with the US, similar to the mechanism in the TPPA. Several weeks ago, Germany told the European Commission that the TTIP must not have the investor-state dispute mechanism. Brigitte Zypries, an economy minister, told the German parliament that Berlin was determined to exclude arbitration rights from the TTIP deal, according to the Financial Times. “From the perspective of the [German] federal government, US investors in the EU have sufficient legal protection in the national courts,” she said. The French trade minister had earlier voiced opposition to ISDS, while a report commissioned by the United Kingdom government also pointed out problems with the mechanism. The European disillusionment has two causes. ISDS cases are also affecting the countries. Germany has been taken to ICSID by a Swedish company Vattenfall which claimed it suffered over a billion euros in losses resulting from the government’s decision to phase out nuclear power after the Fukushima disaster. And the European public is getting upset over the investment system. Two European organisations last year published a report showing how the international investment arbitration system is monopolised by a few big law firms, how the tribunals are riddled with conflicts of interest and the arbitrary nature of tribunal decisions. That report caused shockwaves not only in the civil society but also among European policy makers. In January, the European Commission suspended negotiations with the US on the ISDS provisions in the TTIP, and announced it would hold 90 days of consultations with the public over the issue. In Australia, the previous government decided it would not have an ISDS clause in its future FTAs and BITS, following a case taken against it by Philip Morris International which claimed loss of profits because of laws requiring only plain packaging on cigarette boxes. In Malaysia, the ISDS is one of the major controversial issues relating to the TPPA. Many business, professional and public-interest groups want the government to exclude the ISDS as a “red line” in the TPPA negotiations. Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Najib Tun Razak had also mentioned investment policy and ISDS as one of the issues (the others being government procurement and state owned enterprises) in the TTPA that may impinge on national sovereignty, when he was at the APEC Summit and TPPA Summit in Indonesia last year. So far the United States has stuck to its position that ISDS has to be part of the TPPA and TTIP. However if the emerging European opposition affects the TTIP negotiations, it could affect the TPPA as this would strengthen the position of those opposed to ISDS. Meanwhile, we can also expect more countries to review their BITS. Developing countries seeking to end their bilateral agreements with European countries can point to the fact that more and more European countries are themselves having second thoughts about the ISDS embedded in these agreements. Author: Martin Khor is the Executive Director of the South Centre. Contact: director at southcentre.int. To view other articles in SouthNews, please click here. For more information, please contact Vicente Paolo Yu of the South Centre: Email yu at southcentre.int, or telephone +41 22 791 80 50 . -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sid-l" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sid-l+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. !DSPAM:2676,5346ee1c215691981217163! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Fri Apr 11 01:09:09 2014 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 13:09:09 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] URGENT - statement commenting on draft NETmundial text to be posted 8.5 hours from now Message-ID: <20DDED60-F1B3-4EA1-9067-94541E513F72@Malcolm.id.au> Yesterday the Best Bits participants who are helping to organise the NETmundial civil society pre-meeting on 22 April held a call about the meeting (more on this later), and also, thought not on the agenda, there was consensus that it would be strategically important to post a short statement about the NETmundial text that was leaked by Wikileaks on Wednesday (https://wikileaks.org/netmundial-outcome/NETmundial-EMC-Outcome-Document.pdf) in order to influence the drafting process that is current underway. The statement is generally supportive of the draft but highlights the parts that we consider most important to preserve, particularly considering the points endorsed in previous BestBits submissions. Unfortunately, the statement has to be released by 8.5 hours from now because that is the next meeting of the Executive Multistakeholder Committee (EMC) at which the draft will be considered again. So with our apologies for the very short notice and limited opportunity to participate by those who were not on the call, here is a sign-on statement that was composed over the last few hours (into the late night for some): http://bestbits.net/netmundial-outcome-comments/ I am also pasting it below. If you would like to endorse it, please make sure that if you do so before 10:30am Brazil time, which is less than 8.5 hours from now. As usual, you can endorse it from the website above, not by replying to this email. The statement will also be emailed to the Executive Multistakeholder Committee members to ensure that they receive it before their meeting. --- begins --- The undersigned members of the Best Bits coalition welcome the “Draft Outcome Document” that has been produced by the NETmundial Executive Multistakeholder Committee (EMC) and was submitted to the High Level Multistakeholder Committee on April 3, which we consider generally captures a balanced account of the wide range of contributions submitted by all stakeholders groups through the open process developed for the NETmundial platform. We would like to reinforce the following points from the draft document as a non-exhaustive list of priorities critical for the EMC and the Chair and Co-chairs to take into account and maintain in the structure of the draft as they develop the next version. 1) Internet Governance Principles Human Rights We welcome the fact that the draft acknowledges the quintessential importance of human rights, in particular the essential point that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online. Human rights should be a foundation of Internet Governance, and all Internet Governance Principles and Processes should be underpinned by and in line with human rights. We underscore that the final outcome of NETmundial must recognize the inextricable link between human rights and Internet governance principles, policies and processes. Open and inclusive processes depend upon the freedoms of expression and association and are empowered by them. Privacy We reinforce our support for the affirmation of the right to privacy in the draft text. Privacy is a fundamental human right, and is central to the maintenance of democratic societies. It is essential to human dignity and it reinforces other rights, such as freedom of expression and information, and freedom of association, and is recognised under international human rights law. Surveillance We also endorse the explicit note about the need to avoid “arbitrary or unlawful collection of personal data and surveillance” by States with the collaboration of the business sector. It is of crucial importance in rebuilding trust amongst stakeholders that mass and arbitrary surveillance programs are brought into alignment with human rights jurisprudence and principles, and that transparency and oversight are strengthened.[0] Development and Access to the Internet We welcome the inclusion of development among the human rights that underpin internet governance principles . The Internet is an enabler and catalyst of human rights, and, ultimately, to the right to development. As such, we believe it is important to include a reference to the right to digital inclusion and affordable, high-quality access to the internet in the non-exclusive list of principles. Internet Infrastructure We endorse the inclusion of principles related to preserve an unfragmented, interconnected, interoperable, secure, stable, resilient, sustainable, and trustworthy Internet. While we acknowledge that neutrality is included in this section, we would like to see an explicit reference to the concept and term “net neutrality” as a core principle. The application of all these principles is essential to ensure universal and affordable high-quality brodband access. 2) Roadmap for the Future of the Internet Governance We welcome the approach of the “Draft Outcome Document” in making recommendations on ways to improve the Internet Governance framework so it can serve as a catalyst for sustainable development and promotion of human rights. We affirm our support for the draft document’s mentions of Internet governance processes and institutions in which decisions are inclusive, open, informed, transparent and accountable, with the full involvement of all stakeholders, and stress that it is particularly important to ensure meaninful participation, with gender and regional balance and the inclusion of marginalized voices. NTIA transition and ICANN We support the draft’s acknowledgement of the announced IANA transition away from U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and its emphasis on the importance of including all stakeholders in the convening process, including those beyond ICANN bodies and I* organizations. It is important that the global multistakeholder community be able to participate in the discussion about the transition and in the transition proposal itself. Further it is important to reinforce the need for improved effectiveness, transparency and accountability of ICANN in the globalization process, as well as the separation of the policy development process and the IANA operations. Distributive and Coordinated Internet Governance We strongly welcome the option put forward in the draft of multi-stakeholder Internet governance coordination mechanisms, and we suggest it is reinforced as a recommendation, not only as an option “recommendable to analyze”. Further analysis, monitoring and information sharing about and within the internet governance architecture as a whole is duly needed. It might help us to identify weaknesses and gaps in the coverage of important issues and, in light of empirical evidence, would help us evaluate the merits of any alternative decision making processes. A multi-stakeholder coordination mechanism could also be useful to promote dialogue, build consensus or at least provide inputs into other processes tasked with actual decision making. IGF We support the mentions about the need to strengthen the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and to extend its mandate making it a permanent multi-stakeholder forum. Issues dealing with specific Internet Governance topics We reinforce the need to continue working on a multistakeholder dialogue to pursue institutional solutions to mass and arbitrary surveillance in order to guarantee the realization of several internet governance principles highlighted as fundamental in the draft outcome. Finally, we welcome the idea that the NETmundial findings and outcomes feed into other processes and forums, such as WSIS+10, IGF and other Internet governance discussions. We acknowledge the work done by the EMC and, as this is a non-exhaustive list of priority issues that we would like to reinforce, and we look forward to contributing further with specific text on subsequent drafts. [0] www.necessaryandproportionate.org; Judgment in Joined Cases C – 293/12 and C – 594/12 Digital Rights Ireland and Seitlinger and Others. -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From nashton at consensus.pro Fri Apr 11 01:24:28 2014 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 07:24:28 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] FW: LDC's Turning Backs on Multistakeholder Trade Agreements In-Reply-To: <026301cf5519$a7068740$f51395c0$@gmail.com> References: <024c01cf5519$11a3bb00$34eb3100$@gmail.com> <026301cf5519$a7068740$f51395c0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1454f3e7ef8.27c9.9387b8a9f30986f905fcc4cfa238b71f@consensus.pro> I'm sorry but to suggest BITS are multi stakeholder is just fundamentally incorrect. Love them or hate them, they are entirely different to what we talk about vis a vis multi stakeholder processes in Internet policy. On 11 April 2014 02:05:25 "michael gurstein" wrote: > These “Investor Treaties” are the trade equivalent of multistakeholder > governance processes > > in that they give the private sector equal rights with governments in > determining the contents of sectoral trade agreements. > > > > M > > > > From: sid-l at googlegroups.com [mailto:sid-l at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of > Sid Shniad > Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 12:17 PM > To: undisclosed-recipients: > Subject: Investor Treaties in Trouble > > > > http://us5.campaign-archive2.com/?u=fa9cf38799136b5660f367ba6 > > &id=3990f710bb&e=3f7d5d14f1 > > SOUTHNEWS No. 52, 10 April 2014 > > SOUTHNEWS is a service of the South Centre to provide information and news > on topical issues from a South perspective. > Visit the South Centre’s website: www.southcentre.int. > > Investor Treaties in Trouble > > By Martin Khor > > The tide is turning against investment treaties and free trade agreements > that contain the controversial investor-state dispute system, as countries > like Indonesia and Germany take action on this. > > The tide is turning against investment treaties that allow foreign > investors to take up cases against host governments and claim compensation > of up to billions of dollars. > > Indonesia has given notice to it will terminate its bilateral investment > treaty (BIT) with the Netherlands, according to a statement issued by the > Dutch Embassy in Jakarta last week. > > “The Indonesian Government has also mentioned it intends to terminate all > of its 67 bilateral investment treaties”, according to the same statement. > > The Dutch statement has not been confirmed by Indonesia. But if this is > correct, Indonesia joins South Africa, which last year announced it is > ending all its BITS. > > Several other countries are also reviewing their investment treaties. This > is prompted by increasing numbers of cases being brought against > governments by foreign companies who claim that changes in government > policies or contracts affect their future profits. > > Many countries have been asked to pay large compensations to companies > under the treaties. The biggest claim was against Ecuador, which has to > compensate an American oil company US$ 2.3 billion for cancelling a contract. > > The system empowering investors to sue governments in an international > tribunal, thus bypassing national laws and courts, is a subject of > controversy in Malaysia because it is part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership > Agreement (TPPA) which the country is negotiating with 11 other countries. > > The investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system is contained in free > trade agreements (especially those involving the United States) and also in > BITS which countries sign among themselves to protect foreign investors’ > rights. > > When these treaties containing ISDS were signed, many countries did not > know they were opening themselves to legal cases that foreign investors can > take up under loosely worded provisions that allow them to win cases where > they claim they have not been treated fairly or that there expected > revenues have been expropriated. > > Indonesia and South Africa are among many countries that faced such cases. > The Indonesian government has been taken to the ICSID tribunal based in > Washington by a British company, Churchill Mining, which claimed the > government violated the UK-Indonesia BIT when its contract with a local > government in East Kalimantan was cancelled. > > Reports indicate the company is claiming compensation of US$ 1 billion to > US$ 2 billion in losses. > > This and other cases taken against Indonesia prompted the government to > review whether it should retain its many BITS. > > South Africa had also been sued by a British mining company which claimed > losses after the government introduced policies to boost the economic > capacity of the blacks to redress apartheid policies. > India is also reviewing its BITS, after many companies filed cases after > the Supreme Court cancelled their 2G mobile communications licenses in the > wake of a high-profile corruption scandal linked to the granting of the > licenses. > > But it is not only developing countries that are getting disillusioned by > the ISDS. Europe is getting cold feet over the investor-state dispute > mechanism in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) it > is negotiating with the US, similar to the mechanism in the TPPA. > > Several weeks ago, Germany told the European Commission that the TTIP must > not have the investor-state dispute mechanism. > > Brigitte Zypries, an economy minister, told the German parliament that > Berlin was determined to exclude arbitration rights from the TTIP deal, > according to the Financial Times. > > “From the perspective of the [German] federal government, US investors in > the EU have sufficient legal protection in the national courts,” she said. > > The French trade minister had earlier voiced opposition to ISDS, while a > report commissioned by the United Kingdom government also pointed out > problems with the mechanism. > > The European disillusionment has two causes. ISDS cases are also affecting > the countries. > > Germany has been taken to ICSID by a Swedish company Vattenfall which > claimed it suffered over a billion euros in losses resulting from the > government’s decision to phase out nuclear power after the Fukushima disaster. > > And the European public is getting upset over the investment system. Two > European organisations last year published a report showing how the > international investment arbitration system is monopolised by a few big law > firms, how the tribunals are riddled with conflicts of interest and the > arbitrary nature of tribunal decisions. > > That report caused shockwaves not only in the civil society but also among > European policy makers. > > In January, the European Commission suspended negotiations with the US on > the ISDS provisions in the TTIP, and announced it would hold 90 days of > consultations with the public over the issue. > > In Australia, the previous government decided it would not have an ISDS > clause in its future FTAs and BITS, following a case taken against it by > Philip Morris International which claimed loss of profits because of laws > requiring only plain packaging on cigarette boxes. > > In Malaysia, the ISDS is one of the major controversial issues relating to > the TPPA. Many business, professional and public-interest groups want the > government to exclude the ISDS as a “red line” in the TPPA negotiations. > > Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Najib Tun Razak had also mentioned investment > policy and ISDS as one of the issues (the others being government > procurement and state owned enterprises) in the TTPA that may impinge on > national sovereignty, when he was at the APEC Summit and TPPA Summit in > Indonesia last year. > > So far the United States has stuck to its position that ISDS has to be part > of the TPPA and TTIP. However if the emerging European opposition affects > the TTIP negotiations, it could affect the TPPA as this would strengthen > the position of those opposed to ISDS. > > Meanwhile, we can also expect more countries to review their BITS. > Developing countries seeking to end their bilateral agreements with > European countries can point to the fact that more and more European > countries are themselves having second thoughts about the ISDS embedded in > these agreements. > > > Author: Martin Khor is the Executive Director of the South Centre. Contact: > director at southcentre.int. > To view other articles in SouthNews, please click here. > > For more information, please contact Vicente Paolo Yu of the South Centre: > Email yu at southcentre.int, or telephone +41 22 791 80 50 > . > > -- > > --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Sid-l" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to sid-l+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > !DSPAM:2676,5346ee1c215691981217163! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Fri Apr 11 02:45:42 2014 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 14:45:42 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Civil Society Coordination Meeting for NETmundial In-Reply-To: <5398237F-B366-4965-89A4-ABEC4E789F9F@gmail.com> References: <5398237F-B366-4965-89A4-ABEC4E789F9F@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5BCAC090-CC49-405B-AFCF-E3AC5547370E@Malcolm.id.au> On 4 Apr 2014, at 4:07 pm, William Drake wrote: > I was just wondering if there’s any news yet on the location and agenda http://bestbits.net/events/netmundial-coordination/ ? > > BTW there’s an academic IG meeting being held on the same day being organized at at Espaço Fit Eventos. The morning part is restricted to Brazilian-German participants but the afternoon is open, and a number BB attendees are on the program so will have to pop over there… Hi Bill, sorry for the delay in replying. We had a call last night (my time) to work on the agenda and methodology for the meeting, and as a result of that, we will be finalising and posting the agenda very soon. Meanwhile we can confirm that the venue is Centro Cultural São Paulo, Espaço Missões, Rua Vergueiro, 1000 - Paraíso, São Paulo - SP. Thanks for your patience as we finalise and release the remaining details. -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From Andrew at gp-digital.org Fri Apr 11 04:39:37 2014 From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 09:39:37 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] URGENT - statement commenting on draft NETmundial text to be posted 8.5 hours from now In-Reply-To: <20DDED60-F1B3-4EA1-9067-94541E513F72@Malcolm.id.au> References: <20DDED60-F1B3-4EA1-9067-94541E513F72@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: Great work everyone – thanks for putting this together so speedily Andrew Puddephatt Global Partners Digital Andrew at gp-digital.org Tel mobile +44 (0)771 339 9597 Tel office +44 (0)207 549 0350 From: Jeremy Malcolm > Reply-To: Jeremy Malcolm > Date: Friday, 11 April 2014 05:09 To: "" > Subject: [bestbits] URGENT - statement commenting on draft NETmundial text to be posted 8.5 hours from now Yesterday the Best Bits participants who are helping to organise the NETmundial civil society pre-meeting on 22 April held a call about the meeting (more on this later), and also, thought not on the agenda, there was consensus that it would be strategically important to post a short statement about the NETmundial text that was leaked by Wikileaks on Wednesday (https://wikileaks.org/netmundial-outcome/NETmundial-EMC-Outcome-Document.pdf) in order to influence the drafting process that is current underway. The statement is generally supportive of the draft but highlights the parts that we consider most important to preserve, particularly considering the points endorsed in previous BestBits submissions. Unfortunately, the statement has to be released by 8.5 hours from now because that is the next meeting of the Executive Multistakeholder Committee (EMC) at which the draft will be considered again. So with our apologies for the very short notice and limited opportunity to participate by those who were not on the call, here is a sign-on statement that was composed over the last few hours (into the late night for some): http://bestbits.net/netmundial-outcome-comments/ I am also pasting it below. If you would like to endorse it, please make sure that if you do so before 10:30am Brazil time, which is less than 8.5 hours from now. As usual, you can endorse it from the website above, not by replying to this email. The statement will also be emailed to the Executive Multistakeholder Committee members to ensure that they receive it before their meeting. --- begins --- The undersigned members of the Best Bits coalition welcome the “Draft Outcome Document” that has been produced by the NETmundial Executive Multistakeholder Committee (EMC) and was submitted to the High Level Multistakeholder Committee on April 3, which we consider generally captures a balanced account of the wide range of contributions submitted by all stakeholders groups through the open process developed for the NETmundial platform. We would like to reinforce the following points from the draft document as a non-exhaustive list of priorities critical for the EMC and the Chair and Co-chairs to take into account and maintain in the structure of the draft as they develop the next version. 1) Internet Governance Principles Human Rights We welcome the fact that the draft acknowledges the quintessential importance of human rights, in particular the essential point that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online. Human rights should be a foundation of Internet Governance, and all Internet Governance Principles and Processes should be underpinned by and in line with human rights. We underscore that the final outcome of NETmundial must recognize the inextricable link between human rights and Internet governance principles, policies and processes. Open and inclusive processes depend upon the freedoms of expression and association and are empowered by them. Privacy We reinforce our support for the affirmation of the right to privacy in the draft text. Privacy is a fundamental human right, and is central to the maintenance of democratic societies. It is essential to human dignity and it reinforces other rights, such as freedom of expression and information, and freedom of association, and is recognised under international human rights law. Surveillance We also endorse the explicit note about the need to avoid “arbitrary or unlawful collection of personal data and surveillance” by States with the collaboration of the business sector. It is of crucial importance in rebuilding trust amongst stakeholders that mass and arbitrary surveillance programs are brought into alignment with human rights jurisprudence and principles, and that transparency and oversight are strengthened.[0] Development and Access to the Internet We welcome the inclusion of development among the human rights that underpin internet governance principles . The Internet is an enabler and catalyst of human rights, and, ultimately, to the right to development. As such, we believe it is important to include a reference to the right to digital inclusion and affordable, high-quality access to the internet in the non-exclusive list of principles. Internet Infrastructure We endorse the inclusion of principles related to preserve an unfragmented, interconnected, interoperable, secure, stable, resilient, sustainable, and trustworthy Internet. While we acknowledge that neutrality is included in this section, we would like to see an explicit reference to the concept and term “net neutrality” as a core principle. The application of all these principles is essential to ensure universal and affordable high-quality brodband access. 2) Roadmap for the Future of the Internet Governance We welcome the approach of the “Draft Outcome Document” in making recommendations on ways to improve the Internet Governance framework so it can serve as a catalyst for sustainable development and promotion of human rights. We affirm our support for the draft document’s mentions of Internet governance processes and institutions in which decisions are inclusive, open, informed, transparent and accountable, with the full involvement of all stakeholders, and stress that it is particularly important to ensure meaninful participation, with gender and regional balance and the inclusion of marginalized voices. NTIA transition and ICANN We support the draft’s acknowledgement of the announced IANA transition away from U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and its emphasis on the importance of including all stakeholders in the convening process, including those beyond ICANN bodies and I* organizations. It is important that the global multistakeholder community be able to participate in the discussion about the transition and in the transition proposal itself. Further it is important to reinforce the need for improved effectiveness, transparency and accountability of ICANN in the globalization process, as well as the separation of the policy development process and the IANA operations. Distributive and Coordinated Internet Governance We strongly welcome the option put forward in the draft of multi-stakeholder Internet governance coordination mechanisms, and we suggest it is reinforced as a recommendation, not only as an option “recommendable to analyze”. Further analysis, monitoring and information sharing about and within the internet governance architecture as a whole is duly needed. It might help us to identify weaknesses and gaps in the coverage of important issues and, in light of empirical evidence, would help us evaluate the merits of any alternative decision making processes. A multi-stakeholder coordination mechanism could also be useful to promote dialogue, build consensus or at least provide inputs into other processes tasked with actual decision making. IGF We support the mentions about the need to strengthen the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and to extend its mandate making it a permanent multi-stakeholder forum. Issues dealing with specific Internet Governance topics We reinforce the need to continue working on a multistakeholder dialogue to pursue institutional solutions to mass and arbitrary surveillance in order to guarantee the realization of several internet governance principles highlighted as fundamental in the draft outcome. Finally, we welcome the idea that the NETmundial findings and outcomes feed into other processes and forums, such as WSIS+10, IGF and other Internet governance discussions. We acknowledge the work done by the EMC and, as this is a non-exhaustive list of priority issues that we would like to reinforce, and we look forward to contributing further with specific text on subsequent drafts. [0] www.necessaryandproportionate.org; Judgment in Joined Cases C – 293/12 and C – 594/12 Digital Rights Ireland and Seitlinger and Others. -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pouzin at well.com Fri Apr 11 05:59:56 2014 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 11:59:56 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] URGENT - statement commenting on draft NETmundial text to be posted 8.5 hours from now In-Reply-To: References: <20DDED60-F1B3-4EA1-9067-94541E513F72@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: Congrats for this steep challenge. Here a few comments. Surveillance "arbitrary or unlawful collection of personal data and surveillance" by States .. States can declare lawful whatever they do. Isn't there a recent UN declaration (dec 2013 ?) that could provide some language here. Internet Infrastructure Internet is a network of networks and applications using a diversity of infrastructures, not a singular entity. In this context *"unfragmented"* is an undefined term without any precise meaning. Suggestion: *interoperable*. - - - On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > Great work everyone - thanks for putting this together so speedily > > Andrew Puddephatt > Global Partners Digital > Andrew at gp-digital.org > Tel mobile +44 (0)771 339 9597 > Tel office +44 (0)207 549 0350 > > > From: Jeremy Malcolm > Reply-To: Jeremy Malcolm > Date: Friday, 11 April 2014 05:09 > To: "" > Subject: [bestbits] URGENT - statement commenting on draft NETmundial > text to be posted 8.5 hours from now > > Yesterday the Best Bits participants who are helping to organise the > NETmundial civil society pre-meeting on 22 April held a call about the > meeting (more on this later), and also, thought not on the agenda, there > was consensus that it would be strategically important to post a short > statement about the NETmundial text that was leaked by Wikileaks on > Wednesday ( > https://wikileaks.org/netmundial-outcome/NETmundial-EMC-Outcome-Document.pdf > ) in order to influence the drafting process that is current underway. > > The statement is generally supportive of the draft but highlights the > parts that we consider most important to preserve, particularly > considering the points endorsed in previous BestBits submissions. > > Unfortunately, *the statement has to be released by 8.5 hours from now* because > that is the next meeting of the Executive Multistakeholder Committee (EMC) > at which the draft will be considered again. So with our apologies for the > very short notice and limited opportunity to participate by those who were > not on the call, here is a sign-on statement that was composed over the > last few hours (into the late night for some): > > http://bestbits.net/netmundial-outcome-comments/ > > I am also pasting it below. If you would like to endorse it, please make > sure that if you do so before 10:30am Brazil time, which is less than 8.5 > hours from now. As usual, you can endorse it from the website above, not > by replying to this email. The statement will also be emailed to the > Executive Multistakeholder Committee members to ensure that they receive it > before their meeting. > > [snip] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mctimconsulting at gmail.com Fri Apr 11 06:07:54 2014 From: mctimconsulting at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 06:07:54 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] FW: LDC's Turning Backs on Multistakeholder Trade Agreements In-Reply-To: <1454f3e7ef8.27c9.9387b8a9f30986f905fcc4cfa238b71f@consensus.pro> References: <024c01cf5519$11a3bb00$34eb3100$@gmail.com> <026301cf5519$a7068740$f51395c0$@gmail.com> <1454f3e7ef8.27c9.9387b8a9f30986f905fcc4cfa238b71f@consensus.pro> Message-ID: Nick, thanks for making this point, which I had intended to make as well. There is absolutley no equivalence here! rgds, McTim On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > I'm sorry but to suggest BITS are multi stakeholder is just fundamentally > incorrect. Love them or hate them, they are entirely different to what we > talk about vis a vis multi stakeholder processes in Internet policy. > > On 11 April 2014 02:05:25 "michael gurstein" wrote: >> >> These “Investor Treaties” are the trade equivalent of multistakeholder >> governance processes in that they give the private sector equal rights with >> governments in determining the contents of sectoral trade agreements. >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> From: sid-l at googlegroups.com [mailto:sid-l at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of >> Sid Shniad >> Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 12:17 PM >> To: undisclosed-recipients: >> Subject: Investor Treaties in Trouble >> >> >> >> >> http://us5.campaign-archive2.com/?u=fa9cf38799136b5660f367ba6&id=3990f710bb&e=3f7d5d14f1 >> >> SOUTHNEWS No. 52, 10 April 2014 >> >> SOUTHNEWS is a service of the South Centre to provide information and news >> on topical issues from a South perspective. >> Visit the South Centre’s website: www.southcentre.int. >> >> Investor Treaties in Trouble >> >> By Martin Khor >> >> The tide is turning against investment treaties and free trade agreements >> that contain the controversial investor-state dispute system, as countries >> like Indonesia and Germany take action on this. >> >> The tide is turning against investment treaties that allow foreign >> investors to take up cases against host governments and claim compensation >> of up to billions of dollars. >> >> Indonesia has given notice to it will terminate its bilateral investment >> treaty (BIT) with the Netherlands, according to a statement issued by the >> Dutch Embassy in Jakarta last week. >> >> “The Indonesian Government has also mentioned it intends to terminate all >> of its 67 bilateral investment treaties”, according to the same statement. >> >> The Dutch statement has not been confirmed by Indonesia. But if this is >> correct, Indonesia joins South Africa, which last year announced it is >> ending all its BITS. >> >> Several other countries are also reviewing their investment treaties. >> This is prompted by increasing numbers of cases being brought against >> governments by foreign companies who claim that changes in government >> policies or contracts affect their future profits. >> >> Many countries have been asked to pay large compensations to companies >> under the treaties. The biggest claim was against Ecuador, which has to >> compensate an American oil company US$ 2.3 billion for cancelling a >> contract. >> >> The system empowering investors to sue governments in an international >> tribunal, thus bypassing national laws and courts, is a subject of >> controversy in Malaysia because it is part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership >> Agreement (TPPA) which the country is negotiating with 11 other countries. >> >> The investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system is contained in free >> trade agreements (especially those involving the United States) and also in >> BITS which countries sign among themselves to protect foreign investors’ >> rights. >> >> When these treaties containing ISDS were signed, many countries did not >> know they were opening themselves to legal cases that foreign investors can >> take up under loosely worded provisions that allow them to win cases where >> they claim they have not been treated fairly or that there expected revenues >> have been expropriated. >> >> Indonesia and South Africa are among many countries that faced such cases. >> The Indonesian government has been taken to the ICSID tribunal based in >> Washington by a British company, Churchill Mining, which claimed the >> government violated the UK-Indonesia BIT when its contract with a local >> government in East Kalimantan was cancelled. >> >> Reports indicate the company is claiming compensation of US$ 1 billion to >> US$ 2 billion in losses. >> >> This and other cases taken against Indonesia prompted the government to >> review whether it should retain its many BITS. >> >> South Africa had also been sued by a British mining company which claimed >> losses after the government introduced policies to boost the economic >> capacity of the blacks to redress apartheid policies. >> >> India is also reviewing its BITS, after many companies filed cases after >> the Supreme Court cancelled their 2G mobile communications licenses in the >> wake of a high-profile corruption scandal linked to the granting of the >> licenses. >> >> But it is not only developing countries that are getting disillusioned by >> the ISDS. Europe is getting cold feet over the investor-state dispute >> mechanism in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) it is >> negotiating with the US, similar to the mechanism in the TPPA. >> >> Several weeks ago, Germany told the European Commission that the TTIP must >> not have the investor-state dispute mechanism. >> >> Brigitte Zypries, an economy minister, told the German parliament that >> Berlin was determined to exclude arbitration rights from the TTIP deal, >> according to the Financial Times. >> >> “From the perspective of the [German] federal government, US investors in >> the EU have sufficient legal protection in the national courts,” she said. >> >> The French trade minister had earlier voiced opposition to ISDS, while a >> report commissioned by the United Kingdom government also pointed out >> problems with the mechanism. >> >> The European disillusionment has two causes. ISDS cases are also >> affecting the countries. >> >> Germany has been taken to ICSID by a Swedish company Vattenfall which >> claimed it suffered over a billion euros in losses resulting from the >> government’s decision to phase out nuclear power after the Fukushima >> disaster. >> >> And the European public is getting upset over the investment system. Two >> European organisations last year published a report showing how the >> international investment arbitration system is monopolised by a few big law >> firms, how the tribunals are riddled with conflicts of interest and the >> arbitrary nature of tribunal decisions. >> >> That report caused shockwaves not only in the civil society but also among >> European policy makers. >> >> In January, the European Commission suspended negotiations with the US on >> the ISDS provisions in the TTIP, and announced it would hold 90 days of >> consultations with the public over the issue. >> >> In Australia, the previous government decided it would not have an ISDS >> clause in its future FTAs and BITS, following a case taken against it by >> Philip Morris International which claimed loss of profits because of laws >> requiring only plain packaging on cigarette boxes. >> >> In Malaysia, the ISDS is one of the major controversial issues relating to >> the TPPA. Many business, professional and public-interest groups want the >> government to exclude the ISDS as a “red line” in the TPPA negotiations. >> >> Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Najib Tun Razak had also mentioned investment >> policy and ISDS as one of the issues (the others being government >> procurement and state owned enterprises) in the TTPA that may impinge on >> national sovereignty, when he was at the APEC Summit and TPPA Summit in >> Indonesia last year. >> >> So far the United States has stuck to its position that ISDS has to be >> part of the TPPA and TTIP. However if the emerging European opposition >> affects the TTIP negotiations, it could affect the TPPA as this would >> strengthen the position of those opposed to ISDS. >> >> Meanwhile, we can also expect more countries to review their BITS. >> Developing countries seeking to end their bilateral agreements with European >> countries can point to the fact that more and more European countries are >> themselves having second thoughts about the ISDS embedded in these >> agreements. >> >> >> Author: Martin Khor is the Executive Director of the South Centre. >> Contact: director at southcentre.int. >> To view other articles in SouthNews, please click here. >> >> For more information, please contact Vicente Paolo Yu of the South Centre: >> Email yu at southcentre.int, or telephone +41 22 791 80 50. >> >> -- >> >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Sid-l" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to sid-l+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> !DSPAM:2676,5346ee1c215691981217163! > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From jeanette at wzb.eu Fri Apr 11 06:08:42 2014 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 12:08:42 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] URGENT - statement commenting on draft NETmundial text to be posted 8.5 hours from now In-Reply-To: References: <20DDED60-F1B3-4EA1-9067-94541E513F72@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <5347BF2A.1070803@wzb.eu> Am 11.04.14 11:59, schrieb Louis Pouzin (well): > Congrats for this steep challenge. > Here a few comments. > > Surveillance > > “arbitrary or unlawful collection of personal data and surveillance” by > States .. > > States can declare lawful whatever they do. Isn't there a recent UN > declaration (dec 2013 ?) that could provide some language here. For your convience: 1. Reaffirms the right to privacy, according to which no one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, and the right to the protection of the law against such interference, as set out in article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; 2. Recognizes the global and open nature of the Internet and the rapid advancement in information and communications technologies as a driving force in accelerating progress towards development in its various forms; 3. Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, including the right to privacy; This is very strong language, agreed upon by the General Assembly. Why should civil society be satisfied with less? What really matters: he right to the protection of the law against such interference, This goes beyond an individual right to privacy, it includes a right to be protected of the law and thus may imply a right to the protection of privacy. > > Internet Infrastructure > > Internet is a network of networks and applications using a diversity of > infrastructures, not a singular entity. In this context /"unfragmented"/ > is an undefined term without any precise meaning. Suggestion: > /interoperable/. I support that too. The "threat of fragmentation" seems to have assumed a political/ideological meaning over the last year or so. jeanette > - - - > > On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Andrew Puddephatt > > wrote: > > Great work everyone – thanks for putting this together so speedily > > Andrew Puddephatt > Global Partners Digital > Andrew at gp-digital.org > Tel mobile +44 (0)771 339 9597 > Tel office +44 (0)207 549 0350 > > > From: Jeremy Malcolm > > Reply-To: Jeremy Malcolm > > Date: Friday, 11 April 2014 05:09 > To: "" > > Subject: [bestbits] URGENT - statement commenting on draft > NETmundial text to be posted 8.5 hours from now > > Yesterday the Best Bits participants who are helping to organise the > NETmundial civil society pre-meeting on 22 April held a call about > the meeting (more on this later), and also, thought not on the > agenda, there was consensus that it would be strategically important > to post a short statement about the NETmundial text that was leaked > by Wikileaks on Wednesday > (https://wikileaks.org/netmundial-outcome/NETmundial-EMC-Outcome-Document.pdf > ) > in order to influence the drafting process that is current underway. > > The statement is generally supportive of the draft but highlights > the parts that we consider most important to preserve, particularly > considering the points endorsed in previous BestBits submissions. > > Unfortunately, *the statement has to be released by 8.5 hours from > now* because that is the next meeting of the Executive > Multistakeholder Committee (EMC) at which the draft will be > considered again. So with our apologies for the very short notice > and limited opportunity to participate by those who were not on the > call, here is a sign-on statement that was composed over the last > few hours (into the late night for some): > > http://bestbits.net/netmundial-outcome-comments/ > > I am also pasting it below. If you would like to endorse it, please > make sure that if you do so before 10:30am Brazil time, which is > less than 8.5 hours from now. As usual, you can endorse it from the > website above, not by replying to this email. The statement will > also be emailed to the Executive Multistakeholder Committee members > to ensure that they receive it before their meeting. > > [snip] From lorena at collaboratory.de Fri Apr 11 06:53:40 2014 From: lorena at collaboratory.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 12:53:40 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] URGENT - statement commenting on draft NETmundial text to be posted 8.5 hours from now In-Reply-To: <5347BF2A.1070803@wzb.eu> References: <20DDED60-F1B3-4EA1-9067-94541E513F72@Malcolm.id.au> <5347BF2A.1070803@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Surveillance > >> "arbitrary or unlawful collection of personal data and surveillance" by >> States .. >> >> States can declare lawful whatever they do. Isn't there a recent UN >> declaration (dec 2013 ?) that could provide some language here. >> > > For your convience: > > 1. Reaffirms the right to privacy, according to which no one shall be > subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, > family, home or correspondence, and the right to the protection of the law > against such interference, as set out in article 12 of the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights and article 17 of the International Covenant on > Civil and Political Rights; > 2. Recognizes the global and open nature of the Internet and the rapid > advancement in information and communications technologies as a driving > force in accelerating progress towards development in its various forms; > 3. Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also be > protected online, including the right to privacy; > > This is very strong language, agreed upon by the General Assembly. Why > should civil society be satisfied with less? > I think Louis is right: since the rights have to be implemented by the nation states and the nation states do also authorize intelligence agencies to mass surveillance, they consider this as lawful interference. EFF has been trying to introduce a new concept "legitimate aim" - this could be a new term, that could made the argument even stronger There is also a proposal focused on the concept of "extraterritoriality" meaning that nationality and national boundaries shouldn't be a criterium In all cases Frank la Rue an many scholars are pointing out that international law on privacy doesn't need more addenda but rather a comment. Imho we are overseeing at international level what few are beginning to understand at a national level: mass surveillance affects our privacy - hence many are addressing the issue as a data protection or privacy law problem, however, the law regulating intelligence agencies is not in the privacy field, but in the security field. So it is a privacy issue politically but a security issue from the legal perspective. Coherently, at an international level this would mean, that what needs to be issued are international principals on the limits and obligations of security. Congrats for the super rapid drafting. Best regards, Lorena > > What really matters: he right to the protection of the law against such > interference, > > This goes beyond an individual right to privacy, it includes a right to be > protected of the law and thus may imply a right to the protection of > privacy. > > > > >> Internet Infrastructure >> >> Internet is a network of networks and applications using a diversity of >> infrastructures, not a singular entity. In this context /"unfragmented"/ >> >> is an undefined term without any precise meaning. Suggestion: >> /interoperable/. >> > > I support that too. The "threat of fragmentation" seems to have assumed a > political/ideological meaning over the last year or so. > > jeanette > >> - - - >> >> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Andrew Puddephatt >> > wrote: >> >> Great work everyone - thanks for putting this together so speedily >> >> Andrew Puddephatt >> Global Partners Digital >> Andrew at gp-digital.org >> Tel mobile +44 (0)771 339 9597 >> Tel office +44 (0)207 549 0350 >> >> >> From: Jeremy Malcolm > > >> Reply-To: Jeremy Malcolm > > >> >> Date: Friday, 11 April 2014 05:09 >> To: "" > > >> >> Subject: [bestbits] URGENT - statement commenting on draft >> NETmundial text to be posted 8.5 hours from now >> >> Yesterday the Best Bits participants who are helping to organise the >> NETmundial civil society pre-meeting on 22 April held a call about >> the meeting (more on this later), and also, thought not on the >> agenda, there was consensus that it would be strategically important >> to post a short statement about the NETmundial text that was leaked >> by Wikileaks on Wednesday >> (https://wikileaks.org/netmundial-outcome/NETmundial- >> EMC-Outcome-Document.pdf >> > EMC-Outcome-Document.pdf%29>) >> >> in order to influence the drafting process that is current underway. >> >> The statement is generally supportive of the draft but highlights >> the parts that we consider most important to preserve, particularly >> considering the points endorsed in previous BestBits submissions. >> >> Unfortunately, *the statement has to be released by 8.5 hours from >> now* because that is the next meeting of the Executive >> >> Multistakeholder Committee (EMC) at which the draft will be >> considered again. So with our apologies for the very short notice >> and limited opportunity to participate by those who were not on the >> call, here is a sign-on statement that was composed over the last >> few hours (into the late night for some): >> >> http://bestbits.net/netmundial-outcome-comments/ >> >> I am also pasting it below. If you would like to endorse it, please >> make sure that if you do so before 10:30am Brazil time, which is >> less than 8.5 hours from now. As usual, you can endorse it from the >> website above, not by replying to this email. The statement will >> also be emailed to the Executive Multistakeholder Committee members >> to ensure that they receive it before their meeting. >> >> [snip] >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. * Coordinator of the Global Internet Governance (GIG) Ohu Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. www.collaboratory.de * Newsletter * Facebook * Twitter * Youtube -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kichango at gmail.com Fri Apr 11 06:54:32 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 10:54:32 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] URGENT - statement commenting on draft NETmundial text to be posted 8.5 hours from now In-Reply-To: <5347BF2A.1070803@wzb.eu> References: <20DDED60-F1B3-4EA1-9067-94541E513F72@Malcolm.id.au> <5347BF2A.1070803@wzb.eu> Message-ID: I just found out the original message was directed to my spam folder, and maybe I'm not the only one to whom that has happened. Congrats and thanks to those who were on the call and those who drafted this. +1 to Louis and Jeanette, and adding to the former's point: Since there already is "interoperable" among the list of adjectives, maybe editing it to "globally interoperable" will do? Except that I am not sure what "interconnected... Internet" would mean since it seems to me that "interconnected" is already part of the notion/definition of the Internet. I am saying this because someone could be tempted to say: Then we should add "globally" to both "interconnected" and "interoperable." In sum, unless there is something specific meant by "interconnected Internet" that is not already implied in the notion of Internet or in the rest of the adjectives, I'd suggest that phrase to read: "... to preserve a globally interoperable, secure, stable, resilient, sustainable, and trustworthy Internet." Mawaki ===================================== Mawaki Chango, PhD Founder and Owner DIGILEXIS Consulting m.chango at digilexis.com | http://www.digilexis.com Twitter: @digilexis | @dig_mawaki | Skype: digilexis ====================================== On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > Am 11.04.14 11:59, schrieb Louis Pouzin (well): > > Congrats for this steep challenge. >> Here a few comments. >> >> Surveillance >> >> "arbitrary or unlawful collection of personal data and surveillance" by >> States .. >> >> States can declare lawful whatever they do. Isn't there a recent UN >> declaration (dec 2013 ?) that could provide some language here. >> > > For your convience: > > 1. Reaffirms the right to privacy, according to which no one shall be > subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, > family, home or correspondence, and the right to the protection of the law > against such interference, as set out in article 12 of the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights and article 17 of the International Covenant on > Civil and Political Rights; > 2. Recognizes the global and open nature of the Internet and the rapid > advancement in information and communications technologies as a driving > force in accelerating progress towards development in its various forms; > 3. Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also be > protected online, including the right to privacy; > > This is very strong language, agreed upon by the General Assembly. Why > should civil society be satisfied with less? > > What really matters: he right to the protection of the law against such > interference, > > This goes beyond an individual right to privacy, it includes a right to be > protected of the law and thus may imply a right to the protection of > privacy. > > > >> Internet Infrastructure >> >> Internet is a network of networks and applications using a diversity of >> infrastructures, not a singular entity. In this context /"unfragmented"/ >> >> is an undefined term without any precise meaning. Suggestion: >> /interoperable/. >> > > I support that too. The "threat of fragmentation" seems to have assumed a > political/ideological meaning over the last year or so. > > jeanette > >> - - - >> >> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Andrew Puddephatt >> > wrote: >> >> Great work everyone - thanks for putting this together so speedily >> >> Andrew Puddephatt >> Global Partners Digital >> Andrew at gp-digital.org >> Tel mobile +44 (0)771 339 9597 >> Tel office +44 (0)207 549 0350 >> >> >> From: Jeremy Malcolm > > >> Reply-To: Jeremy Malcolm > > >> >> Date: Friday, 11 April 2014 05:09 >> To: "" > > >> >> Subject: [bestbits] URGENT - statement commenting on draft >> NETmundial text to be posted 8.5 hours from now >> >> Yesterday the Best Bits participants who are helping to organise the >> NETmundial civil society pre-meeting on 22 April held a call about >> the meeting (more on this later), and also, thought not on the >> agenda, there was consensus that it would be strategically important >> to post a short statement about the NETmundial text that was leaked >> by Wikileaks on Wednesday >> (https://wikileaks.org/netmundial-outcome/NETmundial- >> EMC-Outcome-Document.pdf >> > EMC-Outcome-Document.pdf%29>) >> >> in order to influence the drafting process that is current underway. >> >> The statement is generally supportive of the draft but highlights >> the parts that we consider most important to preserve, particularly >> considering the points endorsed in previous BestBits submissions. >> >> Unfortunately, *the statement has to be released by 8.5 hours from >> now* because that is the next meeting of the Executive >> >> Multistakeholder Committee (EMC) at which the draft will be >> considered again. So with our apologies for the very short notice >> and limited opportunity to participate by those who were not on the >> call, here is a sign-on statement that was composed over the last >> few hours (into the late night for some): >> >> http://bestbits.net/netmundial-outcome-comments/ >> >> I am also pasting it below. If you would like to endorse it, please >> make sure that if you do so before 10:30am Brazil time, which is >> less than 8.5 hours from now. As usual, you can endorse it from the >> website above, not by replying to this email. The statement will >> also be emailed to the Executive Multistakeholder Committee members >> to ensure that they receive it before their meeting. >> >> [snip] >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From genekimmelman at gmail.com Fri Apr 11 07:25:26 2014 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 07:25:26 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] URGENT - statement commenting on draft NETmundial text to be posted 8.5 hours from now Message-ID: +1 -------- Original message -------- From: Andrew Puddephatt Date: 04/11/2014 4:39 AM (GMT-05:00) To: Jeremy Malcolm ,Best Bits Subject: Re: [bestbits] URGENT - statement commenting on draft NETmundial text to be posted 8.5 hours from now Great work everyone – thanks for putting this together so speedily Andrew Puddephatt Global Partners Digital Andrew at gp-digital.org Tel mobile +44 (0)771 339 9597  Tel office   +44 (0)207 549 0350 From: Jeremy Malcolm Reply-To: Jeremy Malcolm Date: Friday, 11 April 2014 05:09 To: "" Subject: [bestbits] URGENT - statement commenting on draft NETmundial text to be posted 8.5 hours from now Yesterday the Best Bits participants who are helping to organise the NETmundial civil society pre-meeting on 22 April held a call about the meeting (more on this later), and also, thought not on the agenda, there was consensus that it would be strategically important to post a short statement about the NETmundial text that was leaked by Wikileaks on Wednesday (https://wikileaks.org/netmundial-outcome/NETmundial-EMC-Outcome-Document.pdf) in order to influence the drafting process that is current underway. The statement is generally supportive of the draft but highlights the parts that we consider most important to preserve, particularly considering the points endorsed in previous BestBits submissions. Unfortunately, the statement has to be released by 8.5 hours from now because that is the next meeting of the Executive Multistakeholder Committee (EMC) at which the draft will be considered again. So with our apologies for the very short notice and limited opportunity to participate by those who were not on the call, here is a sign-on statement that was composed over the last few hours (into the late night for some): http://bestbits.net/netmundial-outcome-comments/ I am also pasting it below.  If you would like to endorse it, please make sure that if you do so before 10:30am Brazil time, which is less than 8.5 hours from now.  As usual, you can endorse it from the website above, not by replying to this email.  The statement will also be emailed to the Executive Multistakeholder Committee members to ensure that they receive it before their meeting. --- begins --- The undersigned members of the Best Bits coalition welcome the “Draft Outcome Document” that has been produced by the NETmundial Executive Multistakeholder Committee (EMC) and was submitted to the High Level Multistakeholder Committee on April 3, which we consider generally captures a balanced account of the wide range of contributions submitted by all stakeholders groups through the open process developed for the NETmundial platform. We would like to reinforce the following points from the draft document as a non-exhaustive list of priorities critical for the EMC and the Chair and Co-chairs to take into account and maintain in the structure of the draft as they develop the next version. 1) Internet Governance Principles Human Rights We welcome the fact that the draft acknowledges the quintessential importance of human rights, in particular the essential point that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online. Human rights should be a foundation of Internet Governance, and all Internet Governance Principles and Processes should be underpinned by and in line with human rights. We underscore that the final outcome of NETmundial must recognize the inextricable link between human rights and Internet governance principles, policies and processes. Open and inclusive processes depend upon the freedoms of expression and association and are empowered by them. Privacy We reinforce our support for the affirmation of the right to privacy in the draft text. Privacy is a fundamental human right, and is central to the maintenance of democratic societies. It is essential to human dignity and it reinforces other rights, such as freedom of expression and information, and freedom of association, and is recognised under international human rights law. Surveillance We also endorse the explicit note about the need to avoid “arbitrary or unlawful collection of personal data and surveillance” by States with the collaboration of the business sector. It is of crucial importance in rebuilding trust amongst stakeholders that mass and arbitrary surveillance programs are brought into alignment with human rights jurisprudence and principles, and that transparency and oversight are strengthened.[0] Development and Access to the Internet We welcome the inclusion of development among the human rights that underpin internet governance principles . The Internet is an enabler and catalyst of human rights, and, ultimately, to the right to development. As such, we believe it is important to include a reference to the right to digital inclusion and affordable, high-quality access to the internet in the non-exclusive list of principles. Internet Infrastructure We endorse the inclusion of principles related to preserve an unfragmented, interconnected, interoperable, secure, stable, resilient, sustainable, and trustworthy Internet. While we acknowledge that neutrality is included in this section, we would like to see an explicit reference to the concept and term “net neutrality” as a core principle. The application of all these principles is essential to ensure universal and affordable high-quality brodband access. 2) Roadmap for the Future of the Internet Governance We welcome the approach of the “Draft Outcome Document” in making recommendations on ways to improve the Internet Governance framework so it can serve as a catalyst for sustainable development and promotion of human rights. We affirm our support for the draft document’s mentions of Internet governance processes and institutions in which decisions are inclusive, open, informed, transparent and accountable, with the full involvement of all stakeholders, and stress that it is particularly important to ensure meaninful participation, with gender and regional balance and the inclusion of marginalized voices. NTIA transition and ICANN We support the draft’s acknowledgement of the announced IANA transition away from U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and its emphasis on the importance of including all stakeholders in the convening process, including those beyond ICANN bodies and I* organizations. It is important that the global multistakeholder community be able to participate in the discussion about the transition and in the transition proposal itself. Further it is important to reinforce the need for improved effectiveness, transparency and accountability of ICANN in the globalization process, as well as the separation of the policy development process and the IANA operations. Distributive and Coordinated Internet Governance We strongly welcome the option put forward in the draft of multi-stakeholder Internet governance coordination mechanisms, and we suggest it is reinforced as a recommendation, not only as an option “recommendable to analyze”. Further analysis, monitoring and information sharing about and within the internet governance architecture as a whole is duly needed. It might help us to identify weaknesses and gaps in the coverage of important issues and, in light of empirical evidence, would help us evaluate the merits of any alternative decision making processes. A multi-stakeholder coordination mechanism could also be useful to promote dialogue, build consensus or at least provide inputs into other processes tasked with actual decision making. IGF We support the mentions about the need to strengthen the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and to extend its mandate making it a permanent multi-stakeholder forum. Issues dealing with specific Internet Governance topics We reinforce the need to continue working on a multistakeholder dialogue to pursue institutional solutions to mass and arbitrary surveillance in order to guarantee the realization of several internet governance principles highlighted as fundamental in the draft outcome. Finally, we welcome the idea that the NETmundial findings and outcomes feed into other processes and forums, such as WSIS+10, IGF and other Internet governance discussions. We acknowledge the work done by the EMC and, as this is a non-exhaustive list of priority issues that we would like to reinforce, and we look forward to contributing further with specific text on subsequent drafts. [0] www.necessaryandproportionate.org; Judgment in Joined Cases C – 293/12 and C – 594/12 Digital Rights Ireland and Seitlinger and Others. -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG Fri Apr 11 07:36:22 2014 From: mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG (Mike Godwin (mgodwin@INTERNEWS.ORG)) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 07:36:22 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] URGENT - statement commenting on draft NETmundial text to be posted 8.5 hours from now In-Reply-To: <20DDED60-F1B3-4EA1-9067-94541E513F72@Malcolm.id.au> References: <20DDED60-F1B3-4EA1-9067-94541E513F72@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: Very briefly: with regard to “the quintessential importance of human rights,” my experience has been that “quintessential” doesn’t translate as well into other languages as (for example) words like “fundamental” or “primary” do. I’d suggest something like “the fundamental importance of human rights” instead. —Mike -- Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project mgodwin at internews.org | Mobile 415-793-4446 Skype mnemonic1026 Address 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA INTERNEWS | Local Voices. Global Change. www.internews.org | @internews | facebook.com/internews From: Jeremy Malcolm > Reply-To: Jeremy Malcolm > Date: Friday, April 11, 2014 at 1:09 AM To: Best Bits > Subject: [bestbits] URGENT - statement commenting on draft NETmundial text to be posted 8.5 hours from now Yesterday the Best Bits participants who are helping to organise the NETmundial civil society pre-meeting on 22 April held a call about the meeting (more on this later), and also, thought not on the agenda, there was consensus that it would be strategically important to post a short statement about the NETmundial text that was leaked by Wikileaks on Wednesday (https://wikileaks.org/netmundial-outcome/NETmundial-EMC-Outcome-Document.pdf) in order to influence the drafting process that is current underway. The statement is generally supportive of the draft but highlights the parts that we consider most important to preserve, particularly considering the points endorsed in previous BestBits submissions. Unfortunately, the statement has to be released by 8.5 hours from now because that is the next meeting of the Executive Multistakeholder Committee (EMC) at which the draft will be considered again. So with our apologies for the very short notice and limited opportunity to participate by those who were not on the call, here is a sign-on statement that was composed over the last few hours (into the late night for some): http://bestbits.net/netmundial-outcome-comments/ I am also pasting it below. If you would like to endorse it, please make sure that if you do so before 10:30am Brazil time, which is less than 8.5 hours from now. As usual, you can endorse it from the website above, not by replying to this email. The statement will also be emailed to the Executive Multistakeholder Committee members to ensure that they receive it before their meeting. --- begins --- The undersigned members of the Best Bits coalition welcome the “Draft Outcome Document” that has been produced by the NETmundial Executive Multistakeholder Committee (EMC) and was submitted to the High Level Multistakeholder Committee on April 3, which we consider generally captures a balanced account of the wide range of contributions submitted by all stakeholders groups through the open process developed for the NETmundial platform. We would like to reinforce the following points from the draft document as a non-exhaustive list of priorities critical for the EMC and the Chair and Co-chairs to take into account and maintain in the structure of the draft as they develop the next version. 1) Internet Governance Principles Human Rights We welcome the fact that the draft acknowledges the quintessential importance of human rights, in particular the essential point that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online. Human rights should be a foundation of Internet Governance, and all Internet Governance Principles and Processes should be underpinned by and in line with human rights. We underscore that the final outcome of NETmundial must recognize the inextricable link between human rights and Internet governance principles, policies and processes. Open and inclusive processes depend upon the freedoms of expression and association and are empowered by them. Privacy We reinforce our support for the affirmation of the right to privacy in the draft text. Privacy is a fundamental human right, and is central to the maintenance of democratic societies. It is essential to human dignity and it reinforces other rights, such as freedom of expression and information, and freedom of association, and is recognised under international human rights law. Surveillance We also endorse the explicit note about the need to avoid “arbitrary or unlawful collection of personal data and surveillance” by States with the collaboration of the business sector. It is of crucial importance in rebuilding trust amongst stakeholders that mass and arbitrary surveillance programs are brought into alignment with human rights jurisprudence and principles, and that transparency and oversight are strengthened.[0] Development and Access to the Internet We welcome the inclusion of development among the human rights that underpin internet governance principles . The Internet is an enabler and catalyst of human rights, and, ultimately, to the right to development. As such, we believe it is important to include a reference to the right to digital inclusion and affordable, high-quality access to the internet in the non-exclusive list of principles. Internet Infrastructure We endorse the inclusion of principles related to preserve an unfragmented, interconnected, interoperable, secure, stable, resilient, sustainable, and trustworthy Internet. While we acknowledge that neutrality is included in this section, we would like to see an explicit reference to the concept and term “net neutrality” as a core principle. The application of all these principles is essential to ensure universal and affordable high-quality brodband access. 2) Roadmap for the Future of the Internet Governance We welcome the approach of the “Draft Outcome Document” in making recommendations on ways to improve the Internet Governance framework so it can serve as a catalyst for sustainable development and promotion of human rights. We affirm our support for the draft document’s mentions of Internet governance processes and institutions in which decisions are inclusive, open, informed, transparent and accountable, with the full involvement of all stakeholders, and stress that it is particularly important to ensure meaninful participation, with gender and regional balance and the inclusion of marginalized voices. NTIA transition and ICANN We support the draft’s acknowledgement of the announced IANA transition away from U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and its emphasis on the importance of including all stakeholders in the convening process, including those beyond ICANN bodies and I* organizations. It is important that the global multistakeholder community be able to participate in the discussion about the transition and in the transition proposal itself. Further it is important to reinforce the need for improved effectiveness, transparency and accountability of ICANN in the globalization process, as well as the separation of the policy development process and the IANA operations. Distributive and Coordinated Internet Governance We strongly welcome the option put forward in the draft of multi-stakeholder Internet governance coordination mechanisms, and we suggest it is reinforced as a recommendation, not only as an option “recommendable to analyze”. Further analysis, monitoring and information sharing about and within the internet governance architecture as a whole is duly needed. It might help us to identify weaknesses and gaps in the coverage of important issues and, in light of empirical evidence, would help us evaluate the merits of any alternative decision making processes. A multi-stakeholder coordination mechanism could also be useful to promote dialogue, build consensus or at least provide inputs into other processes tasked with actual decision making. IGF We support the mentions about the need to strengthen the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and to extend its mandate making it a permanent multi-stakeholder forum. Issues dealing with specific Internet Governance topics We reinforce the need to continue working on a multistakeholder dialogue to pursue institutional solutions to mass and arbitrary surveillance in order to guarantee the realization of several internet governance principles highlighted as fundamental in the draft outcome. Finally, we welcome the idea that the NETmundial findings and outcomes feed into other processes and forums, such as WSIS+10, IGF and other Internet governance discussions. We acknowledge the work done by the EMC and, as this is a non-exhaustive list of priority issues that we would like to reinforce, and we look forward to contributing further with specific text on subsequent drafts. [0] www.necessaryandproportionate.org; Judgment in Joined Cases C – 293/12 and C – 594/12 Digital Rights Ireland and Seitlinger and Others. -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fatimacambronero at gmail.com Fri Apr 11 08:24:48 2014 From: fatimacambronero at gmail.com (Fatima Cambronero) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 09:24:48 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] URGENT - statement commenting on draft NETmundial text to be posted 8.5 hours from now In-Reply-To: References: <20DDED60-F1B3-4EA1-9067-94541E513F72@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: Dear Jeremy, Thanks for putting this draft to comment. I support Jeanette's comments on Human Rights. I would also add two brief comments: In this paragraph I would add: *"We endorse the inclusion of principles related to preserve an open, decentralized, unfragmented, interconnected, interoperable, secure, stable, resilient, sustainable, and trustworthy Internet. * *While we acknowledge that neutrality is included in this section, we would like to **emphasize** the recognition of the "end to end" principle and the consequences of its respect: "net neutrality" and see an explicit reference to the concept and term "net neutrality".* Thanks. Best Regards, Fatima 2014-04-11 8:36 GMT-03:00 Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) < mgodwin at internews.org>: > Very briefly: with regard to "the quintessential importance of human > rights," my experience has been that "quintessential" doesn't translate as > well into other languages as (for example) words like "fundamental" or > "primary" do. > > I'd suggest something like "the fundamental importance of human rights" > instead. > > > --Mike > > > -- > > *Mike Godwin* | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project > > mgodwin at internews.org | *Mobile* 415-793-4446 > > *Skype* mnemonic1026 > > *Address* 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA > > > > *INTERNEWS* | *Local Voices. Global Change.* > > www.internews.org | @internews | > facebook.com/internews > > From: Jeremy Malcolm > Reply-To: Jeremy Malcolm > Date: Friday, April 11, 2014 at 1:09 AM > To: Best Bits > > Subject: [bestbits] URGENT - statement commenting on draft NETmundial > text to be posted 8.5 hours from now > > Yesterday the Best Bits participants who are helping to organise the > NETmundial civil society pre-meeting on 22 April held a call about the > meeting (more on this later), and also, thought not on the agenda, there > was consensus that it would be strategically important to post a short > statement about the NETmundial text that was leaked by Wikileaks on > Wednesday ( > https://wikileaks.org/netmundial-outcome/NETmundial-EMC-Outcome-Document.pdf > ) in order to influence the drafting process that is current underway. > > The statement is generally supportive of the draft but highlights the > parts that we consider most important to preserve, particularly > considering the points endorsed in previous BestBits submissions. > > Unfortunately, *the statement has to be released by 8.5 hours from now* because > that is the next meeting of the Executive Multistakeholder Committee (EMC) > at which the draft will be considered again. So with our apologies for the > very short notice and limited opportunity to participate by those who were > not on the call, here is a sign-on statement that was composed over the > last few hours (into the late night for some): > > http://bestbits.net/netmundial-outcome-comments/ > > I am also pasting it below. If you would like to endorse it, please make > sure that if you do so before 10:30am Brazil time, which is less than 8.5 > hours from now. As usual, you can endorse it from the website above, not > by replying to this email. The statement will also be emailed to the > Executive Multistakeholder Committee members to ensure that they receive it > before their meeting. > > --- begins --- > > The undersigned members of the Best Bits coalition welcome the "Draft > Outcome Document" that has been produced by the NETmundial Executive > Multistakeholder Committee (EMC) and was submitted to the High Level > Multistakeholder Committee on April 3, which we consider generally captures > a balanced account of the wide range of contributions submitted by all > stakeholders groups through the open process developed for the NETmundial > platform. > > We would like to reinforce the following points from the draft document as > a non-exhaustive list of priorities critical for the EMC and the Chair and > Co-chairs to take into account and maintain in the structure of the draft > as they develop the next version. > 1) Internet Governance PrinciplesHuman Rights > > We welcome the fact that the draft acknowledges the quintessential > importance of human rights, in particular the essential point that the same > rights that people have offline must also be protected online. Human rights > should be a foundation of Internet Governance, and all Internet Governance > Principles and Processes should be underpinned by and in line with human > rights. We underscore that the final outcome of NETmundial must recognize > the inextricable link between human rights and Internet governance > principles, policies and processes. Open and inclusive processes depend > upon the freedoms of expression and association and are empowered by them. > Privacy > > We reinforce our support for the affirmation of the right to privacy in > the draft text. Privacy is a fundamental human right, and is central to the > maintenance of democratic societies. It is essential to human dignity and > it reinforces other rights, such as freedom of expression and information, > and freedom of association, and is recognised under international human > rights law. > Surveillance > > We also endorse the explicit note about the need to avoid "arbitrary or > unlawful collection of personal data and surveillance" by States with the > collaboration of the business sector. It is of crucial importance in > rebuilding trust amongst stakeholders that mass and arbitrary surveillance > programs are brought into alignment with human rights jurisprudence and > principles, and that transparency and oversight are strengthened.[0 > ] > Development and Access to the Internet > > We welcome the inclusion of development among the human rights that > underpin internet governance principles . The Internet is an enabler and > catalyst of human rights, and, ultimately, to the right to development. As > such, we believe it is important to include a reference to the right to > digital inclusion and affordable, high-quality access to the internet in > the non-exclusive list of principles. > Internet Infrastructure > > We endorse the inclusion of principles related to preserve an > unfragmented, interconnected, interoperable, secure, stable, resilient, > sustainable, and trustworthy Internet. While we acknowledge that neutrality > is included in this section, we would like to see an explicit reference to > the concept and term "net neutrality" as a core principle. The application > of all these principles is essential to ensure universal and affordable > high-quality brodband access. > 2) Roadmap for the Future of the Internet Governance > > We welcome the approach of the "Draft Outcome Document" in making > recommendations on ways to improve the Internet Governance framework so it > can serve as a catalyst for sustainable development and promotion of human > rights. > > We affirm our support for the draft document's mentions of Internet > governance processes and institutions in which decisions are inclusive, > open, informed, transparent and accountable, with the full involvement of > all stakeholders, and stress that it is particularly important to ensure > meaninful participation, with gender and regional balance and the inclusion > of marginalized voices. > NTIA transition and ICANN > > We support the draft's acknowledgement of the announced IANA transition > away from U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration > (NTIA) and its emphasis on the importance of including all stakeholders in > the convening process, including those beyond ICANN bodies and I* > organizations. It is important that the global multistakeholder community > be able to participate in the discussion about the transition and in the > transition proposal itself. Further it is important to reinforce the need > for improved effectiveness, transparency and accountability of ICANN in the > globalization process, as well as the separation of the policy development > process and the IANA operations. > Distributive and Coordinated Internet Governance > > We strongly welcome the option put forward in the draft of > multi-stakeholder Internet governance coordination mechanisms, and we > suggest it is reinforced as a recommendation, not only as an option > "recommendable to analyze". > > Further analysis, monitoring and information sharing about and within the > internet governance architecture as a whole is duly needed. It might help > us to identify weaknesses and gaps in the coverage of important issues and, > in light of empirical evidence, would help us evaluate the merits of any > alternative decision making processes. A multi-stakeholder coordination > mechanism could also be useful to promote dialogue, build consensus or at > least provide inputs into other processes tasked with actual decision > making. > IGF > > We support the mentions about the need to strengthen the Internet > Governance Forum (IGF) and to extend its mandate making it a permanent > multi-stakeholder forum. > Issues dealing with specific Internet Governance topics > > We reinforce the need to continue working on a multistakeholder dialogue > to pursue institutional solutions to mass and arbitrary surveillance in > order to guarantee the realization of several internet governance > principles highlighted as fundamental in the draft outcome. > > Finally, we welcome the idea that the NETmundial findings and outcomes > feed into other processes and forums, such as WSIS+10, IGF and other > Internet governance discussions. > > We acknowledge the work done by the EMC and, as this is a non-exhaustive > list of priority issues that we would like to reinforce, and we look > forward to contributing further with specific text on subsequent drafts. > > [0] www.necessaryandproportionate.org; Judgment in Joined Cases C - > 293/12 and C - 594/12 Digital Rights Ireland and Seitlinger and Others > . > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see > http://jere.my/l/pgp. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- *Fatima Cambronero* Abogada-Argentina Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 Twitter: @facambronero Skype: fatima.cambronero -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri Apr 11 08:45:12 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 08:45:12 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] URGENT - statement commenting on draft NETmundial text to be posted 8.5 hours from now In-Reply-To: References: <20DDED60-F1B3-4EA1-9067-94541E513F72@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: Agree a with Fatima On Apr 11, 2014 8:24 AM, "Fatima Cambronero" wrote: > Dear Jeremy, > > > Thanks for putting this draft to comment. > > I support Jeanette's comments on Human Rights. > > I would also add two brief comments: > > > In this paragraph I would add: > > > *"We endorse the inclusion of principles related to preserve an open, > decentralized, unfragmented, interconnected, interoperable, secure, stable, > resilient, sustainable, and trustworthy Internet. * > > *While we acknowledge that neutrality is included in this section, we > would like to **emphasize** the recognition of the "end to end" principle > and the consequences of its respect: "net neutrality" and see an explicit > reference to the concept and term "net neutrality".* > > > Thanks. > > > > Best Regards, > > Fatima > > > > > 2014-04-11 8:36 GMT-03:00 Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) < > mgodwin at internews.org>: > >> Very briefly: with regard to "the quintessential importance of human >> rights," my experience has been that "quintessential" doesn't translate as >> well into other languages as (for example) words like "fundamental" or >> "primary" do. >> >> I'd suggest something like "the fundamental importance of human rights" >> instead. >> >> >> --Mike >> >> >> -- >> >> *Mike Godwin* | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project >> >> mgodwin at internews.org | *Mobile* 415-793-4446 >> >> *Skype* mnemonic1026 >> >> *Address* 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA >> >> >> >> *INTERNEWS* | *Local Voices. Global Change.* >> >> www.internews.org | @internews | >> facebook.com/internews >> >> From: Jeremy Malcolm >> Reply-To: Jeremy Malcolm >> Date: Friday, April 11, 2014 at 1:09 AM >> To: Best Bits >> >> Subject: [bestbits] URGENT - statement commenting on draft NETmundial >> text to be posted 8.5 hours from now >> >> Yesterday the Best Bits participants who are helping to organise the >> NETmundial civil society pre-meeting on 22 April held a call about the >> meeting (more on this later), and also, thought not on the agenda, there >> was consensus that it would be strategically important to post a short >> statement about the NETmundial text that was leaked by Wikileaks on >> Wednesday ( >> https://wikileaks.org/netmundial-outcome/NETmundial-EMC-Outcome-Document.pdf >> ) in order to influence the drafting process that is current underway. >> >> The statement is generally supportive of the draft but highlights the >> parts that we consider most important to preserve, particularly >> considering the points endorsed in previous BestBits submissions. >> >> Unfortunately, *the statement has to be released by 8.5 hours from now* because >> that is the next meeting of the Executive Multistakeholder Committee (EMC) >> at which the draft will be considered again. So with our apologies for the >> very short notice and limited opportunity to participate by those who were >> not on the call, here is a sign-on statement that was composed over the >> last few hours (into the late night for some): >> >> http://bestbits.net/netmundial-outcome-comments/ >> >> I am also pasting it below. If you would like to endorse it, please make >> sure that if you do so before 10:30am Brazil time, which is less than 8.5 >> hours from now. As usual, you can endorse it from the website above, not >> by replying to this email. The statement will also be emailed to the >> Executive Multistakeholder Committee members to ensure that they receive it >> before their meeting. >> >> --- begins --- >> >> The undersigned members of the Best Bits coalition welcome the "Draft >> Outcome Document" that has been produced by the NETmundial Executive >> Multistakeholder Committee (EMC) and was submitted to the High Level >> Multistakeholder Committee on April 3, which we consider generally captures >> a balanced account of the wide range of contributions submitted by all >> stakeholders groups through the open process developed for the NETmundial >> platform. >> >> We would like to reinforce the following points from the draft document >> as a non-exhaustive list of priorities critical for the EMC and the Chair >> and Co-chairs to take into account and maintain in the structure of the >> draft as they develop the next version. >> 1) Internet Governance PrinciplesHuman Rights >> >> We welcome the fact that the draft acknowledges the quintessential >> importance of human rights, in particular the essential point that the same >> rights that people have offline must also be protected online. Human rights >> should be a foundation of Internet Governance, and all Internet Governance >> Principles and Processes should be underpinned by and in line with human >> rights. We underscore that the final outcome of NETmundial must recognize >> the inextricable link between human rights and Internet governance >> principles, policies and processes. Open and inclusive processes depend >> upon the freedoms of expression and association and are empowered by them. >> Privacy >> >> We reinforce our support for the affirmation of the right to privacy in >> the draft text. Privacy is a fundamental human right, and is central to the >> maintenance of democratic societies. It is essential to human dignity and >> it reinforces other rights, such as freedom of expression and information, >> and freedom of association, and is recognised under international human >> rights law. >> Surveillance >> >> We also endorse the explicit note about the need to avoid "arbitrary or >> unlawful collection of personal data and surveillance" by States with the >> collaboration of the business sector. It is of crucial importance in >> rebuilding trust amongst stakeholders that mass and arbitrary surveillance >> programs are brought into alignment with human rights jurisprudence and >> principles, and that transparency and oversight are strengthened.[0 >> ] >> Development and Access to the Internet >> >> We welcome the inclusion of development among the human rights that >> underpin internet governance principles . The Internet is an enabler and >> catalyst of human rights, and, ultimately, to the right to development. As >> such, we believe it is important to include a reference to the right to >> digital inclusion and affordable, high-quality access to the internet in >> the non-exclusive list of principles. >> Internet Infrastructure >> >> We endorse the inclusion of principles related to preserve an >> unfragmented, interconnected, interoperable, secure, stable, resilient, >> sustainable, and trustworthy Internet. While we acknowledge that neutrality >> is included in this section, we would like to see an explicit reference to >> the concept and term "net neutrality" as a core principle. The application >> of all these principles is essential to ensure universal and affordable >> high-quality brodband access. >> 2) Roadmap for the Future of the Internet Governance >> >> We welcome the approach of the "Draft Outcome Document" in making >> recommendations on ways to improve the Internet Governance framework so it >> can serve as a catalyst for sustainable development and promotion of human >> rights. >> >> We affirm our support for the draft document's mentions of Internet >> governance processes and institutions in which decisions are inclusive, >> open, informed, transparent and accountable, with the full involvement of >> all stakeholders, and stress that it is particularly important to ensure >> meaninful participation, with gender and regional balance and the inclusion >> of marginalized voices. >> NTIA transition and ICANN >> >> We support the draft's acknowledgement of the announced IANA transition >> away from U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration >> (NTIA) and its emphasis on the importance of including all stakeholders in >> the convening process, including those beyond ICANN bodies and I* >> organizations. It is important that the global multistakeholder community >> be able to participate in the discussion about the transition and in the >> transition proposal itself. Further it is important to reinforce the need >> for improved effectiveness, transparency and accountability of ICANN in the >> globalization process, as well as the separation of the policy development >> process and the IANA operations. >> Distributive and Coordinated Internet Governance >> >> We strongly welcome the option put forward in the draft of >> multi-stakeholder Internet governance coordination mechanisms, and we >> suggest it is reinforced as a recommendation, not only as an option >> "recommendable to analyze". >> >> Further analysis, monitoring and information sharing about and within the >> internet governance architecture as a whole is duly needed. It might help >> us to identify weaknesses and gaps in the coverage of important issues and, >> in light of empirical evidence, would help us evaluate the merits of any >> alternative decision making processes. A multi-stakeholder coordination >> mechanism could also be useful to promote dialogue, build consensus or at >> least provide inputs into other processes tasked with actual decision >> making. >> IGF >> >> We support the mentions about the need to strengthen the Internet >> Governance Forum (IGF) and to extend its mandate making it a permanent >> multi-stakeholder forum. >> Issues dealing with specific Internet Governance topics >> >> We reinforce the need to continue working on a multistakeholder dialogue >> to pursue institutional solutions to mass and arbitrary surveillance in >> order to guarantee the realization of several internet governance >> principles highlighted as fundamental in the draft outcome. >> >> Finally, we welcome the idea that the NETmundial findings and outcomes >> feed into other processes and forums, such as WSIS+10, IGF and other >> Internet governance discussions. >> >> We acknowledge the work done by the EMC and, as this is a non-exhaustive >> list of priority issues that we would like to reinforce, and we look >> forward to contributing further with specific text on subsequent drafts. >> >> [0] www.necessaryandproportionate.org; Judgment in Joined Cases C - >> 293/12 and C - 594/12 Digital Rights Ireland and Seitlinger and Others >> . >> >> -- >> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com >> Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see >> http://jere.my/l/pgp. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- > *Fatima Cambronero* > Abogada-Argentina > > Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 > Twitter: @facambronero > Skype: fatima.cambronero > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Fri Apr 11 08:50:10 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 14:50:10 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] URGENT - statement commenting on draft NETmundial text to be posted 8.5 hours from now In-Reply-To: References: <20DDED60-F1B3-4EA1-9067-94541E513F72@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <4D946CB4-5353-402B-B7DB-D7DB8FD36C19@theglobaljournal.net> If I may: Why "decentralized"? is Fatima referring to the "Internet governance" being not centralized. Let 's assume and agree that ICANN is currently trying to take more of a centralized role. Then I wonder if that "decentralized" labeling is or is not some sort of contradiction. Is Fatima referring to the "Internet", but then Internet being a sum of networks interconnected, what is the point of an Internet being decentralized (see below fragmented)? I would find more relevant to speak about a "distributive" or "inclusive" Internet "Unfragmented": Internet is fragmented by nature, even though one root zone has taken a dominant share at this stage of Internet development. We should keep in mind that more root zones will emerge as positive, innovative, competitive, interoperable, and more secure "spaces" of interconnection. So giving to ICANN such a extended asymmetric role is rather soon to be out-of-date. My bet would be an open, inclusive, distributive, interoperable, secure, stable, resilient, sustainable, and trustworthy Internet. JC Le 11 avr. 2014 à 14:24, Fatima Cambronero a écrit : > Dear Jeremy, > > > > Thanks for putting this draft to comment. > > I support Jeanette's comments on Human Rights. > > I would also add two brief comments: > > > > In this paragraph I would add: > > > > “We endorse the inclusion of principles related to preserve an open, decentralized, unfragmented, interconnected, interoperable, secure, stable, resilient, sustainable, and trustworthy Internet. > > While we acknowledge that neutrality is included in this section, we would like to emphasize the recognition of the “end to end” principle and the consequences of its respect: “net neutrality” and see an explicit reference to the concept and term “net neutrality”. > > > > Thanks. > > > Best Regards, > > Fatima > > > > > 2014-04-11 8:36 GMT-03:00 Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) : > Very briefly: with regard to “the quintessential importance of human rights,” my experience has been that “quintessential” doesn’t translate as well into other languages as (for example) words like “fundamental” or “primary” do. > > I’d suggest something like “the fundamental importance of human rights” instead. > > > —Mike > > > -- > Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project > mgodwin at internews.org | Mobile 415-793-4446 > Skype mnemonic1026 > Address 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA > > INTERNEWS | Local Voices. Global Change. > www.internews.org | @internews | facebook.com/internews > > From: Jeremy Malcolm > Reply-To: Jeremy Malcolm > Date: Friday, April 11, 2014 at 1:09 AM > To: Best Bits > > Subject: [bestbits] URGENT - statement commenting on draft NETmundial text to be posted 8.5 hours from now > > Yesterday the Best Bits participants who are helping to organise the NETmundial civil society pre-meeting on 22 April held a call about the meeting (more on this later), and also, thought not on the agenda, there was consensus that it would be strategically important to post a short statement about the NETmundial text that was leaked by Wikileaks on Wednesday (https://wikileaks.org/netmundial-outcome/NETmundial-EMC-Outcome-Document.pdf) in order to influence the drafting process that is current underway. > > The statement is generally supportive of the draft but highlights the parts that we consider most important to preserve, particularly considering the points endorsed in previous BestBits submissions. > > Unfortunately, the statement has to be released by 8.5 hours from now because that is the next meeting of the Executive Multistakeholder Committee (EMC) at which the draft will be considered again. So with our apologies for the very short notice and limited opportunity to participate by those who were not on the call, here is a sign-on statement that was composed over the last few hours (into the late night for some): > > http://bestbits.net/netmundial-outcome-comments/ > > I am also pasting it below. If you would like to endorse it, please make sure that if you do so before 10:30am Brazil time, which is less than 8.5 hours from now. As usual, you can endorse it from the website above, not by replying to this email. The statement will also be emailed to the Executive Multistakeholder Committee members to ensure that they receive it before their meeting. > > --- begins --- > The undersigned members of the Best Bits coalition welcome the “Draft Outcome Document” that has been produced by the NETmundial Executive Multistakeholder Committee (EMC) and was submitted to the High Level Multistakeholder Committee on April 3, which we consider generally captures a balanced account of the wide range of contributions submitted by all stakeholders groups through the open process developed for the NETmundial platform. > > We would like to reinforce the following points from the draft document as a non-exhaustive list of priorities critical for the EMC and the Chair and Co-chairs to take into account and maintain in the structure of the draft as they develop the next version. > > 1) Internet Governance Principles > > Human Rights > > We welcome the fact that the draft acknowledges the quintessential importance of human rights, in particular the essential point that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online. Human rights should be a foundation of Internet Governance, and all Internet Governance Principles and Processes should be underpinned by and in line with human rights. We underscore that the final outcome of NETmundial must recognize the inextricable link between human rights and Internet governance principles, policies and processes. Open and inclusive processes depend upon the freedoms of expression and association and are empowered by them. > > Privacy > > We reinforce our support for the affirmation of the right to privacy in the draft text. Privacy is a fundamental human right, and is central to the maintenance of democratic societies. It is essential to human dignity and it reinforces other rights, such as freedom of expression and information, and freedom of association, and is recognised under international human rights law. > > Surveillance > > We also endorse the explicit note about the need to avoid “arbitrary or unlawful collection of personal data and surveillance” by States with the collaboration of the business sector. It is of crucial importance in rebuilding trust amongst stakeholders that mass and arbitrary surveillance programs are brought into alignment with human rights jurisprudence and principles, and that transparency and oversight are strengthened.[0] > > Development and Access to the Internet > > We welcome the inclusion of development among the human rights that underpin internet governance principles . The Internet is an enabler and catalyst of human rights, and, ultimately, to the right to development. As such, we believe it is important to include a reference to the right to digital inclusion and affordable, high-quality access to the internet in the non-exclusive list of principles. > > Internet Infrastructure > > We endorse the inclusion of principles related to preserve an unfragmented, interconnected, interoperable, secure, stable, resilient, sustainable, and trustworthy Internet. While we acknowledge that neutrality is included in this section, we would like to see an explicit reference to the concept and term “net neutrality” as a core principle. The application of all these principles is essential to ensure universal and affordable high-quality brodband access. > > 2) Roadmap for the Future of the Internet Governance > > We welcome the approach of the “Draft Outcome Document” in making recommendations on ways to improve the Internet Governance framework so it can serve as a catalyst for sustainable development and promotion of human rights. > > We affirm our support for the draft document’s mentions of Internet governance processes and institutions in which decisions are inclusive, open, informed, transparent and accountable, with the full involvement of all stakeholders, and stress that it is particularly important to ensure meaninful participation, with gender and regional balance and the inclusion of marginalized voices. > > NTIA transition and ICANN > > We support the draft’s acknowledgement of the announced IANA transition away from U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and its emphasis on the importance of including all stakeholders in the convening process, including those beyond ICANN bodies and I* organizations. It is important that the global multistakeholder community be able to participate in the discussion about the transition and in the transition proposal itself. Further it is important to reinforce the need for improved effectiveness, transparency and accountability of ICANN in the globalization process, as well as the separation of the policy development process and the IANA operations. > > Distributive and Coordinated Internet Governance > > We strongly welcome the option put forward in the draft of multi-stakeholder Internet governance coordination mechanisms, and we suggest it is reinforced as a recommendation, not only as an option “recommendable to analyze”. > > Further analysis, monitoring and information sharing about and within the internet governance architecture as a whole is duly needed. It might help us to identify weaknesses and gaps in the coverage of important issues and, in light of empirical evidence, would help us evaluate the merits of any alternative decision making processes. A multi-stakeholder coordination mechanism could also be useful to promote dialogue, build consensus or at least provide inputs into other processes tasked with actual decision making. > > IGF > > We support the mentions about the need to strengthen the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and to extend its mandate making it a permanent multi-stakeholder forum. > > Issues dealing with specific Internet Governance topics > > We reinforce the need to continue working on a multistakeholder dialogue to pursue institutional solutions to mass and arbitrary surveillance in order to guarantee the realization of several internet governance principles highlighted as fundamental in the draft outcome. > > Finally, we welcome the idea that the NETmundial findings and outcomes feed into other processes and forums, such as WSIS+10, IGF and other Internet governance discussions. > > We acknowledge the work done by the EMC and, as this is a non-exhaustive list of priority issues that we would like to reinforce, and we look forward to contributing further with specific text on subsequent drafts. > > [0] www.necessaryandproportionate.org; Judgment in Joined Cases C – 293/12 and C – 594/12 Digital Rights Ireland and Seitlinger and Others. > > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > Fatima Cambronero > Abogada-Argentina > > Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 > Twitter: @facambronero > Skype: fatima.cambronero > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri Apr 11 09:11:00 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 09:11:00 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] FW: LDC's Turning Backs on Multistakeholder Trade Agreements In-Reply-To: References: <024c01cf5519$11a3bb00$34eb3100$@gmail.com> <026301cf5519$a7068740$f51395c0$@gmail.com> <1454f3e7ef8.27c9.9387b8a9f30986f905fcc4cfa238b71f@consensus.pro> Message-ID: no equivalence at all I have been working directly with trade agreements, as Nick has ....and everything there is secret, non-transparent ..etc... a mistake to say that "old style lobby" is equivalent to multi-stakeholderism... no "equal footing" on TPP or Trans-Atlantic ..makes me laugh actually refer to BestBits on statement on process http://bestbits.net/netmundial-roadmap/ On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 6:07 AM, McTim wrote: > > > Nick, > > thanks for making this point, which I had intended to make as well. > There is absolutley no equivalence here! > > rgds, > > McTim > > On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart > wrote: > > I'm sorry but to suggest BITS are multi stakeholder is just fundamentally > > incorrect. Love them or hate them, they are entirely different to what we > > talk about vis a vis multi stakeholder processes in Internet policy. > > > > On 11 April 2014 02:05:25 "michael gurstein" wrote: > >> > >> These "Investor Treaties" are the trade equivalent of multistakeholder > >> governance processes in that they give the private sector equal rights > with > >> governments in determining the contents of sectoral trade agreements. > >> > >> > >> > >> M > >> > >> > >> > >> From: sid-l at googlegroups.com [mailto:sid-l at googlegroups.com] On Behalf > Of > >> Sid Shniad > >> Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 12:17 PM > >> To: undisclosed-recipients: > >> Subject: Investor Treaties in Trouble > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > http://us5.campaign-archive2.com/?u=fa9cf38799136b5660f367ba6&id=3990f710bb&e=3f7d5d14f1 > >> > >> SOUTHNEWS No. 52, 10 April 2014 > >> > >> SOUTHNEWS is a service of the South Centre to provide information and > news > >> on topical issues from a South perspective. > >> Visit the South Centre's website: www.southcentre.int. > >> > >> Investor Treaties in Trouble > >> > >> By Martin Khor > >> > >> The tide is turning against investment treaties and free trade > agreements > >> that contain the controversial investor-state dispute system, as > countries > >> like Indonesia and Germany take action on this. > >> > >> The tide is turning against investment treaties that allow foreign > >> investors to take up cases against host governments and claim > compensation > >> of up to billions of dollars. > >> > >> Indonesia has given notice to it will terminate its bilateral investment > >> treaty (BIT) with the Netherlands, according to a statement issued by > the > >> Dutch Embassy in Jakarta last week. > >> > >> "The Indonesian Government has also mentioned it intends to terminate > all > >> of its 67 bilateral investment treaties", according to the same > statement. > >> > >> The Dutch statement has not been confirmed by Indonesia. But if this is > >> correct, Indonesia joins South Africa, which last year announced it is > >> ending all its BITS. > >> > >> Several other countries are also reviewing their investment treaties. > >> This is prompted by increasing numbers of cases being brought against > >> governments by foreign companies who claim that changes in government > >> policies or contracts affect their future profits. > >> > >> Many countries have been asked to pay large compensations to companies > >> under the treaties. The biggest claim was against Ecuador, which has to > >> compensate an American oil company US$ 2.3 billion for cancelling a > >> contract. > >> > >> The system empowering investors to sue governments in an international > >> tribunal, thus bypassing national laws and courts, is a subject of > >> controversy in Malaysia because it is part of the Trans-Pacific > Partnership > >> Agreement (TPPA) which the country is negotiating with 11 other > countries. > >> > >> The investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system is contained in free > >> trade agreements (especially those involving the United States) and > also in > >> BITS which countries sign among themselves to protect foreign investors' > >> rights. > >> > >> When these treaties containing ISDS were signed, many countries did not > >> know they were opening themselves to legal cases that foreign investors > can > >> take up under loosely worded provisions that allow them to win cases > where > >> they claim they have not been treated fairly or that there expected > revenues > >> have been expropriated. > >> > >> Indonesia and South Africa are among many countries that faced such > cases. > >> The Indonesian government has been taken to the ICSID tribunal based in > >> Washington by a British company, Churchill Mining, which claimed the > >> government violated the UK-Indonesia BIT when its contract with a local > >> government in East Kalimantan was cancelled. > >> > >> Reports indicate the company is claiming compensation of US$ 1 billion > to > >> US$ 2 billion in losses. > >> > >> This and other cases taken against Indonesia prompted the government to > >> review whether it should retain its many BITS. > >> > >> South Africa had also been sued by a British mining company which > claimed > >> losses after the government introduced policies to boost the economic > >> capacity of the blacks to redress apartheid policies. > >> > >> India is also reviewing its BITS, after many companies filed cases after > >> the Supreme Court cancelled their 2G mobile communications licenses in > the > >> wake of a high-profile corruption scandal linked to the granting of the > >> licenses. > >> > >> But it is not only developing countries that are getting disillusioned > by > >> the ISDS. Europe is getting cold feet over the investor-state dispute > >> mechanism in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) > it is > >> negotiating with the US, similar to the mechanism in the TPPA. > >> > >> Several weeks ago, Germany told the European Commission that the TTIP > must > >> not have the investor-state dispute mechanism. > >> > >> Brigitte Zypries, an economy minister, told the German parliament that > >> Berlin was determined to exclude arbitration rights from the TTIP deal, > >> according to the Financial Times. > >> > >> "From the perspective of the [German] federal government, US investors > in > >> the EU have sufficient legal protection in the national courts," she > said. > >> > >> The French trade minister had earlier voiced opposition to ISDS, while a > >> report commissioned by the United Kingdom government also pointed out > >> problems with the mechanism. > >> > >> The European disillusionment has two causes. ISDS cases are also > >> affecting the countries. > >> > >> Germany has been taken to ICSID by a Swedish company Vattenfall which > >> claimed it suffered over a billion euros in losses resulting from the > >> government's decision to phase out nuclear power after the Fukushima > >> disaster. > >> > >> And the European public is getting upset over the investment system. > Two > >> European organisations last year published a report showing how the > >> international investment arbitration system is monopolised by a few big > law > >> firms, how the tribunals are riddled with conflicts of interest and the > >> arbitrary nature of tribunal decisions. > >> > >> That report caused shockwaves not only in the civil society but also > among > >> European policy makers. > >> > >> In January, the European Commission suspended negotiations with the US > on > >> the ISDS provisions in the TTIP, and announced it would hold 90 days of > >> consultations with the public over the issue. > >> > >> In Australia, the previous government decided it would not have an ISDS > >> clause in its future FTAs and BITS, following a case taken against it by > >> Philip Morris International which claimed loss of profits because of > laws > >> requiring only plain packaging on cigarette boxes. > >> > >> In Malaysia, the ISDS is one of the major controversial issues relating > to > >> the TPPA. Many business, professional and public-interest groups want > the > >> government to exclude the ISDS as a "red line" in the TPPA negotiations. > >> > >> Prime Minister Dato' Sri Najib Tun Razak had also mentioned investment > >> policy and ISDS as one of the issues (the others being government > >> procurement and state owned enterprises) in the TTPA that may impinge on > >> national sovereignty, when he was at the APEC Summit and TPPA Summit in > >> Indonesia last year. > >> > >> So far the United States has stuck to its position that ISDS has to be > >> part of the TPPA and TTIP. However if the emerging European opposition > >> affects the TTIP negotiations, it could affect the TPPA as this would > >> strengthen the position of those opposed to ISDS. > >> > >> Meanwhile, we can also expect more countries to review their BITS. > >> Developing countries seeking to end their bilateral agreements with > European > >> countries can point to the fact that more and more European countries > are > >> themselves having second thoughts about the ISDS embedded in these > >> agreements. > >> > >> > >> Author: Martin Khor is the Executive Director of the South Centre. > >> Contact: director at southcentre.int. > >> To view other articles in SouthNews, please click here. > >> > >> For more information, please contact Vicente Paolo Yu of the South > Centre: > >> Email yu at southcentre.int, or telephone +41 22 791 80 50. > >> > >> -- > >> > >> --- > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > >> "Sid-l" group. > >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > an > >> email to sid-l+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > >> !DSPAM:2676,5346ee1c215691981217163! > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- *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: From fatimacambronero at gmail.com Fri Apr 11 09:18:49 2014 From: fatimacambronero at gmail.com (Fatima Cambronero) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 10:18:49 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] URGENT - statement commenting on draft NETmundial text to be posted 8.5 hours from now In-Reply-To: <4D946CB4-5353-402B-B7DB-D7DB8FD36C19@theglobaljournal.net> References: <20DDED60-F1B3-4EA1-9067-94541E513F72@Malcolm.id.au> <4D946CB4-5353-402B-B7DB-D7DB8FD36C19@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: I was referring to the Internet, not Internet governance. By "decentralized" I am referring to the opposite of a "centralized network". I want the Internet not to be under a central power. In my opinion, I could accept "inclusive" but as long as it is also "decentralized". Best Regards, Fatima 2014-04-11 9:50 GMT-03:00 Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal < jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>: > If I may: > > Why "*decentralized*"? is Fatima referring to the "Internet governance" > being not centralized. Let 's assume and agree that ICANN is currently > trying to take more of a centralized role. Then I wonder if that > "decentralized" labeling is or is not some sort of contradiction. Is Fatima > referring to the "Internet", but then Internet being a sum of networks > interconnected, what is the point of an Internet being decentralized (see > below fragmented)? > > I would find more relevant to speak about a "*distributive*" or " > *inclusive*" Internet > > *"Unfragmented"*: Internet is fragmented by nature, even though one root > zone has taken a dominant share at this stage of Internet development. We > should keep in mind that more root zones will emerge as positive, > innovative, competitive, interoperable, and more secure "spaces" of > interconnection. So giving to ICANN such a extended asymmetric role is > rather soon to be out-of-date. > > My bet would be > *an open, inclusive, distributive, interoperable, secure, stable, > resilient, sustainable, and trustworthy Internet.* > > *JC* > > Le 11 avr. 2014 à 14:24, Fatima Cambronero a écrit : > > Dear Jeremy, > > > Thanks for putting this draft to comment. > > I support Jeanette's comments on Human Rights. > > I would also add two brief comments: > > > In this paragraph I would add: > > > *"We endorse the inclusion of principles related to preserve an open, > decentralized, unfragmented, interconnected, interoperable, secure, stable, > resilient, sustainable, and trustworthy Internet. * > > *While we acknowledge that neutrality is included in this section, we > would like to **emphasize** the recognition of the "end to end" principle > and the consequences of its respect: "net neutrality" and see an explicit > reference to the concept and term "net neutrality".* > > > Thanks. > > > Best Regards, > > Fatima > > > > 2014-04-11 8:36 GMT-03:00 Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) < > mgodwin at internews.org>: > >> Very briefly: with regard to "the quintessential importance of human >> rights," my experience has been that "quintessential" doesn't translate as >> well into other languages as (for example) words like "fundamental" or >> "primary" do. >> >> I'd suggest something like "the fundamental importance of human rights" >> instead. >> >> >> --Mike >> >> >> -- >> *Mike Godwin* | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project >> mgodwin at internews.org | *Mobile* 415-793-4446 >> *Skype* mnemonic1026 >> *Address* 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA >> >> *INTERNEWS* | *Local Voices. Global Change.* >> www.internews.org | @internews | >> facebook.com/internews >> >> From: Jeremy Malcolm >> Reply-To: Jeremy Malcolm >> Date: Friday, April 11, 2014 at 1:09 AM >> To: Best Bits >> >> Subject: [bestbits] URGENT - statement commenting on draft NETmundial >> text to be posted 8.5 hours from now >> >> Yesterday the Best Bits participants who are helping to organise the >> NETmundial civil society pre-meeting on 22 April held a call about the >> meeting (more on this later), and also, thought not on the agenda, there >> was consensus that it would be strategically important to post a short >> statement about the NETmundial text that was leaked by Wikileaks on >> Wednesday ( >> https://wikileaks.org/netmundial-outcome/NETmundial-EMC-Outcome-Document.pdf >> ) in order to influence the drafting process that is current underway. >> >> The statement is generally supportive of the draft but highlights the >> parts that we consider most important to preserve, particularly >> considering the points endorsed in previous BestBits submissions. >> >> Unfortunately, *the statement has to be released by 8.5 hours from now* because >> that is the next meeting of the Executive Multistakeholder Committee (EMC) >> at which the draft will be considered again. So with our apologies for the >> very short notice and limited opportunity to participate by those who were >> not on the call, here is a sign-on statement that was composed over the >> last few hours (into the late night for some): >> >> http://bestbits.net/netmundial-outcome-comments/ >> >> I am also pasting it below. If you would like to endorse it, please make >> sure that if you do so before 10:30am Brazil time, which is less than 8.5 >> hours from now. As usual, you can endorse it from the website above, not >> by replying to this email. The statement will also be emailed to the >> Executive Multistakeholder Committee members to ensure that they receive it >> before their meeting. >> >> --- begins --- >> >> The undersigned members of the Best Bits coalition welcome the "Draft >> Outcome Document" that has been produced by the NETmundial Executive >> Multistakeholder Committee (EMC) and was submitted to the High Level >> Multistakeholder Committee on April 3, which we consider generally captures >> a balanced account of the wide range of contributions submitted by all >> stakeholders groups through the open process developed for the NETmundial >> platform. >> >> We would like to reinforce the following points from the draft document >> as a non-exhaustive list of priorities critical for the EMC and the Chair >> and Co-chairs to take into account and maintain in the structure of the >> draft as they develop the next version. >> 1) Internet Governance PrinciplesHuman Rights >> >> We welcome the fact that the draft acknowledges the quintessential >> importance of human rights, in particular the essential point that the same >> rights that people have offline must also be protected online. Human rights >> should be a foundation of Internet Governance, and all Internet Governance >> Principles and Processes should be underpinned by and in line with human >> rights. We underscore that the final outcome of NETmundial must recognize >> the inextricable link between human rights and Internet governance >> principles, policies and processes. Open and inclusive processes depend >> upon the freedoms of expression and association and are empowered by them. >> Privacy >> >> We reinforce our support for the affirmation of the right to privacy in >> the draft text. Privacy is a fundamental human right, and is central to the >> maintenance of democratic societies. It is essential to human dignity and >> it reinforces other rights, such as freedom of expression and information, >> and freedom of association, and is recognised under international human >> rights law. >> Surveillance >> >> We also endorse the explicit note about the need to avoid "arbitrary or >> unlawful collection of personal data and surveillance" by States with the >> collaboration of the business sector. It is of crucial importance in >> rebuilding trust amongst stakeholders that mass and arbitrary surveillance >> programs are brought into alignment with human rights jurisprudence and >> principles, and that transparency and oversight are strengthened.[0 >> ] >> Development and Access to the Internet >> >> We welcome the inclusion of development among the human rights that >> underpin internet governance principles . The Internet is an enabler and >> catalyst of human rights, and, ultimately, to the right to development. As >> such, we believe it is important to include a reference to the right to >> digital inclusion and affordable, high-quality access to the internet in >> the non-exclusive list of principles. >> Internet Infrastructure >> >> We endorse the inclusion of principles related to preserve an >> unfragmented, interconnected, interoperable, secure, stable, resilient, >> sustainable, and trustworthy Internet. While we acknowledge that neutrality >> is included in this section, we would like to see an explicit reference to >> the concept and term "net neutrality" as a core principle. The application >> of all these principles is essential to ensure universal and affordable >> high-quality brodband access. >> 2) Roadmap for the Future of the Internet Governance >> >> We welcome the approach of the "Draft Outcome Document" in making >> recommendations on ways to improve the Internet Governance framework so it >> can serve as a catalyst for sustainable development and promotion of human >> rights. >> >> We affirm our support for the draft document's mentions of Internet >> governance processes and institutions in which decisions are inclusive, >> open, informed, transparent and accountable, with the full involvement of >> all stakeholders, and stress that it is particularly important to ensure >> meaninful participation, with gender and regional balance and the inclusion >> of marginalized voices. >> NTIA transition and ICANN >> >> We support the draft's acknowledgement of the announced IANA transition >> away from U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration >> (NTIA) and its emphasis on the importance of including all stakeholders in >> the convening process, including those beyond ICANN bodies and I* >> organizations. It is important that the global multistakeholder community >> be able to participate in the discussion about the transition and in the >> transition proposal itself. Further it is important to reinforce the need >> for improved effectiveness, transparency and accountability of ICANN in the >> globalization process, as well as the separation of the policy development >> process and the IANA operations. >> Distributive and Coordinated Internet Governance >> >> We strongly welcome the option put forward in the draft of >> multi-stakeholder Internet governance coordination mechanisms, and we >> suggest it is reinforced as a recommendation, not only as an option >> "recommendable to analyze". >> >> Further analysis, monitoring and information sharing about and within the >> internet governance architecture as a whole is duly needed. It might help >> us to identify weaknesses and gaps in the coverage of important issues and, >> in light of empirical evidence, would help us evaluate the merits of any >> alternative decision making processes. A multi-stakeholder coordination >> mechanism could also be useful to promote dialogue, build consensus or at >> least provide inputs into other processes tasked with actual decision >> making. >> IGF >> >> We support the mentions about the need to strengthen the Internet >> Governance Forum (IGF) and to extend its mandate making it a permanent >> multi-stakeholder forum. >> Issues dealing with specific Internet Governance topics >> >> We reinforce the need to continue working on a multistakeholder dialogue >> to pursue institutional solutions to mass and arbitrary surveillance in >> order to guarantee the realization of several internet governance >> principles highlighted as fundamental in the draft outcome. >> >> Finally, we welcome the idea that the NETmundial findings and outcomes >> feed into other processes and forums, such as WSIS+10, IGF and other >> Internet governance discussions. >> >> We acknowledge the work done by the EMC and, as this is a non-exhaustive >> list of priority issues that we would like to reinforce, and we look >> forward to contributing further with specific text on subsequent drafts. >> >> [0] www.necessaryandproportionate.org; Judgment in Joined Cases C - >> 293/12 and C - 594/12 Digital Rights Ireland and Seitlinger and Others >> . >> >> -- >> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com >> Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see >> http://jere.my/l/pgp. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- > *Fatima Cambronero* > Abogada-Argentina > > Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 > Twitter: @facambronero > Skype: fatima.cambronero > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > -- *Fatima Cambronero* Abogada-Argentina Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 Twitter: @facambronero Skype: fatima.cambronero -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri Apr 11 09:29:37 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 09:29:37 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] URGENT - statement commenting on draft NETmundial text to be posted 8.5 hours from now In-Reply-To: References: <20DDED60-F1B3-4EA1-9067-94541E513F72@Malcolm.id.au> <4D946CB4-5353-402B-B7DB-D7DB8FD36C19@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: Folks...just to say...this will be delivered in 1 minute to authorities in Brazil... On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Fatima Cambronero < fatimacambronero at gmail.com> wrote: > I was referring to the Internet, not Internet governance. > > By "decentralized" I am referring to the opposite of a "centralized > network". I want the Internet not to be under a central power. > > In my opinion, I could accept "inclusive" but as long as it is also > "decentralized". > > > > Best Regards, > > Fatima > > > 2014-04-11 9:50 GMT-03:00 Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal < > jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>: > > If I may: >> >> Why "*decentralized*"? is Fatima referring to the "Internet governance" >> being not centralized. Let 's assume and agree that ICANN is currently >> trying to take more of a centralized role. Then I wonder if that >> "decentralized" labeling is or is not some sort of contradiction. Is Fatima >> referring to the "Internet", but then Internet being a sum of networks >> interconnected, what is the point of an Internet being decentralized (see >> below fragmented)? >> >> I would find more relevant to speak about a "*distributive*" or " >> *inclusive*" Internet >> >> *"Unfragmented"*: Internet is fragmented by nature, even though one root >> zone has taken a dominant share at this stage of Internet development. We >> should keep in mind that more root zones will emerge as positive, >> innovative, competitive, interoperable, and more secure "spaces" of >> interconnection. So giving to ICANN such a extended asymmetric role is >> rather soon to be out-of-date. >> >> My bet would be >> *an open, inclusive, distributive, interoperable, secure, stable, >> resilient, sustainable, and trustworthy Internet.* >> >> *JC* >> >> Le 11 avr. 2014 à 14:24, Fatima Cambronero a écrit : >> >> Dear Jeremy, >> >> >> Thanks for putting this draft to comment. >> >> I support Jeanette's comments on Human Rights. >> >> I would also add two brief comments: >> >> >> In this paragraph I would add: >> >> >> *"We endorse the inclusion of principles related to preserve an open, >> decentralized, unfragmented, interconnected, interoperable, secure, stable, >> resilient, sustainable, and trustworthy Internet. * >> >> *While we acknowledge that neutrality is included in this section, we >> would like to **emphasize** the recognition of the "end to end" >> principle and the consequences of its respect: "net neutrality" and see an >> explicit reference to the concept and term "net neutrality".* >> >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Fatima >> >> >> >> 2014-04-11 8:36 GMT-03:00 Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) < >> mgodwin at internews.org>: >> >>> Very briefly: with regard to "the quintessential importance of human >>> rights," my experience has been that "quintessential" doesn't translate as >>> well into other languages as (for example) words like "fundamental" or >>> "primary" do. >>> >>> I'd suggest something like "the fundamental importance of human rights" >>> instead. >>> >>> >>> --Mike >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *Mike Godwin* | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project >>> mgodwin at internews.org | *Mobile* 415-793-4446 >>> *Skype* mnemonic1026 >>> *Address* 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA >>> >>> *INTERNEWS* | *Local Voices. Global Change.* >>> www.internews.org | @internews | >>> facebook.com/internews >>> >>> From: Jeremy Malcolm >>> Reply-To: Jeremy Malcolm >>> Date: Friday, April 11, 2014 at 1:09 AM >>> To: Best Bits >>> >>> Subject: [bestbits] URGENT - statement commenting on draft NETmundial >>> text to be posted 8.5 hours from now >>> >>> Yesterday the Best Bits participants who are helping to organise the >>> NETmundial civil society pre-meeting on 22 April held a call about the >>> meeting (more on this later), and also, thought not on the agenda, there >>> was consensus that it would be strategically important to post a short >>> statement about the NETmundial text that was leaked by Wikileaks on >>> Wednesday ( >>> https://wikileaks.org/netmundial-outcome/NETmundial-EMC-Outcome-Document.pdf >>> ) in order to influence the drafting process that is current underway. >>> >>> The statement is generally supportive of the draft but highlights the >>> parts that we consider most important to preserve, particularly >>> considering the points endorsed in previous BestBits submissions. >>> >>> Unfortunately, *the statement has to be released by 8.5 hours from now* because >>> that is the next meeting of the Executive Multistakeholder Committee (EMC) >>> at which the draft will be considered again. So with our apologies for the >>> very short notice and limited opportunity to participate by those who were >>> not on the call, here is a sign-on statement that was composed over the >>> last few hours (into the late night for some): >>> >>> http://bestbits.net/netmundial-outcome-comments/ >>> >>> I am also pasting it below. If you would like to endorse it, please >>> make sure that if you do so before 10:30am Brazil time, which is less than >>> 8.5 hours from now. As usual, you can endorse it from the website above, >>> not by replying to this email. The statement will also be emailed to the >>> Executive Multistakeholder Committee members to ensure that they receive it >>> before their meeting. >>> >>> --- begins --- >>> >>> The undersigned members of the Best Bits coalition welcome the "Draft >>> Outcome Document" that has been produced by the NETmundial Executive >>> Multistakeholder Committee (EMC) and was submitted to the High Level >>> Multistakeholder Committee on April 3, which we consider generally captures >>> a balanced account of the wide range of contributions submitted by all >>> stakeholders groups through the open process developed for the NETmundial >>> platform. >>> >>> We would like to reinforce the following points from the draft document >>> as a non-exhaustive list of priorities critical for the EMC and the Chair >>> and Co-chairs to take into account and maintain in the structure of the >>> draft as they develop the next version. >>> 1) Internet Governance PrinciplesHuman Rights >>> >>> We welcome the fact that the draft acknowledges the quintessential >>> importance of human rights, in particular the essential point that the same >>> rights that people have offline must also be protected online. Human rights >>> should be a foundation of Internet Governance, and all Internet Governance >>> Principles and Processes should be underpinned by and in line with human >>> rights. We underscore that the final outcome of NETmundial must recognize >>> the inextricable link between human rights and Internet governance >>> principles, policies and processes. Open and inclusive processes depend >>> upon the freedoms of expression and association and are empowered by them. >>> Privacy >>> >>> We reinforce our support for the affirmation of the right to privacy in >>> the draft text. Privacy is a fundamental human right, and is central to the >>> maintenance of democratic societies. It is essential to human dignity and >>> it reinforces other rights, such as freedom of expression and information, >>> and freedom of association, and is recognised under international human >>> rights law. >>> Surveillance >>> >>> We also endorse the explicit note about the need to avoid "arbitrary or >>> unlawful collection of personal data and surveillance" by States with the >>> collaboration of the business sector. It is of crucial importance in >>> rebuilding trust amongst stakeholders that mass and arbitrary surveillance >>> programs are brought into alignment with human rights jurisprudence and >>> principles, and that transparency and oversight are strengthened.[0 >>> ] >>> Development and Access to the Internet >>> >>> We welcome the inclusion of development among the human rights that >>> underpin internet governance principles . The Internet is an enabler and >>> catalyst of human rights, and, ultimately, to the right to development. As >>> such, we believe it is important to include a reference to the right to >>> digital inclusion and affordable, high-quality access to the internet in >>> the non-exclusive list of principles. >>> Internet Infrastructure >>> >>> We endorse the inclusion of principles related to preserve an >>> unfragmented, interconnected, interoperable, secure, stable, resilient, >>> sustainable, and trustworthy Internet. While we acknowledge that neutrality >>> is included in this section, we would like to see an explicit reference to >>> the concept and term "net neutrality" as a core principle. The application >>> of all these principles is essential to ensure universal and affordable >>> high-quality brodband access. >>> 2) Roadmap for the Future of the Internet Governance >>> >>> We welcome the approach of the "Draft Outcome Document" in making >>> recommendations on ways to improve the Internet Governance framework so it >>> can serve as a catalyst for sustainable development and promotion of human >>> rights. >>> >>> We affirm our support for the draft document's mentions of Internet >>> governance processes and institutions in which decisions are inclusive, >>> open, informed, transparent and accountable, with the full involvement of >>> all stakeholders, and stress that it is particularly important to ensure >>> meaninful participation, with gender and regional balance and the inclusion >>> of marginalized voices. >>> NTIA transition and ICANN >>> >>> We support the draft's acknowledgement of the announced IANA transition >>> away from U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration >>> (NTIA) and its emphasis on the importance of including all stakeholders in >>> the convening process, including those beyond ICANN bodies and I* >>> organizations. It is important that the global multistakeholder community >>> be able to participate in the discussion about the transition and in the >>> transition proposal itself. Further it is important to reinforce the need >>> for improved effectiveness, transparency and accountability of ICANN in the >>> globalization process, as well as the separation of the policy development >>> process and the IANA operations. >>> Distributive and Coordinated Internet Governance >>> >>> We strongly welcome the option put forward in the draft of >>> multi-stakeholder Internet governance coordination mechanisms, and we >>> suggest it is reinforced as a recommendation, not only as an option >>> "recommendable to analyze". >>> >>> Further analysis, monitoring and information sharing about and within >>> the internet governance architecture as a whole is duly needed. It might >>> help us to identify weaknesses and gaps in the coverage of important issues >>> and, in light of empirical evidence, would help us evaluate the merits of >>> any alternative decision making processes. A multi-stakeholder coordination >>> mechanism could also be useful to promote dialogue, build consensus or at >>> least provide inputs into other processes tasked with actual decision >>> making. >>> IGF >>> >>> We support the mentions about the need to strengthen the Internet >>> Governance Forum (IGF) and to extend its mandate making it a permanent >>> multi-stakeholder forum. >>> Issues dealing with specific Internet Governance topics >>> >>> We reinforce the need to continue working on a multistakeholder dialogue >>> to pursue institutional solutions to mass and arbitrary surveillance in >>> order to guarantee the realization of several internet governance >>> principles highlighted as fundamental in the draft outcome. >>> >>> Finally, we welcome the idea that the NETmundial findings and outcomes >>> feed into other processes and forums, such as WSIS+10, IGF and other >>> Internet governance discussions. >>> >>> We acknowledge the work done by the EMC and, as this is a non-exhaustive >>> list of priority issues that we would like to reinforce, and we look >>> forward to contributing further with specific text on subsequent drafts. >>> >>> [0] www.necessaryandproportionate.org; Judgment in Joined Cases C - >>> 293/12 and C - 594/12 Digital Rights Ireland and Seitlinger and Others >>> . >>> >>> -- >>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com >>> Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see >>> http://jere.my/l/pgp. >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> *Fatima Cambronero* >> Abogada-Argentina >> >> Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 >> Twitter: @facambronero >> Skype: fatima.cambronero >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> > > > -- > *Fatima Cambronero* > Abogada-Argentina > > Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 > Twitter: @facambronero > Skype: fatima.cambronero > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- *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: From ngreen260 at gmail.com Fri Apr 11 10:30:04 2014 From: ngreen260 at gmail.com (Natalie Green) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 10:30:04 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Open Tech Institute: How The DOTCOM Act Could Endanger Rather Than Protect Internet Freedom Message-ID: Apologies for cross-posting http://oti.newamerica.net/blogposts/2014/how_the_dotcom_act_could_endanger_rather_than_protect_internet_freedom-107817 -- Natalie Green *Program Associate, **Internet Freedom and Human Rights Program* Open Technology Institute New America Foundation 202-986-2700 ext. 3609 green at newamerica.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Apr 11 10:38:18 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 20:08:18 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Initial response of Just Net Coalition to the leaked NetMUndial draft Message-ID: <5347FE5A.2020509@itforchange.net> Please find as below, and enclosed... /*Initial response of Just Net Coalition to the early draft of NetMundial outcome document*/ 11th April, 2014 We commend the NetMundial process for its openness in inviting, receiving and reviewing submissions from the range of public interest actors as well as private interest ones. We thank the Executive Multistakeholder Committee (EMC) for developing the first draft of their report which we had the opportunity to access through wikileaks and on which we would like to comment in advance of the finalized report. We think that the EMC has made a sincere effort to combine the various inputs into a coherent whole and the resulting draft provides some useful elements. We must observe however that the inputs cannot be viewed as being truly representative of the totality of Internet users, much less of the totality of the world’s population which should benefit from the Internet, because the there is a great dis-balance in terms of groups and constituencies that have contributed inputs. We especially note positively the mention of the 'necessary and proportionate' principles for surveillance practices and the need for an international treaty to deal with jurisdictional issues, cyber crime and to restrain cyber weapons. We also commend the recommendations on open and inclusive IG processes at all level, particularly the inclusion of participation of all interested actors. Having said this, we must express our dissatisfaction with the current document as having largely failed to meet the high expectations of a new start that the world community had placed on the NetMundial meeting. That high expectation was not necessarily to achieve full consensus: we know that many issues are contentious. The expectation was that there would be a full and open airing of the issues, with frank and robust discussions. Reading between the lines, it is clear that the document effectively endorses the current Internet Governance status quo along with suggestions for minor changes. While being able to present substantially new proposals for change may have been difficult at such short notice, sadly we see the document as not even opening up new directions, and in fact perhaps closing down some that are currently being discussed in other places. In our view, the document avoids dealing with contentious issues. We believe that it is essential that the existence of such contentious issues be openly acknowledged, in particular since some of those issues have been under discussion for years and are of fundamental importance. The document does not contain any forwarding looking proposals for addressing the absence of any means or mechanisms at the global level that could democratically address the urgent and important public policy issues that currently face the global community. Further the document fails even to appropriately frame the problem. In this sense it represents a retreat from the Tunis Agenda – which is surprising, since during the 10 years since the Tunis agenda was written the the global importance of public policy issues pertaining to the Internet has only exponentially increased in importance. It is noteworthy that the Tunis agenda is referred to only once in the whole document, and in that instance as indicating quite incorrectly that that the Tunis Agenda has been implemented: “The implementation of the Tunis Agenda has demonstrated the value of the Multistakeholder model in Internet governance.” Such a statement, suggesting closure on Tunis Agenda, is really surprising especially when there is a UN working Group that is currently mandated to develop recommendations to 'fully implement Tunis Agenda' especially with regard to the key issue of addressing Internet-related public policy issues. After saying that mechanisms may be needed to address 'emerging' public policy issues (using the unfortunate term 'orphan issues' which gives a kind of 'residual' status to one of the most significant set of global public policy issues) the draft veers towards recommending (1) Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as the principal site for addressing of these issue (although in a bit apologetic and round about language) and (2) improving information flows between existing fora dealing with Internet-related public policy issues. While some believe that IGF needs to be strengthened as a global policy dialogue space, and that all kinds of information flows between concerned institutions enhanced, this recipe for 'institutional reform' basically just rubber stamps the status quo of global Internet governance. This approach would mean that there would continue to be no global policy mechanisms to respond to the range of issues that have and are emerging globally concerning the impact of the Internet in economic restructuring and in helping to ameliorate the extreme concentrations of economic, social, cultural and geo-political controls that are emerging on and through the global Internet. The current draft completely fails at its central task, which is to give direction for responding to the principal problem facing the world today: how to channel the extremely powerful forces of the Internet into the support of the public good. It is this that we and many others believe to be the central challenge and opportunity for the NetMundial meeting. The second major issue with the current document is that while it refers repeatedly to “multistakeholderism” and “stakeholders” as providing the frameworks for Internet Governance nowhere does it mention democracy or how multistakeholderism might contribute to or enhance the fundamental elements of democracy on which so much of human rights Internet freedom and social justice are based. This is truly alarming given the stridency with which so many actors are attempting to ensure that those pursuing private interests and the corporate sector have an equal role with those legitimately representing the public interest in the determination of public policy. It must be remembered that the Tunis Agenda repeatedly speaks of 'democratic (processes)' when referring to global Internet governance. Omission of this primary political norm from the NetMndial text is therefore highly objectionable and completely unacceptable. The document must therefore underline that 1. while the formulation of technical standards and technical coordination activities may most effectively be undertaken through an “equal footing of all stakeholders”, there is no basis for extending such a formulation or such mechanisms beyond the technical into broader areas of public policy decision making 2. whereas all stakeholders should be able to freely input into public policy making processes, and even have a right to know how their inputs were considered, the right to make the final decisions on public policies rests with legitimate public interest actors that hold political responsibilities arising from formal democratic processes (this was also the process followed for the famous 'Marco Civil' legislation, and there can and should be no other kind of process for legitimate public policy making) . While the draft document mentions the 'respective roles and responsibilities' of stakeholders in two places, these references are mitigated through questionable language in many other places in the document. The document should therefore clearly declare that MSism outside of the technical sphere is only operative within and as a contributor to the more fundamental democratic framework, and as well the term democratic should in all places be used in conjunction with the multistakeholder terminology. As the document calls for further discussions on 'respective roles and responsibilities' it should also be mentioned that such a discussion should take place within a larger discussion and debate on the relationship between democracy and MSism. Specifically, one new item should be added to the Human Rights catalog under II on page 3: “Democracy: everyone shall have the right and opportunity to take part in the conduct of public affairs and public policy decisions, directly or through freely chosen representatives.” A third issue with the current draft is the almost total neglect of global Internet-related public policy issues of an economic, social and cultural nature. While development and cultural diversity is mentioned in the context of “Internet principles”, there is nothing concerning key global public policy issues of this nature on the operations part, which though, admirably, does talk about global agreements on surveillance and cyber peace. As the Internet increasingly determines the global distribution of economic, social and cultural resources, we need global mechanisms to deal with the emerging distortions in such distribution. It was hoped that with a developing country taking the lead for the first time in steering a global IG discussion, such issues would come to the fore, not only in terms of statements of concerns, but also in terms of actual proposals for addressing them. The draft document needs significant improvement in this regard. (Also, a full mention of the term 'net neutrality' is needed and not just a reference to 'neutrality' which can be interpreted in different ways.) Recognition of the Internet as a public good and a global commons must be stated as a primary principle underlying various Internet related public policies. Further, even on issues such as democratization of technical coordination functions and their oversight, the document does not go beyond what has recently been declared by the US government and as is being pursued by ICANN. There is a need to discuss – without any preconditions – what kind of structure is most appropriate for managing the DNS and other critical Internet resources. We must for instance affirm the need for freeing such technical coordination functions from the jurisdiction of any one country, and the simultaneous need for appropriate oversight of these functions by the global community. **Specifically, the following should be added at the end of the second paragraph of 4 of III, on page 9, add: “The operational aspects must not be subject to the law of any one country, that is, they must benefit from immunity of jurisdiction.” Given the limited time to evaluate and study this document, we are of the view that it should not be endorsed or approved at the meeting, it should be noted. It will then provide a useful input for further discussions. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: JustNet initial response.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 68034 bytes Desc: not available URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Apr 11 11:50:34 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 21:20:34 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: Other News - Developing Nations Seek U.N. Retaliation on Bank Cancellations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <53480F4A.5060400@itforchange.net> A news that needs to be read closely for those discussing ICANN's internationalisation.... parminder > *Developing Nations Seek U.N. Retaliation on Bank Cancellations* > ** > */By Thalif Deen/* > UNITED NATIONS, Apr 2014 (IPS) - The 132-member Group of 77, the > largest single coalition of developing nations, has urged > Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to provide, "as soon as > possible...alternative options for banking services" in New York City > following the mass cancellation of bank accounts of U.N. missions and > foreign diplomats. > The draft resolution, a copy of which was obtained by IPS, is an > "agreed text" which has the blessings of all 132 countries, plus China. > Responding to a demand by member states for reciprocal retaliation, > the G77 requests the secretary-general to review the "U.N. > Secretariat's financial relations with the JP Morgan Chase Bank and > consider alternatives to such financial institutions and to report > thereon, along with the information requested." > Currently, the bank handles billions of dollars in the accounts > maintained by the United Nations and its agencies in New York City. > The Group expresses "deep concern" over the decisions made by several > banking institutions, including JP Morgan Chase, in closing bank > accounts of mostly developing countries, and diplomats accredited to > the United Nations and their relatives. > The resolution, which is subject to amendments, cites the 1947 U.S.- > U.N. headquarters agreement that "guarantees the rights, obligations > and the fulfillment of responsibilities by member states towards the > United Nations, under the United Nations Charter and international law." > Additionally, it cites the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic > Relations as a regulatory framework for states and international > organisations, in particular the working relationship between the > United Nations and the City of New York. > Citing the two agreements, the G77 is calling for all "necessary > measures to ensure permanent missions accredited to the United Nations > and their staff are granted equal, fair and non-discriminatory > treatment by the banking system." > Asked for an official response, U.N. Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric > told IPS: "We would not comment on a draft resolution." > At a closed-door meeting of the G77 last month, speaker after speaker > lambasted banks in the city for selectively cutting off the banking > system from the diplomatic community, describing the action as > "outrageous". > Their anger was directed mostly at JP Morgan Chase (formerly Chemical > bank) which was once considered part of the U.N. family -- and a > preferred bank by most diplomats -- and at one time was housed in the > secretariat building. > The G77 is expected to hold consultations with member states outside > the Group, specifically Western nations, before tabling the resolution > with the 193-member General Assembly later this month. > If any proposed amendments are aimed at weakening the resolution, the > G77 will go for a vote in the Assembly with its agreed text, a G77 > diplomat told IPS Thursday. > But with the Group having more than two-thirds majority in the > Assembly, the resolution is expected to be adopted either with or > without the support of Western nations. > If adopted by a majority vote, the secretary-general is expected to > abide by the resolution and respond to its demands. > The draft resolution also requests the secretary-general to review and > report to the General Assembly, within 120 days of its adoption, "of > any obstacles or impediments observed in the accounts of permanent > missions or their staff at the JP Morgan Chase Bank in the City of New > York, and the impact these impediments have on the adequate > functioning of their offices." > And to this end, the G77 invites all members to provide the > secretary-general with relevant information that will facilitate the > elaboration of such report. > In an appeal to the United States, the G77 has also underscored the > importance of the host country taking the necessary measures to ensure > that personal data and information of persons affected by the closure > of accounts is kept confidential by banking institutions, and requests > the secretary-general to work with the host country in that regard and > to report to the General Assembly within 90 days. > The closure of accounts was triggered by a request from the U.S. > treasury, which wanted all banks to meticulously report every single > transaction of some 70 "blacklisted" U.N. diplomatic missions, and > individual diplomats -- perhaps as part of a monitoring system to > prevent money laundering and terrorism financing. > But the banks have said such an elaborate exercise is administratively > expensive and cumbersome. > And as a convenient alternative, they have closed down, or are in the > process of closing down, all accounts, shutting off banks from the > diplomatic community in New York. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Fri Apr 11 12:04:04 2014 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 18:04:04 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] NETmundial / Neelie Kroes: My thoughts on NETmundial and the Future of Internet Governance Message-ID: [ Apologies if you receive this message multiple times ] Dear all, you might be interested to read the recent blog post of Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the European Commission and member of the High-Level Multistakeholder Committee of NETmundial, available at https://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/kroes/en/content/my-thoughts-netmundial-and-future-internet-governanceand reproduced below. My thoughts on NETmundial and the Future of Internet Governance Published by Neelie KROESon Friday, 11/04/2014 As the European Commission clearly stated in its Communication on Internet Policy and Governanceof 12 February 2014, conflicting visions on the future of the Internet and on how to strengthen its multistakeholder governance in a sustainable manner have intensified recently. The next two years will be critical in redrawing the global map of Internet governance. Europe must contribute to finding a credible way forward for global internet governance; it must play a strong role in defining how the internet is run and ensuring it remains a single, un-fragmented network. In less than two weeks, I will be travelling to Sao Paulo to attend NETmundial, the Multi-stakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance. The purpose of NETmundial is to develop principles of Internet governance and a roadmap for the future development of this ecosystem. This international conference comes at a very timely moment in the debates on Internet governance and I commend the Brazilian government, and in particular President Dilma Rousseff, for taking this important initiative. I was very pleased that the Brazilian Government asked me to join the High-Level Multi-stakeholder Committee of NETmundial , which oversees the overall strategy of the meeting and fosters the involvement of the international community. The members of the High-Level Multi-stakeholder Committee recently received a "draft outcome document", prepared on the basis of the more than 180 comments and submissions (including two submissionsby the European Commission) to the conference. A public consultation on the outcome documentis going to be launched by the conference organisers very shortly. In the meantime, I shared my observations on this draft document with my colleagues in the High-Level Multi-Stakeholder Committee, the co-chairs of the drafting team and with the secretariat of the conference; in a spirit of transparency, I would like to also share them with the broader Internet community. ++++++++ *From:* * KROES Neelie (CAB-KROES)Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 7:26 PMTo: 'hlmc at netmundial.br 'Subject: RE: [HLMC] NETmundial draft outcome document* *Dear colleagues,* *I read with great interest the "draft outcome document" for NETmundial prepared by the Executive Meeting Committee (EMC). I would like to thank the members of the EMC and the colleagues who supported them for the hard work that went into drafting the document in such a short amount of time.* *On behalf of the European Commission, I would like to share with you a number of observations and considerations, which I trust will be useful as we move forward towards meeting each other in Sao Paulo in two weeks' time.* *It is in my view absolutely essential that we make a collective effort to ensure that the final outcomes of NETmundial are concrete and actionable, with clear milestones and with a realistic but ambitious timeline. As I had the occasion to underline throughout my tenure as EU Commissioner for the Digital Agenda and responsible for EU Internet governance policies - and as the European Commission clearly asserted in our recent Communication on Internet Policy and Governance - I strongly believe that we need to put on the table an evolutionary but concrete agenda for addressing the limitations - whether real or perceived - of the current multi-stakeholder model for the governance of the Internet.* *In this sense, I regret to say that I find the draft outcome document too abstract and vague when it comes to the proposed roadmap. I understand the challenges that the EMC had to face in summarising the many contributions that were submitted, and I trust my remarks will be taken as a constructive contribution; but I am convinced this outcome document, as it stands, will be interpreted as putting off necessary discussions - in particular by those who have different opinion as to the value and effectiveness of the multi-stakeholder model.* *To be clear, I am not arguing that all substantive issues should be "solved" in Sao Paulo. This is neither the purpose of the meeting nor a realistic achievement to plan for, and indeed we need to have a targeted number of issues to address over the two days. However, NETmundial should definitively mark a significant "change of pace" in the discussions and deliberations that have taken place so far. My own experience in public service suggests that a necessary condition to achieve such objective is to start from a substantially more ambitious point of departure than is currently the case.* *There are a few other observations on the draft outcome document that I would like to make at this point in time.* *First of all, I found some of the language related to human rights unnecessarily weak. I refer in particular to the passage "Internet governance should be open, participatory, Multistakeholder, technology-neutral, sensitive to human rights". We have an obligation to respect and promote human rights, not merely be "sensitive" to them, and this should be clearly reflected throughout the outcome document. This includes, among a number of important issues, the protection of privacy and personal data protection, which should have a prominent role in the outcome document.* *Secondly, self-regulation and self-organisation of different stakeholders are certainly to be preserved and promoted. However, this cannot be to the detriment of basic democratic principles. It is not sufficient that the mechanisms through which "different stakeholder groups [...] self-manage their processes [are] based on publicly known mechanisms", if this results in the explicit or implicit exclusion of persons in a manner that would contradict democratic processes.* *Thirdly, I am glad that the draft outcome document recognises the importance of distributed institutional models for Internet governance, avoiding centralised solutions as a default. This is very much in line with the position of the European Commission that stronger interactions between stakeholders involved in Internet governance should be fostered via cross-cutting, issue-based dialogues, instead of through new bodies. This would allow relevant stakeholders to address specific challenges across structural and organisational boundaries. Such arrangements should be inspired by the distributed architecture of the Internet which should serve as a model for better interactions between all parties.* *In this light, let me underline that in order for such distributed models to truly work, especially for people, organisations and countries with fewer resources to devote to this policy area, it is absolutely essential that the right ICT tools are globally available. The draft outcome document does refer to this, in particular in regard to remote participation in meetings and discussions. I believe we should be more ambitious and look more carefully at the role that ICTs, including Big Data technologies, can play in this context. The European Commission is addressing this challenge via the Global Internet Policy Observatory (GIPO) initiative. I would be glad to share further details and explore how we could join forces in this endeavour, possibly as a concrete deliverable of NETmundial.* *Fourthly, I cannot stress enough how important it is that we keep the momentum towards a real and effective globalisation of core Internet functions and decisions. This is perhaps one of the most essential conditions to satisfy if we want the multi-stakeholder model for Internet governance to be seen as truly legitimate across the world. I have already had the occasion to congratulate the United States Government for its announcement of 14 March 2014, concerning the globalisation of certain IANA functions; I am therefore pleased that the draft outcome document specifically mentions the globalisation of both IANA and ICANN. I want nonetheless to underline that any such movement towards further globalisation of Internet processes should firmly and explicitly keep the public interest as a primary condition.* *I appreciate that the EMC in its proposal has tried to take maximum account of the contributions received. However, I think that the conference should not overextend the areas it wants to cover meaningfully. * *I am not convinced, for example, that the outcome document should or indeed needs to touch upon issues such as "network neutrality" and the liability of Internet intermediaries. Both are certainly very important issues in the overall debate on an open Internet, but are the subject of detailed discussions elsewhere. * *On Net Neutrality for example, legislators of the European Union are at this very moment engaged in a democratic debate on the "Connected Continent" proposal by the European Commission. I understand a similar debate is taking place in Brazil, on the "Marco Civil". We should not be seen as prejudging the outcome of a democratic procedure on such sensitive topics. * *As regards the topic of the liability of intermediaries, I believe there is no added value in referring, via potentially contentious language, to an issue which has extensively been debated in many different settings and democratic fora and has in some cases been enshrined in legislation, as is the case of the European Union. * *I trust the above observations will be taken with the same constructive spirit with which I wrote them. I am looking forward to meeting all of you in Sao Paulo.* *Yours sincerely,* *Neelie Kroes* *Vice-President of the European Commission"* Best regards, -- Andrea Glorioso (Mr) European Commission - DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology Unit D1 (International relations) + Task Force on Internet Policy Development Avenue de Beaulieu 25 (4/64) / B-1049 / Brussels / Belgium T: +32-2-29-97682 M: +32-460-797-682 E: Andrea.Glorioso at ec.europa.eu Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro The views expressed above are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission. Les opinions exprimées ci-dessus n'engagent que leur auteur et ne sauraient en aucun cas être assimilées à une position officielle de la Commission européenne. Be transparent - Sign up to the European Commission's Register of Interest Representatives http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regrin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Apr 11 15:56:02 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2014 05:56:02 +1000 Subject: [bestbits] problems with list? Message-ID: <2BA764CC94B1403794C0D8E5829016AD@Toshiba> For some reason I stopped receiving postings from best bits a few weeks ago – I wondered why it went so quiet! But I note from the web page that there has been plenty of activity but I havent been getting any copies. When I try to check my subscription and check my password, I don’t get a message with the reset instructions either. So I am not sure what is going on. I’ve written to Jeremy just now about this. This message is partially to check whether a mail from me will actually reach the list, but I am wondering if anyone else is experiencing problems. Ian Peter -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Fri Apr 11 16:01:54 2014 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 17:01:54 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] problems with list? In-Reply-To: <2BA764CC94B1403794C0D8E5829016AD@Toshiba> References: <2BA764CC94B1403794C0D8E5829016AD@Toshiba> Message-ID: It reached the list, Ian. Does it mean you are back in track again? ;) On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > For some reason I stopped receiving postings from best bits a few weeks > ago - I wondered why it went so quiet! But I note from the web page that > there has been plenty of activity but I havent been getting any copies. > > When I try to check my subscription and check my password, I don't get a > message with the reset instructions either. So I am not sure what is going > on. > > I've written to Jeremy just now about this. This message is partially to > check whether a mail from me will actually reach the list, but I am > wondering if anyone else is experiencing problems. > > Ian Peter > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Apr 11 16:11:51 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2014 06:11:51 +1000 Subject: [bestbits] problems with list? In-Reply-To: References: <2BA764CC94B1403794C0D8E5829016AD@Toshiba> Message-ID: <1F056B081AFD45D58742D13A02C93699@Toshiba> Yes, looks like I can post Joana, but I am not receiving any emails. I got your message because it was copied to me, but I still am not getting any messages from the list. I have raised with Jeremy, I will also check spam filters at hosting site.. Thanks Ian From: Joana Varon Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2014 6:01 AM To: Ian Peter Cc: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] problems with list? It reached the list, Ian. Does it mean you are back in track again? ;) On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Ian Peter wrote: For some reason I stopped receiving postings from best bits a few weeks ago – I wondered why it went so quiet! But I note from the web page that there has been plenty of activity but I havent been getting any copies. When I try to check my subscription and check my password, I don’t get a message with the reset instructions either. So I am not sure what is going on. I’ve written to Jeremy just now about this. This message is partially to check whether a mail from me will actually reach the list, but I am wondering if anyone else is experiencing problems. Ian Peter ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pranesh at cis-india.org Fri Apr 11 17:15:15 2014 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 17:15:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Letters from Indian Civil Society organisations to the Chair of NetMundial regarding appointment of civil society co-chair In-Reply-To: <53466846.3040208@apc.org> References: <53465BD5.303@apc.org> <53466846.3040208@apc.org> Message-ID: <53485B63.7060202@cis-india.org> Very well put, Anriette. Thank you. And along with the processes going forward being "less ad-hoc", I would add, "open to new participants and perspectives", since that seems to be an important theme that's cropping up. But I do wish those new participants to IG dialogues would bring with them expertise in their own fields, and that such expertise enriches their participation in IG discussions. That having been said, I can find scanty evidence online of such expertise in the present case. Searches for her academic writings yield very little, for instance. I do hope this lack of trust can be bridged soon, though. Anriette Esterhuysen [2014-04-10 11:45:42 +0200]: > Resending this. Seems not to have gone through earlier. > > Anriette > > ----------- > > Dear Parminder and all > > I shared the concerns expressed in the original letter from civil > society to the Chair of the NetMundial, and feel that the selection > process of the co-chairs were simply not 'solid' enough. Concerns have > been raised by some of the other co-chairs too. I think it was important > for Indian civil society to send this letter. There are many examples > when selection of non-governmental stakeholders is done in a pretty > roughshod personalised ways. It affects CS most of all, but in this case > selection of the business co-chair has also been questioned. It is an > example of the lack of maturity/clarity etc. in multi-stakeholder > processes which so many of you have discussed. > > But I believe that the point has been made, and that the best way to > move forward is to focus on the event, on civil society's voice at the > event, and on our influence on the outcomes. > > Engaging in taking this forward at this point would, I believe, put > these at risk, and possibly harm the legitimacy of the overall process. > Consider all the hard work that civil society colleagues in Brazil have > put into this event. They are working very, very hard to make it > inclusive, to get people CS to Sao Paulo, and to make sure that the > process gives everyone equal voice. > > I am not saying the process is perfect, but I think effort has been made > to keep it inclusive and transparent. This is clearly an example of > certain decisions being problematicm - this being one of them. But I > think that they have acknowledged it, and we should move on, and use > this event as the strategic opportunity I still believe it can be. > Co-chair selection should not be seen as a primary way of recognising > CS. It is pretty ceremonial. Far more important for us to look at > whether our views are reflected in the draft outcome docs. > > I also believe that continuing with this campaign will damage civil > society in other ways. It is not a constructive struggle. Attacks of a > personal nature against anyone tends to be negative and rarely have > positive outcomes. > > At this point we should be looking at the bigger picture of the > substantive issues that we want to be discussed at NetMundial. For > example, I am concerned that surveillance is getting far less focus than > it deserves to. There is just a short reference to mass surveillance in > the draft outcome doc. > > Going forward the important challenge for us is to find ways of these > processes become less adhoc in the future. > > Anriette > > > On 10/04/2014 07:47, parminder wrote: >> >> I wonder if civil society groups have any response to the below... >> >> this issue was first brought to the notice to global civil society >> groups a few weeks back when almost all civil society organisations >> from India wrote a letter against appointment of Subi as co chair of >> NetMundial... It was most disappointing to face a stony silence from >> the global networks with regard to that representation, which is >> indeed disrespectful of the Indian civil society. >> >> Now, we have a newspaper report >> >> which not only produces evidence of plagiarism against Subi but , much >> more importantly, also shows clearly who is behind her installation as >> NetMundial Co chair - the US big business. And still no response. >> >> May I request the IGC co-cos to take up this issue. And also 1Net >> steering committee members, and civil society members of the executive >> committee and high level committee. >> >> At least please respond to the issue. >> >> If civil society reps wont respond to this issue, I am not sure what >> they would respond to, and in which manner they then 'represent' civil >> society... Here there is practically the entire Indian civil society >> involved in IG writing a representation, about issues that are now >> further exacerbated by the news report >> >> in a top national daily of India. And we find no visible support. >> >> Thanks >> >> parminder >> >> On Tuesday 08 April 2014 11:31 PM, Rishab Bailey wrote: >>> Dear All, >>> >>> Further to the letter from Indian civil society groups to the Chair >>> of NetMundial (regarding the appointment of the civil society >>> co-chair for the meeting), please find attached: >>> >>> (a) the original letter from members of Indian civil society to Prof. >>> Virgilio Almeida, >>> (b) follow up email from members of Indian civil society to Prof. >>> Virgilio Almeida; >>> (b) response of Prof. Almeida to Indian civil society groups. >>> >>> Also do note a recent article published in a leading Indian newspaper >>> giving some of the context behind this: >>> http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/executive-of-telecom-giant-that-aided-nsa-spying-is-on-india-s-cyber-security-panel/article1-1205483.aspx >>> >>> >>> Two of the documents referred to in the above article (concerning >>> plagiarism charges) are also attached to this email. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Rishab Bailey >>> (for the Society for Knowledge Commons, India) >> > -- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org ------------------- Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Fri Apr 11 22:59:03 2014 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2014 10:59:03 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] LDC's Turning Backs on Multistakeholder Trade Agreements In-Reply-To: References: <024c01cf5519$11a3bb00$34eb3100$@gmail.com> <026301cf5519$a7068740$f51395c0$@gmail.com> <1454f3e7ef8.27c9.9387b8a9f30986f905fcc4cfa238b71f@consensus.pro> Message-ID: On 11 Apr 2014, at 9:11 pm, Carolina Rossini wrote: > no equivalence at all > I have been working directly with trade agreements, as Nick has ....and everything there is secret, non-transparent ..etc... > a mistake to say that "old style lobby" is equivalent to multi-stakeholderism... > no "equal footing" on TPP or Trans-Atlantic ..makes me laugh actually > refer to BestBits on statement on process http://bestbits.net/netmundial-roadmap/ On the other hand, there is a very good argument that the trade negotiation process should adopt aspects of the multi-stakeholder processes that are in development in the Internet governance regime - especially given the areas that crossover between Internet governance and trade such as intellectual property and free flow of information. EFF will be proposing a workshop on this topic for this year's IGF. -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Fri Apr 11 23:13:52 2014 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2014 11:13:52 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] problems with list? In-Reply-To: <1F056B081AFD45D58742D13A02C93699@Toshiba> References: <2BA764CC94B1403794C0D8E5829016AD@Toshiba> <1F056B081AFD45D58742D13A02C93699@Toshiba> Message-ID: <3B69A1FC-4768-4E66-9EB4-DFBD52056E87@Malcolm.id.au> On 12 Apr 2014, at 4:11 am, Ian Peter wrote: > Yes, looks like I can post Joana, but I am not receiving any emails. > > I got your message because it was copied to me, but I still am not getting any messages from the list. I have raised with Jeremy, I will also check spam filters at hosting site.. I've taken you out of copy Ian - please let me know if you get this. Your mail server was complaining about an invalid hostname being presented by the Best Bits mail server. I've just fixed that. I've also made some other changes in the last few days: Patched the heartbleed vulnerability Changed our web server from Apache to nginx Additionally, I'm working on some new features which I'll announce soon. So please let me know if you notice anything weird. -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Apr 11 23:33:04 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2014 13:33:04 +1000 Subject: [bestbits] problems with list? In-Reply-To: <3B69A1FC-4768-4E66-9EB4-DFBD52056E87@Malcolm.id.au> References: <2BA764CC94B1403794C0D8E5829016AD@Toshiba> <1F056B081AFD45D58742D13A02C93699@Toshiba> <3B69A1FC-4768-4E66-9EB4-DFBD52056E87@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: Yes that seems t have fixed it Jeremy thanks From: Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2014 1:13 PM To: Joana Varon ; Best Bits Subject: Re: [bestbits] problems with list? On 12 Apr 2014, at 4:11 am, Ian Peter wrote: Yes, looks like I can post Joana, but I am not receiving any emails. I got your message because it was copied to me, but I still am not getting any messages from the list. I have raised with Jeremy, I will also check spam filters at hosting site.. I've taken you out of copy Ian - please let me know if you get this. Your mail server was complaining about an invalid hostname being presented by the Best Bits mail server. I've just fixed that. I've also made some other changes in the last few days: a.. Patched the heartbleed vulnerability b.. Changed our web server from Apache to nginx Additionally, I'm working on some new features which I'll announce soon. So please let me know if you notice anything weird. -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nashton at consensus.pro Sat Apr 12 02:30:30 2014 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2014 08:30:30 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] LDC's Turning Backs on Multistakeholder Trade Agreements In-Reply-To: References: <024c01cf5519$11a3bb00$34eb3100$@gmail.com> <026301cf5519$a7068740$f51395c0$@gmail.com> <1454f3e7ef8.27c9.9387b8a9f30986f905fcc4cfa238b71f@consensus.pro> Message-ID: For what it is worth, I certainly don't disagree that the existing, very closed, process has serious flaws and needs reform - though I would note that all countries don't behave with the same levels of secrecy. For example, Switzerland publishes the proposals it makes in TISA regularly while many members do not. Perhaps in your session, Jeremy, it would be worth exploring the different approaches states do take. There will be Swiss representation at the IGF, perhaps asking them to participate would be useful? It may interest you to know that in my day job working in Geneva I can tell you that Western countries are generally the most secretive. Developing countries are generally the least, and the most interested in input. A supreme irony considering that the West enjoys the promotion of its values internationally with such consistency ;) On 12 Apr 2014, at 04:59, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 11 Apr 2014, at 9:11 pm, Carolina Rossini wrote: > >> no equivalence at all >> I have been working directly with trade agreements, as Nick has ....and everything there is secret, non-transparent ..etc... >> a mistake to say that "old style lobby" is equivalent to multi-stakeholderism... >> no "equal footing" on TPP or Trans-Atlantic ..makes me laugh actually >> refer to BestBits on statement on process http://bestbits.net/netmundial-roadmap/ > > > On the other hand, there is a very good argument that the trade negotiation process should adopt aspects of the multi-stakeholder processes that are in development in the Internet governance regime - especially given the areas that crossover between Internet governance and trade such as intellectual property and free flow of information. EFF will be proposing a workshop on this topic for this year's IGF. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 670 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From pouzin at well.com Sat Apr 12 05:14:13 2014 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2014 11:14:13 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] URGENT - statement commenting on draft NETmundial text to be posted 8.5 hours from now In-Reply-To: References: <20DDED60-F1B3-4EA1-9067-94541E513F72@Malcolm.id.au> <5347BF2A.1070803@wzb.eu> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > I just found out the original message was directed to my spam folder, and > maybe I'm not the only one to whom that has happened. > Congrats and thanks to those who were on the call and those who drafted > this. > > +1 to Louis and Jeanette, and adding to the former's point: > > Since there already is "interoperable" among the list of adjectives, maybe > editing it to "globally interoperable" will do? Except that I am not sure > what "interconnected... Internet" would mean since it seems to me that > "interconnected" is already part of the notion/definition of the Internet. > I am saying this because someone could be tempted to say: Then we should > add "globally" to both "interconnected" and "interoperable." > > In sum, unless there is something specific meant by "interconnected > Internet" that is not already implied in the notion of Internet or in the > rest of the adjectives, I'd suggest that phrase to read: > > "... to preserve a globally interoperable, secure, stable, resilient, > sustainable, and trustworthy Internet." > *Agreed. Louis. * > > Mawaki > > ===================================== > Mawaki Chango, PhD > Founder and Owner > DIGILEXIS Consulting > > m.chango at digilexis.com | http://www.digilexis.com > Twitter: @digilexis | @dig_mawaki | Skype: digilexis > ====================================== > > > > On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >> >> >> Am 11.04.14 11:59, schrieb Louis Pouzin (well): >> >> Congrats for this steep challenge. >>> Here a few comments. >>> >>> Surveillance >>> >>> "arbitrary or unlawful collection of personal data and surveillance" by >>> States .. >>> >>> States can declare lawful whatever they do. Isn't there a recent UN >>> declaration (dec 2013 ?) that could provide some language here. >>> >> >> For your convience: >> >> 1. Reaffirms the right to privacy, according to which no one shall be >> subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, >> family, home or correspondence, and the right to the protection of the law >> against such interference, as set out in article 12 of the Universal >> Declaration of Human Rights and article 17 of the International Covenant on >> Civil and Political Rights; >> 2. Recognizes the global and open nature of the Internet and the rapid >> advancement in information and communications technologies as a driving >> force in accelerating progress towards development in its various forms; >> 3. Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also be >> protected online, including the right to privacy; >> >> This is very strong language, agreed upon by the General Assembly. Why >> should civil society be satisfied with less? >> >> What really matters: he right to the protection of the law against such >> interference, >> >> This goes beyond an individual right to privacy, it includes a right to >> be protected of the law and thus may imply a right to the protection of >> privacy. >> >> >> >>> Internet Infrastructure >>> >>> Internet is a network of networks and applications using a diversity of >>> infrastructures, not a singular entity. In this context /"unfragmented"/ >>> >>> is an undefined term without any precise meaning. Suggestion: >>> /interoperable/. >>> >> >> I support that too. The "threat of fragmentation" seems to have assumed a >> political/ideological meaning over the last year or so. >> >> jeanette >> >>> - - - >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Sat Apr 12 12:15:04 2014 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2014 13:15:04 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Meeting EMC and next steps Message-ID: Dear all, Yesterday we had a very long call of the Executive Multistakeholder Committee and we managed to finish the review of Net Mundial initial document (principles and roadmap) from our side. The Secretariat prepared a summary of comments from HLMC members and co-hosts. We also received some track-changed versions of the initial document. Based on all those documents we received, EMC tried to introduce changes that would increase the possibility of consensus. Now there is s version 2.0 of the document. We did manage to preserve points that were important in most CS contributions to Net Mundial, such as Human Rights principles. So I see yesterday's meeting as a good step, although there is much more to come. As explained to us, this document will now go to the board and they can introduce changes. We raised our concerns about the legitimacy of the board, particularly on the side of civil society. We hope that the board will have the sensitivity to refrain from making much changes, given that this document is fruit os large amount of discussions in the multistakeholder committees. After the board's agreement, the doc will be available online for public consultation. Best, Marília -- *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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Apr 13 01:46:49 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2014 22:46:49 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] FW: Google, once disdainful of lobbying, now a master of Washington influence In-Reply-To: <0f6501cf56db$a3000db0$e9002910$@gmail.com> References: <0f5e01cf56db$671d6540$35582fc0$@gmail.com> <0f6501cf56db$a3000db0$e9002910$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0f6601cf56db$c41b3e20$4c51ba60$@gmail.com> Google, once disdainful of lobbying, now a master of Washington influence http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-google-is-transforming-power-and- politicsgoogle-once-disdainful-of-lobbying-now-a-master-of-washington-influe nce/2014/04/12/51648b92-b4d3-11e3-8cb6-284052554d74_story.html?hpid=z1 http://tinyurl.com/plr76oe In May 2012, the law school at George Mason University hosted a forum billed as a "vibrant discussion" about Internet search competition. Many of the major players in the field were there - regulators from the Federal Trade Commission, federal and state prosecutors, top congressional staffers. What the guests had not been told was that the day-long academic conference was in large part the work of Google, which maneuvered behind the scenes with GMU's Law & Economics Center to put on the event. At the time, the company was under FTC investigation over concerns about the dominance of its famed search engine, a case that threatened Google's core business. ....... The behind-the-scenes machinations demonstrate how Google - once a lobbying weakling - has come to master a new method of operating in modern-day Washington, where spending on traditional lobbying is rivaled by other, less visible forms of influence. That system includes financing sympathetic research at universities and think tanks, investing in nonprofit advocacy groups across the political spectrum and funding pro-business coalitions cast as public-interest projects. From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Mon Apr 14 03:53:33 2014 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 15:53:33 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits communications and collaboration tools for beta testing Message-ID: <3743422D-FADB-445B-96BE-2B276FF53554@Malcolm.id.au> A number of new communications and collaboration tools, based on free and open source software, have been made available on the Best Bits server for your use. I would like your help in testing these, to ensure that they are working for everyone and can stand up to the load of real-world use. The communications tools installed on our server are: XMPP server. This can be used for secure voice chat (and, with the right software, for voice and video chat as well), in place of proprietary alternatives such as Skype. To get started download the XMPP software of your choice such as Jitsi (http://jitsi.org), and contact me for an XMPP account such as yourname at bestbits.net. Mumble server. I have mentioned this before. It is a voice chat application which works particularly well with low bandwidth, and is also an alternative to Skype. Communications are encrypted between you and the server. Download it from http://mumble.sourceforge.net/ and then connect to the server "bestbits.net" (further instructions are on our wiki at http://bestbits.net/wiki/main/secure-communication-tools/). Jitmeet. This is basically a web-based video chat, which works with the Chrome browser. Under the hood, it uses XMPP, though unlike the other options given above, it is installation-free. Find it at http://jitmeet.bestbits.net. It is a replacement for other web-based video chats such as Google Hangout and Uberconference. Like other video chats, it does not work well on low-bandwidth connections. We also have these tools available on our server for collaboration on texts: Etherpad (online collaborative notepad) at http://pad.bestbit.net. I'm sure you have all used this before. From now on, the Best Bits server can also be used to host pads. This is a simple alternative to proprietary products such as Google Docs. Ethercalc (online collaborative spreadsheet) at http://calc.bestbits.net. Less well-known than Etherpad, but the concept is similar. It is a simpler alternative to proprietary products such as Google Calc. Please feel free to make use of the above and please provide me with your feedback on any problems you may encounter. -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu Mon Apr 14 04:25:37 2014 From: erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu (JOSEFSSON Erik) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 08:25:37 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits communications and collaboration tools for beta testing In-Reply-To: <3743422D-FADB-445B-96BE-2B276FF53554@Malcolm.id.au> References: <3743422D-FADB-445B-96BE-2B276FF53554@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A069ACFD0@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> Thanks Jeremy! Please also feel free to join the DebianParl project and try out a pure blend of Debian tailored for use in parliaments: https://wiki.debian.org/DebianParl EFF has a story on it (hope yours will be happier): https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/03/trials-and-tribulations-secure-free-software-european-parliament And we're running a Pilot Project over here: https://wiki.debian.org/DebianParl/GreensEFA Best regards. //Erik ________________________________ From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Jeremy Malcolm [Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au] Sent: Monday 14 April 2014 09:53 To: Best Bits Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits communications and collaboration tools for beta testing A number of new communications and collaboration tools, based on free and open source software, have been made available on the Best Bits server for your use. I would like your help in testing these, to ensure that they are working for everyone and can stand up to the load of real-world use. The communications tools installed on our server are: * XMPP server. This can be used for secure voice chat (and, with the right software, for voice and video chat as well), in place of proprietary alternatives such as Skype. To get started download the XMPP software of your choice such as Jitsi (http://jitsi.org), and contact me for an XMPP account such as yourname at bestbits.net. * Mumble server. I have mentioned this before. It is a voice chat application which works particularly well with low bandwidth, and is also an alternative to Skype. Communications are encrypted between you and the server. Download it from http://mumble.sourceforge.net/ and then connect to the server "bestbits.net" (further instructions are on our wiki at http://bestbits.net/wiki/main/secure-communication-tools/). * Jitmeet. This is basically a web-based video chat, which works with the Chrome browser. Under the hood, it uses XMPP, though unlike the other options given above, it is installation-free. Find it at http://jitmeet.bestbits.net. It is a replacement for other web-based video chats such as Google Hangout and Uberconference. Like other video chats, it does not work well on low-bandwidth connections. We also have these tools available on our server for collaboration on texts: * Etherpad (online collaborative notepad) at http://pad.bestbit.net. I'm sure you have all used this before. From now on, the Best Bits server can also be used to host pads. This is a simple alternative to proprietary products such as Google Docs. * Ethercalc (online collaborative spreadsheet) at http://calc.bestbits.net. Less well-known than Etherpad, but the concept is similar. It is a simpler alternative to proprietary products such as Google Calc. Please feel free to make use of the above and please provide me with your feedback on any problems you may encounter. -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From renata at webfoundation.org Mon Apr 14 08:02:41 2014 From: renata at webfoundation.org (Renata Avila) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 09:02:41 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits communications and collaboration tools for beta testing In-Reply-To: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A069ACFD0@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> References: <3743422D-FADB-445B-96BE-2B276FF53554@Malcolm.id.au> <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A069ACFD0@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> Message-ID: Great! Just in time for the note taking during Net Mundial! I will add those. Renata On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 5:25 AM, JOSEFSSON Erik < erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu> wrote: > Thanks Jeremy! > > Please also feel free to join the DebianParl project and try out a pure > blend of Debian tailored for use in parliaments: > > https://wiki.debian.org/DebianParl > > EFF has a story on it (hope yours will be happier): > > > https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/03/trials-and-tribulations-secure-free-software-european-parliament > > And we're running a Pilot Project over here: > > https://wiki.debian.org/DebianParl/GreensEFA > > Best regards. > > //Erik > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [ > bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Jeremy Malcolm [ > Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au] > *Sent:* Monday 14 April 2014 09:53 > *To:* Best Bits > *Subject:* [bestbits] Best Bits communications and collaboration tools > for beta testing > > A number of new communications and collaboration tools, based on free > and open source software, have been made available on the Best Bits server > for your use. I would like your help in testing these, to ensure that they > are working for everyone and can stand up to the load of real-world use. > > The communications tools installed on our server are: > > > - *XMPP server*. This can be used for secure voice chat (and, with > the right software, for voice and video chat as well), in place of > proprietary alternatives such as Skype. To get started download the XMPP > software of your choice such as Jitsi (http://jitsi.org), and contact > me for an XMPP account such as yourname at bestbits.net. > - *Mumble server*. I have mentioned this before. It is a voice chat > application which works particularly well with low bandwidth, and is also > an alternative to Skype. Communications are encrypted between you and the > server. Download it from http://mumble.sourceforge.net/ and then > connect to the server "bestbits.net" (further instructions are on our > wiki at http://bestbits.net/wiki/main/secure-communication-tools/). > - *Jitmeet.* This is basically a web-based video chat, which works > with the Chrome browser. Under the hood, it uses XMPP, though unlike the > other options given above, it is installation-free. Find it at > http://jitmeet.bestbits.net. It is a replacement for other web-based > video chats such as Google Hangout and Uberconference. Like other video > chats, it does not work well on low-bandwidth connections. > > > We also have these tools available on our server for collaboration on > texts: > > > - *Etherpad* (online collaborative notepad) at http://pad.bestbit.net. > I'm sure you have all used this before. From now on, the Best Bits server > can also be used to host pads. This is a simple alternative to proprietary > products such as Google Docs. > - *Ethercalc* (online collaborative spreadsheet) at > http://calc.bestbits.net. Less well-known than Etherpad, but the > concept is similar. It is a simpler alternative to proprietary products > such as Google Calc. > > > Please feel free to make use of the above and please provide me with > your feedback on any problems you may encounter. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see > http://jere.my/l/pgp. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- *Renata Avila * Global Campaign Lead, Web We Want Human Rights - Intellectual Property Lawyer +44 2032897004 (UK) *World Wide Web Foundation | 110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington D.C. 20005 USA **| **www.webfoundation.org* * | Twitter: @webfoundation* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Mon Apr 14 11:09:44 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 11:09:44 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: NETmundial / "Lines To Take" to be adopted by the Council of the EU In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Andrea Glorioso Date: Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 10:37 AM Subject: NETmundial / "Lines To Take" to be adopted by the Council of the EU To: Andrea Glorioso Dear all, a few of you had asked me about the discussions in the Council of the EU (EU Member States) concerning the forthcoming NETmundial meeting. The Council of the EU has published the latest (and, unless there are any last-minute hiccup, last) draft position of the Council online. You can find it at http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST%208665%202014%20INIT . A few observations: - this document will go to the COREPER (the Committee of Permanent Representatives [of Member States to the EU]) on 16 April 2014, for approval. - the content of the document is prepared by the rotating EU Presidency (Greece) on the basis of discussions with, and inputs from, EU Member States. The European Commission and the European External Action Service may be consulted (and we were in this case) mostly to make sure that the positions would not contradict the EU *acquis*. Although I am of course free to share public information with third parties, I'd like to avoid needless "institutional frictions", which would just make me lose time and energies. Therefore I'd appreciate, in case you wanted to further share this information, if you could avoid mentioning my name - which is anyway unnecessary, given that the Council of the EU has publicly posted this information. I hope this is of interest / help. Best, Andrea -- -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro -- *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: From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Apr 14 16:06:54 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 13:06:54 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] FW: US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study References: Message-ID: <044c01cf581d$151d4790$3f57d6b0$@gmail.com> I guess the below explains the overwhelming pressure from the USG to have multistakeholderism implemented for global (Internet) governance since MSism would be the political form through which oligarchies would exert (and mask) their power in global decision making processes. Of course it also suggests why significant elements of CS in Internet Governance processes would also support MSism since they are in many cases the direct beneficiaries of these oligarchies. M From: sid-l at googlegroups.com [mailto:sid-l at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sid Shniad Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 11:20 AM To: undisclosed-recipients: Subject: US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/04/14 Common Dreams April 14, 2014 US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study “The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.” by Eric Zuesse In America, money talks... and democracy dies under its crushing weight. (Photo: Shutterstock)A study, to appear in the Fall 2014 issue of the academic journal Perspectives on Politics, finds that the U.S. is no democracy, but instead an oligarchy, meaning profoundly corrupt, so that the answer to the study’s opening question, "Who governs? Who really rules?" in this country, is: "Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But, ..." and then they go on to say, it's not true, and that, "America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened" by the findings in this, the first-ever comprehensive scientific study of the subject, which shows that there is instead "the nearly total failure of 'median voter' and other Majoritarian Electoral Democracy theories [of America]. When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy." To put it short: The United States is no democracy, but actually an oligarchy. The authors of this historically important study are Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, and their article is titled "Testing Theories of American Politics." The authors clarify that the data available are probably under-representing the actual extent of control of the U.S. by the super-rich: Economic Elite Domination theories do rather well in our analysis, even though our findings probably understate the political influence of elites. Our measure of the preferences of wealthy or elite Americans – though useful, and the best we could generate for a large set of policy cases – is probably less consistent with the relevant preferences than are our measures of the views of ordinary citizens or the alignments of engaged interest groups. Yet we found substantial estimated effects even when using this imperfect measure. The real-world impact of elites upon public policy may be still greater. Nonetheless, this is the first-ever scientific study of the question of whether the U.S. is a democracy. "Until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions [that U.S. policymaking operates as a democracy, versus as an oligarchy, versus as some mixture of the two] against each other within a single statistical model. This paper reports on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues." That’s an enormous number of policy-issues studied. What the authors are able to find, despite the deficiencies of the data, is important: the first-ever scientific analysis of whether the U.S. is a democracy, or is instead an oligarchy, or some combination of the two. The clear finding is that the U.S. is an oligarchy, no democratic country, at all. American democracy is a sham, no matter how much it's pumped by the oligarchs who run the country (and who control the nation's "news" media). The U.S., in other words, is basically similar to Russia or most other dubious "electoral" "democratic" countries. We weren't formerly, but we clearly are now. Today, after this exhaustive analysis of the data, “the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.” That's it, in a nutshell. Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010,and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity. -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sid-l" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sid-l+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. !DSPAM:2676,534c26bd215691645816401! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG Mon Apr 14 17:48:21 2014 From: mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG (Mike Godwin (mgodwin@INTERNEWS.ORG)) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 17:48:21 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] FW: US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study References: [bestbits] FW: US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study Message-ID: <1DEB7534D981B444BF234789326B22A8AF08BDFC51@MBX.INTERNEWS.LOCAL> Convergence is not causality. Lots of interested stakeholders may legitimately prefer multistakeholder models from ones on which they are baseline excluded. Sent from my iPhone using Mail+ for Outlook From: michael gurstein Sent: 4/14/14, 4:07 PM To: 1Net List, Internet Governance Caucus List, bestbits Subject: [bestbits] FW: US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study I guess the below explains the overwhelming pressure from the USG to have multistakeholderism implemented for global (Internet) governance since MSism would be the political form through which oligarchies would exert (and mask) their power in global decision making processes. Of course it also suggests why significant elements of CS in Internet Governance processes would also support MSism since they are in many cases the direct beneficiaries of these oligarchies. M From: sid-l at googlegroups.com [mailto:sid-l at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sid Shniad Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 11:20 AM To: undisclosed-recipients: Subject: US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/04/14 Common Dreams April 14, 2014 US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study “The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.” by Eric Zuesse In America, money talks... and democracy dies under its crushing weight. (Photo: Shutterstock)A study, to appear in the Fall 2014 issue of the academic journal Perspectives on Politics, finds that the U.S. is no democracy, but instead an oligarchy, meaning profoundly corrupt, so that the answer to the study’s opening question, "Who governs? Who really rules?" in this country, is: "Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But, ..." and then they go on to say, it's not true, and that, "America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened" by the findings in this, the first-ever comprehensive scientific study of the subject, which shows that there is instead "the nearly total failure of 'median voter' and other Majoritarian Electoral Democracy theories [of America]. When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy." To put it short: The United States is no democracy, but actually an oligarchy. The authors of this historically important study are Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, and their article is titled "Testing Theories of American Politics." The authors clarify that the data available are probably under-representing the actual extent of control of the U.S. by the super-rich: Economic Elite Domination theories do rather well in our analysis, even though our findings probably understate the political influence of elites. Our measure of the preferences of wealthy or elite Americans – though useful, and the best we could generate for a large set of policy cases – is probably less consistent with the relevant preferences than are our measures of the views of ordinary citizens or the alignments of engaged interest groups. Yet we found substantial estimated effects even when using this imperfect measure. The real-world impact of elites upon public policy may be still greater. Nonetheless, this is the first-ever scientific study of the question of whether the U.S. is a democracy. "Until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions [that U.S. policymaking operates as a democracy, versus as an oligarchy, versus as some mixture of the two] against each other within a single statistical model. This paper reports on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues." That’s an enormous number of policy-issues studied. What the authors are able to find, despite the deficiencies of the data, is important: the first-ever scientific analysis of whether the U.S. is a democracy, or is instead an oligarchy, or some combination of the two. The clear finding is that the U.S. is an oligarchy, no democratic country, at all. American democracy is a sham, no matter how much it's pumped by the oligarchs who run the country (and who control the nation's "news" media). The U.S., in other words, is basically similar to Russia or most other dubious "electoral" "democratic" countries. We weren't formerly, but we clearly are now. Today, after this exhaustive analysis of the data, “the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.” That's it, in a nutshell. Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010,and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity. -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sid-l" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sid-l+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. !DSPAM:2676,534c26bd215691645816401! Click here to report this email as spam. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Mon Apr 14 19:58:59 2014 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 20:58:59 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] NetMundial Draft Outcome document Online for comments at the platform Message-ID: FYI: http://document.netmundial.br/introduction/ Please, engage with your comments or rating the paragraphs you support. Sorry for cross-posting. It would be good if we channel short and concise comments in that platform. Enjoy! Kind regards, Joana -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From laura at article19.org Mon Apr 14 20:59:54 2014 From: laura at article19.org (Laura Tresca) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 00:59:54 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] RES: [Marcocivil] NetMundial Draft Outcome document Online for comments at the platform In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7C9F27BE10361942966E4835F365891A77DAFC7C@A19MAIL.aricle19.org> Wow, net neutrality is NOT pointed out as a principle! ARTICLE 19 Oficina para Sudamerica/ South America Office Rua João Adolfo, 118 - 8ºandar Anhangabaú, São Paulo, Brasil tel. +55 11 30570042/0071 www.artigo19.org/ www.article19.org ________________________________ De: marcocivil-bounces at listas.ensol.org.br [marcocivil-bounces at listas.ensol.org.br] em nome de Joana Varon [joana at varonferraz.com] Enviado: segunda-feira, 14 de abril de 2014 20:58 Para: <, bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, ; 1Net List; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; marcocivil at listas.ensol.org.br; webwewant at googlegroups.com Assunto: [Marcocivil] NetMundial Draft Outcome document Online for comments at the platform FYI: http://document.netmundial.br/introduction/ Please, engage with your comments or rating the paragraphs you support. Sorry for cross-posting. It would be good if we channel short and concise comments in that platform. Enjoy! Kind regards, Joana -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 From ca at cafonso.ca Mon Apr 14 21:08:13 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 22:08:13 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [Marcocivil] RES: NetMundial Draft Outcome document Online for comments at the platform In-Reply-To: <7C9F27BE10361942966E4835F365891A77DAFC7C@A19MAIL.aricle19.org> References: <7C9F27BE10361942966E4835F365891A77DAFC7C@A19MAIL.aricle19.org> Message-ID: <534C867D.9030203@cafonso.ca> Laura, I think you did not read the docs in detail: "Internet should continue to be a globally coherent, interconnected, stable, unfragmented, scalable and accessible network-of-networks, based on a common set of unique identifiers and that allows the free flow of data packets/information." and: "The Internet should be preserved as a fertile and innovative environment based on an open system architecture, with voluntary collaboration, collective stewardship and participation, recognizing technical management principles for efficient and improved network operation and preserving the end-to-end nature of the network, equal technical treatment of all protocols and data, delivered by the underlying communications and seeking to resolve technical issues at a level closest to their origin." --c.a. On 04/14/2014 09:59 PM, Laura Tresca wrote: > Wow, net neutrality is NOT pointed out as a principle! > > ARTICLE 19 > Oficina para Sudamerica/ South America Office > Rua João Adolfo, 118 - 8ºandar > Anhangabaú, São Paulo, Brasil > tel. +55 11 30570042/0071 > www.artigo19.org/ www.article19.org > ________________________________ > De: marcocivil-bounces at listas.ensol.org.br [marcocivil-bounces at listas.ensol.org.br] em nome de Joana Varon [joana at varonferraz.com] > Enviado: segunda-feira, 14 de abril de 2014 20:58 > Para: <, bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, ; 1Net List; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; marcocivil at listas.ensol.org.br; webwewant at googlegroups.com > Assunto: [Marcocivil] NetMundial Draft Outcome document Online for comments at the platform > > FYI: http://document.netmundial.br/introduction/ > > Please, engage with your comments or rating the paragraphs you support. > > Sorry for cross-posting. It would be good if we channel short and concise comments in that platform. > > Enjoy! > > Kind regards, > > Joana > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Lista de email Marcocivil > Marcocivil at listas.ensol.org.br > http://listas.ensol.org.br/listinfo.cgi/marcocivil-ensol.org.br > Descadastrar: envie email a Marcocivil-unsubscribe at listas.ensol.org.br > From joao.caribe at me.com Mon Apr 14 21:08:20 2014 From: joao.caribe at me.com (=?utf-8?Q? Jo=C3=A3o_Carlos_R._Carib=C3=A9 ?=) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 22:08:20 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] RES: [Marcocivil] NetMundial Draft Outcome document Online for comments at the platform In-Reply-To: <7C9F27BE10361942966E4835F365891A77DAFC7C@A19MAIL.aricle19.org> References: <7C9F27BE10361942966E4835F365891A77DAFC7C@A19MAIL.aricle19.org> Message-ID: <76851EC1-8293-460A-A246-8D7E7C5B5107@me.com> Sure who made this doc? How can we think and discuss Internet without net neutrality ? We need to made a massive comment to show this "monster" mistake João Carlos R. Caribé (021)4042 7727 (021)98761 1967 Skype joaocaribe Enviado via iPhone > Em 14/04/2014, às 21:59, Laura Tresca escreveu: > > Wow, net neutrality is NOT pointed out as a principle! > > ARTICLE 19 > Oficina para Sudamerica/ South America Office > Rua João Adolfo, 118 - 8ºandar > Anhangabaú, São Paulo, Brasil > tel. +55 11 30570042/0071 > www.artigo19.org/ www.article19.org > ________________________________ > De: marcocivil-bounces at listas.ensol.org.br [marcocivil-bounces at listas.ensol.org.br] em nome de Joana Varon [joana at varonferraz.com] > Enviado: segunda-feira, 14 de abril de 2014 20:58 > Para: <, bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, ; 1Net List; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; marcocivil at listas.ensol.org.br; webwewant at googlegroups.com > Assunto: [Marcocivil] NetMundial Draft Outcome document Online for comments at the platform > > FYI: http://document.netmundial.br/introduction/ > > Please, engage with your comments or rating the paragraphs you support. > > Sorry for cross-posting. It would be good if we channel short and concise comments in that platform. > > Enjoy! > > Kind regards, > > Joana > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From joao.caribe at me.com Mon Apr 14 21:21:57 2014 From: joao.caribe at me.com (=?utf-8?Q? Jo=C3=A3o_Carlos_R._Carib=C3=A9 ?=) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 22:21:57 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [Marcocivil] RES: NetMundial Draft Outcome document Online for comments at the platform In-Reply-To: <534C867D.9030203@cafonso.ca> References: <7C9F27BE10361942966E4835F365891A77DAFC7C@A19MAIL.aricle19.org> <534C867D.9030203@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Why it was avoided using the expression net neutrality or be more specific at this point? I fear the interpretations that can be attributed to this entry João Carlos R. Caribé (021)4042 7727 (021)98761 1967 Skype joaocaribe Enviado via iPhone > Em 14/04/2014, às 22:08, "Carlos A. Afonso" escreveu: > > Laura, I think you did not read the docs in detail: > > "Internet should continue to be a globally coherent, interconnected, > stable, unfragmented, scalable and accessible network-of-networks, based > on a common set of unique identifiers and that allows the free flow of > data packets/information." > > and: > > "The Internet should be preserved as a fertile and innovative > environment based on an open system architecture, with voluntary > collaboration, collective stewardship and participation, recognizing > technical management principles for efficient and improved network > operation and preserving the end-to-end nature of the network, equal > technical treatment of all protocols and data, delivered by the > underlying communications and seeking to resolve technical issues at a > level closest to their origin." > > --c.a. > >> On 04/14/2014 09:59 PM, Laura Tresca wrote: >> Wow, net neutrality is NOT pointed out as a principle! >> >> ARTICLE 19 >> Oficina para Sudamerica/ South America Office >> Rua João Adolfo, 118 - 8ºandar >> Anhangabaú, São Paulo, Brasil >> tel. +55 11 30570042/0071 >> www.artigo19.org/ www.article19.org >> ________________________________ >> De: marcocivil-bounces at listas.ensol.org.br [marcocivil-bounces at listas.ensol.org.br] em nome de Joana Varon [joana at varonferraz.com] >> Enviado: segunda-feira, 14 de abril de 2014 20:58 >> Para: <, bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, ; 1Net List; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; marcocivil at listas.ensol.org.br; webwewant at googlegroups.com >> Assunto: [Marcocivil] NetMundial Draft Outcome document Online for comments at the platform >> >> FYI: http://document.netmundial.br/introduction/ >> >> Please, engage with your comments or rating the paragraphs you support. >> >> Sorry for cross-posting. It would be good if we channel short and concise comments in that platform. >> >> Enjoy! >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Joana >> -- >> -- >> >> Joana Varon Ferraz >> @joana_varon >> PGP 0x016B8E73 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lista de email Marcocivil >> Marcocivil at listas.ensol.org.br >> http://listas.ensol.org.br/listinfo.cgi/marcocivil-ensol.org.br >> Descadastrar: envie email a Marcocivil-unsubscribe at listas.ensol.org.br > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Apr 14 22:36:51 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 11:36:51 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] NETmundial documents online for comment Message-ID: <749AA860-B2CF-4C8A-B783-073C6C4F9E9D@glocom.ac.jp> Please see Use the Navigate button. Comments will close April 21th, 12:00 UTC. Adam WELCOME TO NETMUNDIAL PUBLIC COMMENTS PAGE After an open call for content contribution, NETmundial – the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance – received 188 documents from 46 different countries. These documents were sent by representatives of Civil Society, Private Sector, Academy, Governments and Technical Community. Based on these broad set of inputs, NETmundial’s Executive Multistakeholder Committee (EMC) prepared a Draft Outcome Document and submitted it for consultation with NETmundial’s High-level Multistakeholder Committee (HLMC) on April 3rd, 2014. After incorporating the inputs from the HLMC, under the guidance of NETmundial’s Chair and Co-Chairs, a final version of the document is released here for public comments. The public consultation will be open for comments on NETmundial’s Executive Committee Output Document from April 14th until April 21th, 12:00 UTC. For this public consultation a commenting tool is available online at http://document.netmundial.br/ with the purpose of receiving public comments on specific points of the document. It is not necessary to create an account in order to post your comment to the document. You’ll be able to immediately start reading the document and whenever you have something to say, you’ll just have to provide a full name and contact email address alongside your comment. By clicking on any paragraph of the document, you’ll be able to see all the comments other people have already made pertaining to that portion of the text; as referred above, you are also granted the possibility to register your own observations. Maybe your concern was already addressed in someone else’s comment, so please be sure to take a look at the previous comments before making yours. This public consultation closes the loop that started by collecting public content contributions. Such contributions were compiled and merged into the Outcome Document by the NETmundial EMC and HLMC committees in the spirit of trying to represent the overall context of the current Internet Governance debate. It is very important to receive further public input in this final stage, so that the outcome is true to the issues and concerns presented by all stakeholders. END From nnenna75 at gmail.com Tue Apr 15 02:35:46 2014 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 06:35:46 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues Message-ID: Dear all, I got a message this morning from NetMundial Chair, Virgilo, inviting me to speak at the Opening Ceremony of Netmundial (meaning I have to pack one of those African dresses) for some 8 minutes. I have replied to say "I will be speaking from the Civil Society perspective, which is my Stakeholder Group". There is a Web Foundation media team that will help me put my ideas into place, but I cannot not request input from here, so that no major issues will be overlooked. I travel Thursday evening thru Friday, so the earliest I can share a draft/keypoints will be Monday. Hope we can pull this off well. All for now Nnenna -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Apr 15 02:38:41 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 16:38:41 +1000 Subject: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <28D7250BBB2E4798BC6C1B7A93337D53@Toshiba> Congratulations Nnenna – great choice! From: Nnenna Nwakanma Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 4:35 PM To: Governance ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues Dear all, I got a message this morning from NetMundial Chair, Virgilo, inviting me to speak at the Opening Ceremony of Netmundial (meaning I have to pack one of those African dresses) for some 8 minutes. I have replied to say "I will be speaking from the Civil Society perspective, which is my Stakeholder Group". There is a Web Foundation media team that will help me put my ideas into place, but I cannot not request input from here, so that no major issues will be overlooked. I travel Thursday evening thru Friday, so the earliest I can share a draft/keypoints will be Monday. Hope we can pull this off well. All for now Nnenna -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Tue Apr 15 02:42:49 2014 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 03:42:49 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: <28D7250BBB2E4798BC6C1B7A93337D53@Toshiba> References: <28D7250BBB2E4798BC6C1B7A93337D53@Toshiba> Message-ID: ;) happy to help. On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 3:38 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Congratulations Nnenna - great choice! > > > > *From:* Nnenna Nwakanma > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 15, 2014 4:35 PM > *To:* Governance ; > mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society > major issues > > Dear all, > > I got a message this morning from NetMundial Chair, Virgilo, inviting me > to speak at the Opening Ceremony of Netmundial (meaning I have to pack one > of those African dresses) for some 8 minutes. > > I have replied to say "I will be speaking from the Civil Society > perspective, which is my Stakeholder Group". > > There is a Web Foundation media team that will help me put my ideas into > place, but I cannot not request input from here, so that no major issues > will be overlooked. > > > I travel Thursday evening thru Friday, so the earliest I can share a > draft/keypoints will be Monday. > > Hope we can pull this off well. > > All for now > > Nnenna > > ------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeanette at wzb.eu Tue Apr 15 03:23:07 2014 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 09:23:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: <28D7250BBB2E4798BC6C1B7A93337D53@Toshiba> References: <28D7250BBB2E4798BC6C1B7A93337D53@Toshiba> Message-ID: <534CDE5B.2010906@wzb.eu> + 1 jeanette Am 15.04.14 08:38, schrieb Ian Peter: > Congratulations Nnenna – great choice! > *From:* Nnenna Nwakanma > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 15, 2014 4:35 PM > *To:* Governance ; > mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society > major issues > Dear all, > > I got a message this morning from NetMundial Chair, Virgilo, inviting me > to speak at the Opening Ceremony of Netmundial (meaning I have to pack > one of those African dresses) for some 8 minutes. > > I have replied to say "I will be speaking from the Civil Society > perspective, which is my Stakeholder Group". > > There is a Web Foundation media team that will help me put my ideas into > place, but I cannot not request input from here, so that no major issues > will be overlooked. > > > I travel Thursday evening thru Friday, so the earliest I can share a > draft/keypoints will be Monday. > > Hope we can pull this off well. > > All for now > > Nnenna > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From anriette at apc.org Tue Apr 15 03:44:04 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 09:44:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: <534CDE5B.2010906@wzb.eu> References: <28D7250BBB2E4798BC6C1B7A93337D53@Toshiba> <534CDE5B.2010906@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <534CE344.2050200@apc.org> Congrats Nnenna! Put on one of your fabulous outfits, and then remind them, that working inclusively and respectfully with all stakeholder groups, particularly those that lack power and influence - i.e. civil society - is very different from putting on a colourful West African outfit :) It takes hard work, change in behaviour, change in structures and procedures, consultation, respect, trust, debate, and struggle, because do not always agree. It also requires a common framework of principles that defines what the public interest is in internet governance that can be used to promote and protect this public interest across the internet governance ecosystem and it is this framework that we trust the NetMundial can get us closer to. You could also mention surveillance, with particularly - but not only - mass surveillance demonstrating how easy it is to destroy trust, and to deny accountability. And, is there any tougher test for multi-stakeholder internet governance? I think it would be good to get the message accross that the IANA transition is not the only issue that NetMundial should be discussing, but at the same time, it is a key opportunity to come up with solutions and approaches that are not simply cosmetic. Anriette On 15/04/2014 09:23, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > + 1 > jeanette > > Am 15.04.14 08:38, schrieb Ian Peter: >> Congratulations Nnenna – great choice! >> *From:* Nnenna Nwakanma >> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 15, 2014 4:35 PM >> *To:* Governance ; >> mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> *Subject:* [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society >> major issues >> Dear all, >> >> I got a message this morning from NetMundial Chair, Virgilo, inviting me >> to speak at the Opening Ceremony of Netmundial (meaning I have to pack >> one of those African dresses) for some 8 minutes. >> >> I have replied to say "I will be speaking from the Civil Society >> perspective, which is my Stakeholder Group". >> >> There is a Web Foundation media team that will help me put my ideas into >> place, but I cannot not request input from here, so that no major issues >> will be overlooked. >> >> >> I travel Thursday evening thru Friday, so the earliest I can share a >> draft/keypoints will be Monday. >> >> Hope we can pull this off well. >> >> All for now >> >> Nnenna >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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: From lorena at collaboratory.de Tue Apr 15 03:57:09 2014 From: lorena at collaboratory.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 09:57:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: <534CE344.2050200@apc.org> References: <28D7250BBB2E4798BC6C1B7A93337D53@Toshiba> <534CDE5B.2010906@wzb.eu> <534CE344.2050200@apc.org> Message-ID: +1 2014-04-15 9:44 GMT+02:00 Anriette Esterhuysen : > Congrats Nnenna! > > Put on one of your fabulous outfits, and then remind them, that working > inclusively and respectfully with all stakeholder groups, particularly > those that lack power and influence - i.e. civil society - is very > different from putting on a colourful West African outfit :) It takes hard > work, change in behaviour, change in structures and procedures, > consultation, respect, trust, debate, and struggle, because do not always > agree. It also requires a common framework of principles that defines what > the public interest is in internet governance that can be used to promote > and protect this public interest across the internet governance ecosystem > and it is this framework that we trust the NetMundial can get us closer to. > > You could also mention surveillance, with particularly - but not only - > mass surveillance demonstrating how easy it is to destroy trust, and to > deny accountability. And, is there any tougher test for multi-stakeholder > internet governance? I think it would be good to get the message accross > that the IANA transition is not the only issue that NetMundial should be > discussing, but at the same time, it is a key opportunity to come up with > solutions and approaches that are not simply cosmetic. > > Anriette > > On 15/04/2014 09:23, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > + 1 > jeanette > > Am 15.04.14 08:38, schrieb Ian Peter: > > Congratulations Nnenna – great choice! > *From:* Nnenna Nwakanma > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 15, 2014 4:35 PM > *To:* Governance ; > mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society > major issues > Dear all, > > I got a message this morning from NetMundial Chair, Virgilo, inviting me > to speak at the Opening Ceremony of Netmundial (meaning I have to pack > one of those African dresses) for some 8 minutes. > > I have replied to say "I will be speaking from the Civil Society > perspective, which is my Stakeholder Group". > > There is a Web Foundation media team that will help me put my ideas into > place, but I cannot not request input from here, so that no major issues > will be overlooked. > > > I travel Thursday evening thru Friday, so the earliest I can share a > draft/keypoints will be Monday. > > Hope we can pull this off well. > > All for now > > Nnenna > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > 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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. ∙ Coordinator of the Global Internet Governance (GIG) Ohu Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ Youtube -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wsaqaf at gmail.com Tue Apr 15 04:06:33 2014 From: wsaqaf at gmail.com (Walid AL-SAQAF) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 10:06:33 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: <534CE344.2050200@apc.org> References: <28D7250BBB2E4798BC6C1B7A93337D53@Toshiba> <534CDE5B.2010906@wzb.eu> <534CE344.2050200@apc.org> Message-ID: Congrats Nenna and I'm really delighted to know that we have you as a champion for civil society and the global south as well. I support Anriette's points and wish to add that it would be an opportune moment for you to raise the issue of bridging the digital divide as a priority and doing it a comprehensive way does require involving all stakeholders. Remind governments that, on issues related to the internet, all stakeholders should have a say and it is NOT business as usual. I hope your message will resonate, in particular, with Arab governments, which are -in my view- still living in the past and may want to hijack the process to put government in charge and shape the future of IG. Let's not allow that to happen. Good luck! Sincerely, Walid On Apr 15, 2014 9:44 AM, "Anriette Esterhuysen" wrote: > Congrats Nnenna! > > Put on one of your fabulous outfits, and then remind them, that working > inclusively and respectfully with all stakeholder groups, particularly > those that lack power and influence - i.e. civil society - is very > different from putting on a colourful West African outfit :) It takes hard > work, change in behaviour, change in structures and procedures, > consultation, respect, trust, debate, and struggle, because do not always > agree. It also requires a common framework of principles that defines what > the public interest is in internet governance that can be used to promote > and protect this public interest across the internet governance ecosystem > and it is this framework that we trust the NetMundial can get us closer to. > > You could also mention surveillance, with particularly - but not only - > mass surveillance demonstrating how easy it is to destroy trust, and to > deny accountability. And, is there any tougher test for multi-stakeholder > internet governance? I think it would be good to get the message accross > that the IANA transition is not the only issue that NetMundial should be > discussing, but at the same time, it is a key opportunity to come up with > solutions and approaches that are not simply cosmetic. > > Anriette > > On 15/04/2014 09:23, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > + 1 > jeanette > > Am 15.04.14 08:38, schrieb Ian Peter: > > Congratulations Nnenna – great choice! > *From:* Nnenna Nwakanma > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 15, 2014 4:35 PM > *To:* Governance ; > mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society > major issues > Dear all, > > I got a message this morning from NetMundial Chair, Virgilo, inviting me > to speak at the Opening Ceremony of Netmundial (meaning I have to pack > one of those African dresses) for some 8 minutes. > > I have replied to say "I will be speaking from the Civil Society > perspective, which is my Stakeholder Group". > > There is a Web Foundation media team that will help me put my ideas into > place, but I cannot not request input from here, so that no major issues > will be overlooked. > > > I travel Thursday evening thru Friday, so the earliest I can share a > draft/keypoints will be Monday. > > Hope we can pull this off well. > > All for now > > Nnenna > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > 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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk Tue Apr 15 05:46:00 2014 From: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk (Marianne Franklin) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 21:46:00 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: <534CE344.2050200@apc.org> References: <28D7250BBB2E4798BC6C1B7A93337D53@Toshiba> <534CDE5B.2010906@wzb.eu> <534CE344.2050200@apc.org> Message-ID: <534CFFD8.1090100@gold.ac.uk> Dear all +1 from me re. Nnenna's role, and +1 from me re. Anriette's points below. best MF On 15/04/2014 19:44, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Congrats Nnenna! > > Put on one of your fabulous outfits, and then remind them, that > working inclusively and respectfully with all stakeholder groups, > particularly those that lack power and influence - i.e. civil society > - is very different from putting on a colourful West African outfit :) > It takes hard work, change in behaviour, change in structures and > procedures, consultation, respect, trust, debate, and struggle, > because do not always agree. It also requires a common framework of > principles that defines what the public interest is in internet > governance that can be used to promote and protect this public > interest across the internet governance ecosystem and it is this > framework that we trust the NetMundial can get us closer to. > > You could also mention surveillance, with particularly - but not only > - mass surveillance demonstrating how easy it is to destroy trust, and > to deny accountability. And, is there any tougher test for > multi-stakeholder internet governance? I think it would be good to get > the message accross that the IANA transition is not the only issue > that NetMundial should be discussing, but at the same time, it is a > key opportunity to come up with solutions and approaches that are not > simply cosmetic. > > Anriette > > On 15/04/2014 09:23, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> + 1 >> jeanette >> >> Am 15.04.14 08:38, schrieb Ian Peter: >>> Congratulations Nnenna – great choice! >>> *From:* Nnenna Nwakanma >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 15, 2014 4:35 PM >>> *To:* Governance ; >>> mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> *Subject:* [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society >>> major issues >>> Dear all, >>> >>> I got a message this morning from NetMundial Chair, Virgilo, >>> inviting me >>> to speak at the Opening Ceremony of Netmundial (meaning I have to pack >>> one of those African dresses) for some 8 minutes. >>> >>> I have replied to say "I will be speaking from the Civil Society >>> perspective, which is my Stakeholder Group". >>> >>> There is a Web Foundation media team that will help me put my ideas >>> into >>> place, but I cannot not request input from here, so that no major >>> issues >>> will be overlooked. >>> >>> >>> I travel Thursday evening thru Friday, so the earliest I can share a >>> draft/keypoints will be Monday. >>> >>> Hope we can pull this off well. >>> >>> All for now >>> >>> Nnenna >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > 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 -- Dr Marianne Franklin Professor of Global Media and Politics Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program Goldsmiths (University of London) Department of Media & Communications New Cross, London SE14 6NW Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 @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/ Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) www.internetrightsandprinciples.org @netrights -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG Tue Apr 15 05:50:50 2014 From: mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG (Mike Godwin (mgodwin@INTERNEWS.ORG)) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 05:50:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: <534CFFD8.1090100@gold.ac.uk> References: <28D7250BBB2E4798BC6C1B7A93337D53@Toshiba> <534CDE5B.2010906@wzb.eu> <534CE344.2050200@apc.org> <534CFFD8.1090100@gold.ac.uk> Message-ID: Nnenna is going to be great. I’m glad she’s keynoting. —m -- Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project mgodwin at internews.org | Mobile 415-793-4446 Skype mnemonic1026 Address 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA INTERNEWS | Local Voices. Global Change. www.internews.org | @internews | facebook.com/internews From: Marianne Franklin > Reply-To: Marianne Franklin > Date: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 at 5:46 AM To: "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" >, "irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org" > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues Dear all +1 from me re. Nnenna's role, and +1 from me re. Anriette's points below. best MF On 15/04/2014 19:44, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: Congrats Nnenna! Put on one of your fabulous outfits, and then remind them, that working inclusively and respectfully with all stakeholder groups, particularly those that lack power and influence - i.e. civil society - is very different from putting on a colourful West African outfit :) It takes hard work, change in behaviour, change in structures and procedures, consultation, respect, trust, debate, and struggle, because do not always agree. It also requires a common framework of principles that defines what the public interest is in internet governance that can be used to promote and protect this public interest across the internet governance ecosystem and it is this framework that we trust the NetMundial can get us closer to. You could also mention surveillance, with particularly - but not only - mass surveillance demonstrating how easy it is to destroy trust, and to deny accountability. And, is there any tougher test for multi-stakeholder internet governance? I think it would be good to get the message accross that the IANA transition is not the only issue that NetMundial should be discussing, but at the same time, it is a key opportunity to come up with solutions and approaches that are not simply cosmetic. Anriette On 15/04/2014 09:23, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: + 1 jeanette Am 15.04.14 08:38, schrieb Ian Peter: Congratulations Nnenna – great choice! *From:* Nnenna Nwakanma *Sent:* Tuesday, April 15, 2014 4:35 PM *To:* Governance ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net *Subject:* [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues Dear all, I got a message this morning from NetMundial Chair, Virgilo, inviting me to speak at the Opening Ceremony of Netmundial (meaning I have to pack one of those African dresses) for some 8 minutes. I have replied to say "I will be speaking from the Civil Society perspective, which is my Stakeholder Group". There is a Web Foundation media team that will help me put my ideas into place, but I cannot not request input from here, so that no major issues will be overlooked. I travel Thursday evening thru Friday, so the earliest I can share a draft/keypoints will be Monday. Hope we can pull this off well. All for now Nnenna ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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 Marianne Franklin Professor of Global Media and Politics Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program Goldsmiths (University of London) Department of Media & Communications New Cross, London SE14 6NW Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 @GloComm https://twitter.com/GloCommhttp://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/ Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) www.internetrightsandprinciples.org @netrights Click here to report this email as spam. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Apr 15 06:50:04 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 03:50:04 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] FW: US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study In-Reply-To: <1DEB7534D981B444BF234789326B22A8AF08BDFC51@MBX.INTERNEWS.LOCAL> References: [bestbits] FW: US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study <1DEB7534D981B444BF234789326B22A8AF08BDFC51@MBX.INTERNEWS.LOCAL> Message-ID: <079f01cf5898$762b5ba0$628212e0$@gmail.com> Mike, Do I take you as saying below that you would trade (even the opportunity) of influence via democratic participation for the many; in return for the (in my opinion) illusion of not being “excluded” for the few via multistakeholderism? M From: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) [mailto:mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG] Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 2:48 PM To: michael gurstein; 1Net List; Internet Governance Caucus List; bestbits Subject: RE: [bestbits] FW: US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study Convergence is not causality. Lots of interested stakeholders may legitimately prefer multistakeholder models from ones on which they are baseline excluded. Sent from my iPhone using Mail+ for Outlook From: michael gurstein Sent: 4/14/14, 4:07 PM To: 1Net List, Internet Governance Caucus List, bestbits Subject: [bestbits] FW: US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study I guess the below explains the overwhelming pressure from the USG to have multistakeholderism implemented for global (Internet) governance since MSism would be the political form through which oligarchies would exert (and mask) their power in global decision making processes. Of course it also suggests why significant elements of CS in Internet Governance processes would also support MSism since they are in many cases the direct beneficiaries of these oligarchies. M From: sid-l at googlegroups.com [mailto:sid-l at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sid Shniad Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 11:20 AM To: undisclosed-recipients: Subject: US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/04/14 Common Dreams April 14, 2014 US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study “The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.” by Eric Zuesse In America, money talks... and democracy dies under its crushing weight. (Photo: Shutterstock)A study, to appear in the Fall 2014 issue of the academic journal Perspectives on Politics, finds that the U.S. is no democracy, but instead an oligarchy, meaning profoundly corrupt, so that the answer to the study’s opening question, "Who governs? Who really rules?" in this country, is: "Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But, ..." and then they go on to say, it's not true, and that, "America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened" by the findings in this, the first-ever comprehensive scientific study of the subject, which shows that there is instead "the nearly total failure of 'median voter' and other Majoritarian Electoral Democracy theories [of America]. When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy." To put it short: The United States is no democracy, but actually an oligarchy. The authors of this historically important study are Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, and their article is titled "Testing Theories of American Politics." The authors clarify that the data available are probably under-representing the actual extent of control of the U.S. by the super-rich: Economic Elite Domination theories do rather well in our analysis, even though our findings probably understate the political influence of elites. Our measure of the preferences of wealthy or elite Americans – though useful, and the best we could generate for a large set of policy cases – is probably less consistent with the relevant preferences than are our measures of the views of ordinary citizens or the alignments of engaged interest groups. Yet we found substantial estimated effects even when using this imperfect measure. The real-world impact of elites upon public policy may be still greater. Nonetheless, this is the first-ever scientific study of the question of whether the U.S. is a democracy. "Until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions [that U.S. policymaking operates as a democracy, versus as an oligarchy, versus as some mixture of the two] against each other within a single statistical model. This paper reports on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues." That’s an enormous number of policy-issues studied. What the authors are able to find, despite the deficiencies of the data, is important: the first-ever scientific analysis of whether the U.S. is a democracy, or is instead an oligarchy, or some combination of the two. The clear finding is that the U.S. is an oligarchy, no democratic country, at all. American democracy is a sham, no matter how much it's pumped by the oligarchs who run the country (and who control the nation's "news" media). The U.S., in other words, is basically similar to Russia or most other dubious "electoral" "democratic" countries. We weren't formerly, but we clearly are now. Today, after this exhaustive analysis of the data, “the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.” That's it, in a nutshell. Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010,and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity. -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sid-l" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sid-l+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. !DSPAM:2676,534c26bd215691645816401! Click here to report this email as spam. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Apr 15 07:10:31 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 07:10:31 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: <534CFFD8.1090100@gold.ac.uk> References: <28D7250BBB2E4798BC6C1B7A93337D53@Toshiba> <534CDE5B.2010906@wzb.eu> <534CE344.2050200@apc.org> <534CFFD8.1090100@gold.ac.uk> Message-ID: <7CE12A31-A7B2-4BA9-A1C0-25FD6E6A7F03@gmail.com> Pls, mention net neutrality which was taken out of the document put out for comments yesterday. More later. Should we consolidate all in a pad to help Nnenna? Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 15, 2014, at 5:46 AM, Marianne Franklin wrote: > > Dear all > > +1 from me re. Nnenna's role, and +1 from me re. Anriette's points below. > > best > MF > >> On 15/04/2014 19:44, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> Congrats Nnenna! >> >> Put on one of your fabulous outfits, and then remind them, that working inclusively and respectfully with all stakeholder groups, particularly those that lack power and influence - i.e. civil society - is very different from putting on a colourful West African outfit :) It takes hard work, change in behaviour, change in structures and procedures, consultation, respect, trust, debate, and struggle, because do not always agree. It also requires a common framework of principles that defines what the public interest is in internet governance that can be used to promote and protect this public interest across the internet governance ecosystem and it is this framework that we trust the NetMundial can get us closer to. >> >> You could also mention surveillance, with particularly - but not only - mass surveillance demonstrating how easy it is to destroy trust, and to deny accountability. And, is there any tougher test for multi-stakeholder internet governance? I think it would be good to get the message accross that the IANA transition is not the only issue that NetMundial should be discussing, but at the same time, it is a key opportunity to come up with solutions and approaches that are not simply cosmetic. >> >> Anriette >> >>> On 15/04/2014 09:23, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>> + 1 >>> jeanette >>> >>> Am 15.04.14 08:38, schrieb Ian Peter: >>>> Congratulations Nnenna – great choice! >>>> *From:* Nnenna Nwakanma >>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 15, 2014 4:35 PM >>>> *To:* Governance ; >>>> mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>> *Subject:* [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society >>>> major issues >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> I got a message this morning from NetMundial Chair, Virgilo, inviting me >>>> to speak at the Opening Ceremony of Netmundial (meaning I have to pack >>>> one of those African dresses) for some 8 minutes. >>>> >>>> I have replied to say "I will be speaking from the Civil Society >>>> perspective, which is my Stakeholder Group". >>>> >>>> There is a Web Foundation media team that will help me put my ideas into >>>> place, but I cannot not request input from here, so that no major issues >>>> will be overlooked. >>>> >>>> >>>> I travel Thursday evening thru Friday, so the earliest I can share a >>>> draft/keypoints will be Monday. >>>> >>>> Hope we can pull this off well. >>>> >>>> All for now >>>> >>>> Nnenna >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> 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 Marianne Franklin > Professor of Global Media and Politics > Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program > Goldsmiths (University of London) > Department of Media & Communications > New Cross, London SE14 6NW > Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 > > @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/ > Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) > www.internetrightsandprinciples.org > @netrights > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Tue Apr 15 07:18:50 2014 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 07:18:50 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20140415111850.5779601.10632.39472@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG Tue Apr 15 07:19:18 2014 From: mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG (Mike Godwin (mgodwin@INTERNEWS.ORG)) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 07:19:18 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] FW: US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study In-Reply-To: <079f01cf5898$762b5ba0$628212e0$@gmail.com> References: <1DEB7534D981B444BF234789326B22A8AF08BDFC51@MBX.INTERNEWS.LOCAL> <079f01cf5898$762b5ba0$628212e0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: My own personal view, which I have to stress does not purport to represent my employer, is more nuanced. I think all governments, from the most democratic to the most authoritarian, share certain self-perceptions and assumptions that tend to run against the radically democratic potentialities of online media. (In my own work, I run into this constantly — the perception that the internet is so inherently disruptive that it must be controlled in one way or another. It’s how, until very recently, democratic governments even thought of the traditional press.) This isn’t malice or selfishness — instead, this is an “occupational hazard” if your occupation is being a government, and nobody is immune, really. Multi-stakeholderism at its best, in my view, formalizes the necessity of taking input from non-governmental “outsiders.” I think that’s the right outcome, democratically speaking. (I also happen to think that the USG’s favoring multi-stakeholderism--at least as it does right now--is a happy circumstance, because institutional governmental self-interest over the long term tends to favor governmental--or inter-governmental--bodies most of the time.) So my “solution space” for internet governance tends to center on multi-stakeholderism, clearly, but of course multi-stakeholderism has to be structured correctly, and multi-stakeholderism is to be valued not in itself but to the extent that it serves democratic values. (A multistakeholder system favoring corporate dominance is no better than one favoring institutional government dominance, and of course, as I think you agree, might be worse.) By contrast, I don’t view the ITU (for example) as being a leading candidate for serving those values. We have a number of models to pick from. And as Laura DeNardis suggests in her recent writings, we may actually need to pick different models for different particular governance spaces and roles. —Mike -- Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project mgodwin at internews.org | Mobile 415-793-4446 Skype mnemonic1026 Address 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA INTERNEWS | Local Voices. Global Change. www.internews.org | @internews | facebook.com/internews From: michael gurstein > Date: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 at 6:50 AM To: Mike Godwin >, 'Internet Governance Caucus List' >, 'bestbits' > Subject: RE: [bestbits] FW: US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study Mike, Do I take you as saying below that you would trade (even the opportunity) of influence via democratic participation for the many; in return for the (in my opinion) illusion of not being “excluded” for the few via multistakeholderism? M From: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) [mailto:mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG] Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 2:48 PM To: michael gurstein; 1Net List; Internet Governance Caucus List; bestbits Subject: RE: [bestbits] FW: US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study Convergence is not causality. Lots of interested stakeholders may legitimately prefer multistakeholder models from ones on which they are baseline excluded. Sent from my iPhone using Mail+ for Outlook From: michael gurstein Sent: 4/14/14, 4:07 PM To: 1Net List, Internet Governance Caucus List, bestbits Subject: [bestbits] FW: US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study I guess the below explains the overwhelming pressure from the USG to have multistakeholderism implemented for global (Internet) governance since MSism would be the political form through which oligarchies would exert (and mask) their power in global decision making processes. Of course it also suggests why significant elements of CS in Internet Governance processes would also support MSism since they are in many cases the direct beneficiaries of these oligarchies. M From: sid-l at googlegroups.com [mailto:sid-l at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sid Shniad Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 11:20 AM To: undisclosed-recipients: Subject: US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/04/14 Common Dreams April 14, 2014 US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study “The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.” by Eric Zuesse In America, money talks... and democracy dies under its crushing weight. (Photo: Shutterstock)A study, to appear in the Fall 2014 issue of the academic journal Perspectives on Politics, finds that the U.S. is no democracy, but instead an oligarchy, meaning profoundly corrupt, so that the answer to the study’s opening question, "Who governs? Who really rules?" in this country, is: "Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But, ..." and then they go on to say, it's not true, and that, "America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened" by the findings in this, the first-ever comprehensive scientific study of the subject, which shows that there is instead "the nearly total failure of 'median voter' and other Majoritarian Electoral Democracy theories [of America]. When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy." To put it short: The United States is no democracy, but actually an oligarchy. The authors of this historically important study are Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, and their article is titled "Testing Theories of American Politics." The authors clarify that the data available are probably under-representing the actual extent of control of the U.S. by the super-rich: Economic Elite Domination theories do rather well in our analysis, even though our findings probably understate the political influence of elites. Our measure of the preferences of wealthy or elite Americans – though useful, and the best we could generate for a large set of policy cases – is probably less consistent with the relevant preferences than are our measures of the views of ordinary citizens or the alignments of engaged interest groups. Yet we found substantial estimated effects even when using this imperfect measure. The real-world impact of elites upon public policy may be still greater. Nonetheless, this is the first-ever scientific study of the question of whether the U.S. is a democracy. "Until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions [that U.S. policymaking operates as a democracy, versus as an oligarchy, versus as some mixture of the two] against each other within a single statistical model. This paper reports on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues." That’s an enormous number of policy-issues studied. What the authors are able to find, despite the deficiencies of the data, is important: the first-ever scientific analysis of whether the U.S. is a democracy, or is instead an oligarchy, or some combination of the two. The clear finding is that the U.S. is an oligarchy, no democratic country, at all. American democracy is a sham, no matter how much it's pumped by the oligarchs who run the country (and who control the nation's "news" media). The U.S., in other words, is basically similar to Russia or most other dubious "electoral" "democratic" countries. We weren't formerly, but we clearly are now. Today, after this exhaustive analysis of the data, “the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.” That's it, in a nutshell. Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010,and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity. -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sid-l" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sid-l+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. !DSPAM:2676,534c26bd215691645816401! Click here to report this email as spam. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Apr 15 07:49:04 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 08:49:04 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: <7CE12A31-A7B2-4BA9-A1C0-25FD6E6A7F03@gmail.com> References: <28D7250BBB2E4798BC6C1B7A93337D53@Toshiba> <534CDE5B.2010906@wzb.eu> <534CE344.2050200@apc.org> <534CFFD8.1090100@gold.ac.uk> <7CE12A31-A7B2-4BA9-A1C0-25FD6E6A7F03@gmail.com> Message-ID: <534D1CB0.4030301@cafonso.ca> Carol, it was not "taken out" of the document. It is there, in detail, please re-read. --c.a. On 04/15/2014 08:10 AM, Carolina wrote: > Pls, mention net neutrality which was taken out of the document put out > for comments yesterday. More later. Should we consolidate all in a pad > to help Nnenna? > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Apr 15, 2014, at 5:46 AM, Marianne Franklin > wrote: > >> Dear all >> >> +1 from me re. Nnenna's role, and +1 from me re. Anriette's points below. >> >> best >> MF >> >> On 15/04/2014 19:44, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>> Congrats Nnenna! >>> >>> Put on one of your fabulous outfits, and then remind them, that >>> working inclusively and respectfully with all stakeholder groups, >>> particularly those that lack power and influence - i.e. civil society >>> - is very different from putting on a colourful West African outfit >>> :) It takes hard work, change in behaviour, change in structures and >>> procedures, consultation, respect, trust, debate, and struggle, >>> because do not always agree. It also requires a common framework of >>> principles that defines what the public interest is in internet >>> governance that can be used to promote and protect this public >>> interest across the internet governance ecosystem and it is this >>> framework that we trust the NetMundial can get us closer to. >>> >>> You could also mention surveillance, with particularly - but not only >>> - mass surveillance demonstrating how easy it is to destroy trust, >>> and to deny accountability. And, is there any tougher test for >>> multi-stakeholder internet governance? I think it would be good to >>> get the message accross that the IANA transition is not the only >>> issue that NetMundial should be discussing, but at the same time, it >>> is a key opportunity to come up with solutions and approaches that >>> are not simply cosmetic. >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> On 15/04/2014 09:23, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>> + 1 >>>> jeanette >>>> >>>> Am 15.04.14 08:38, schrieb Ian Peter: >>>>> Congratulations Nnenna – great choice! >>>>> *From:* Nnenna Nwakanma >>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 15, 2014 4:35 PM >>>>> *To:* Governance ; >>>>> mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>> *Subject:* [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society >>>>> major issues >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> I got a message this morning from NetMundial Chair, Virgilo, >>>>> inviting me >>>>> to speak at the Opening Ceremony of Netmundial (meaning I have to pack >>>>> one of those African dresses) for some 8 minutes. >>>>> >>>>> I have replied to say "I will be speaking from the Civil Society >>>>> perspective, which is my Stakeholder Group". >>>>> >>>>> There is a Web Foundation media team that will help me put my ideas >>>>> into >>>>> place, but I cannot not request input from here, so that no major >>>>> issues >>>>> will be overlooked. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I travel Thursday evening thru Friday, so the earliest I can share a >>>>> draft/keypoints will be Monday. >>>>> >>>>> Hope we can pull this off well. >>>>> >>>>> All for now >>>>> >>>>> Nnenna >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> 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 Marianne Franklin >> Professor of Global Media and Politics >> Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program >> Goldsmiths (University of London) >> Department of Media & Communications >> New Cross, London SE14 6NW >> Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 >> >> @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/ >> Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) >> www.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> @netrights >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From iza at anr.org Tue Apr 15 07:49:32 2014 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 20:49:32 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Congratulations Nnenna!! One point I like to share is - We need to increase meaningful input and participation from the people in the developing parts of the world. This does not necessarily developing countries and their governments. There are so many people living in the underdeveloped parts inside developed countries. They are mostly in the remote areas, in the mountains, country side, far from major cities etc. Or even inside large cities but in the slums, poor areas. They are as marginalized and ignored. People in the small and often remote island countries, landlocked countries are in similar situation, if not the same. These were mentioned by Tunis Agenda, I believe. Often, if the got connectivity, thanks to Internet and mobile phones, these new links might bring as much benefits as problems. But their voices and views are often ignored, not much invited. Most domain names are owned and operated by the people in the cities. Of course, these economic factors and conditions are not directly generated by the Internet, and Internet Governance issues may not seem to be directly linked. But nonetheless, I like to ask you to consider these issues. Thank you, izumi 2014年4月15日火曜日、Nnenna Nwakanmaさんは書きました: > Dear all, > > I got a message this morning from NetMundial Chair, Virgilo, inviting me > to speak at the Opening Ceremony of Netmundial (meaning I have to pack one > of those African dresses) for some 8 minutes. > > I have replied to say "I will be speaking from the Civil Society > perspective, which is my Stakeholder Group". > > There is a Web Foundation media team that will help me put my ideas into > place, but I cannot not request input from here, so that no major issues > will be overlooked. > > > I travel Thursday evening thru Friday, so the earliest I can share a > draft/keypoints will be Monday. > > Hope we can pull this off well. > > All for now > > Nnenna > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kichango at gmail.com Tue Apr 15 07:52:55 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 11:52:55 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: <20140415111850.5779601.10632.39472@gmail.com> References: <20140415111850.5779601.10632.39472@gmail.com> Message-ID: Congrats, Nnenna! + to Anriette's points (to keep it at the principles and big ideas level, given the time constraint.) So I'm not going to add to the load, as I'm sure at the end all good ideas will be raised --not to mention you know as well as I do the corner of the world you and I live in. Good luck! mawaki On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Tracy Hackshaw @ Google < tracyhackshaw at gmail.com> wrote: > Congratulations Nnenna! > > It would be very much appreciated if you could make a mention of the > challenges being faced by Small Island Developing States in their ongoing > struggle to balance Information Society objectives with basic > infrastructural requirements in the face of environmental threats. > > Best wishes, > > Tracy > > Sent from BlackBerry Q10 > *From: *Nnenna Nwakanma > *Sent: *Tuesday, April 15, 2014 2:36 AM > *To: *Governance; > *Reply To: *Nnenna Nwakanma > *Subject: *[bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society > major issues > > Dear all, > > I got a message this morning from NetMundial Chair, Virgilo, inviting me > to speak at the Opening Ceremony of Netmundial (meaning I have to pack one > of those African dresses) for some 8 minutes. > > I have replied to say "I will be speaking from the Civil Society > perspective, which is my Stakeholder Group". > > There is a Web Foundation media team that will help me put my ideas into > place, but I cannot not request input from here, so that no major issues > will be overlooked. > > > I travel Thursday evening thru Friday, so the earliest I can share a > draft/keypoints will be Monday. > > Hope we can pull this off well. > > All for now > > Nnenna > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Apr 15 08:02:28 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 05:02:28 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] RE: [be US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study Message-ID: <003301cf58a2$93d1cc20$bb756460$@gmail.com> A couple of points before I rush off. It is to my mind quite bizarre to equate democracy with governmentalism. Democracy is giving the people voice (including dare I say through independent media) and the means to turn those voices into actions. Government is a means, perhaps the best means to do this but in no sense is it the only means and certainly doesn't involve a commitment to incumbent governments (or inter-governments) or their actions. Second, the issue with MSism is not its relation (or not) to democratic "principles" however high minded or rhetorically compelling. The question is its relation to democratic practices i.e. substituting decision making by the few and self-selected for decision making by the many operating through accountable and transparent processes. M From: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) [mailto:mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG] Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 4:19 AM To: michael gurstein; 'Internet Governance Caucus List'; 'bestbits' Subject: Re: [bestbits] FW: US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study My own personal view, which I have to stress does not purport to represent my employer, is more nuanced. I think all governments, from the most democratic to the most authoritarian, share certain self-perceptions and assumptions that tend to run against the radically democratic potentialities of online media. (In my own work, I run into this constantly - the perception that the internet is so inherently disruptive that it must be controlled in one way or another. It's how, until very recently, democratic governments even thought of the traditional press.) This isn't malice or selfishness - instead, this is an "occupational hazard" if your occupation is being a government, and nobody is immune, really. Multi-stakeholderism at its best, in my view, formalizes the necessity of taking input from non-governmental "outsiders." I think that's the right outcome, democratically speaking. (I also happen to think that the USG's favoring multi-stakeholderism--at least as it does right now--is a happy circumstance, because institutional governmental self-interest over the long term tends to favor governmental--or inter-governmental--bodies most of the time.) So my "solution space" for internet governance tends to center on multi-stakeholderism, clearly, but of course multi-stakeholderism has to be structured correctly, and multi-stakeholderism is to be valued not in itself but to the extent that it serves democratic values. (A multistakeholder system favoring corporate dominance is no better than one favoring institutional government dominance, and of course, as I think you agree, might be worse.) By contrast, I don't view the ITU (for example) as being a leading candidate for serving those values. We have a number of models to pick from. And as Laura DeNardis suggests in her recent writings, we may actually need to pick different models for different particular governance spaces and roles. -Mike -- Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project mgodwin at internews.org | Mobile 415-793-4446 Skype mnemonic1026 Address 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA INTERNEWS | Local Voices. Global Change. www.internews.org | @internews | facebook.com/internews From: michael gurstein Date: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 at 6:50 AM To: Mike Godwin , 'Internet Governance Caucus List' , 'bestbits' Subject: RE: [bestbits] FW: US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study Mike, Do I take you as saying below that you would trade (even the opportunity) of influence via democratic participation for the many; in return for the (in my opinion) illusion of not being "excluded" for the few via multistakeholderism? M From: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) [mailto:mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG] Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 2:48 PM To: michael gurstein; 1Net List; Internet Governance Caucus List; bestbits Subject: RE: [bestbits] FW: US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study Convergence is not causality. Lots of interested stakeholders may legitimately prefer multistakeholder models from ones on which they are baseline excluded. Sent from my iPhone using Mail+ for Outlook From: michael gurstein Sent: 4/14/14, 4:07 PM To: 1Net List, Internet Governance Caucus List, bestbits Subject: [bestbits] FW: US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study I guess the below explains the overwhelming pressure from the USG to have multistakeholderism implemented for global (Internet) governance since MSism would be the political form through which oligarchies would exert (and mask) their power in global decision making processes. Of course it also suggests why significant elements of CS in Internet Governance processes would also support MSism since they are in many cases the direct beneficiaries of these oligarchies. M From: sid-l at googlegroups.com [mailto:sid-l at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sid Shniad Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 11:20 AM To: undisclosed-recipients: Subject: US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/04/14 Common Dreams April 14, 2014 US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study "The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy." by Eric Zuesse In America, money talks... and democracy dies under its crushing weight. (Photo: Shutterstock)A study, to appear in the Fall 2014 issue of the academic journal Perspectives on Politics, finds that the U.S. is no democracy, but instead an oligarchy, meaning profoundly corrupt, so that the answer to the study's opening question, "Who governs? Who really rules?" in this country, is: "Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But, ..." and then they go on to say, it's not true, and that, "America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened" by the findings in this, the first-ever comprehensive scientific study of the subject, which shows that there is instead "the nearly total failure of 'median voter' and other Majoritarian Electoral Democracy theories [of America]. When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy." To put it short: The United States is no democracy, but actually an oligarchy. The authors of this historically important study are Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, and their article is titled "Testing Theories of American Politics." The authors clarify that the data available are probably under-representing the actual extent of control of the U.S. by the super-rich: Economic Elite Domination theories do rather well in our analysis, even though our findings probably understate the political influence of elites. Our measure of the preferences of wealthy or elite Americans - though useful, and the best we could generate for a large set of policy cases - is probably less consistent with the relevant preferences than are our measures of the views of ordinary citizens or the alignments of engaged interest groups. Yet we found substantial estimated effects even when using this imperfect measure. The real-world impact of elites upon public policy may be still greater. Nonetheless, this is the first-ever scientific study of the question of whether the U.S. is a democracy. "Until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions [that U.S. policymaking operates as a democracy, versus as an oligarchy, versus as some mixture of the two] against each other within a single statistical model. This paper reports on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues." That's an enormous number of policy-issues studied. What the authors are able to find, despite the deficiencies of the data, is important: the first-ever scientific analysis of whether the U.S. is a democracy, or is instead an oligarchy, or some combination of the two. The clear finding is that the U.S. is an oligarchy, no democratic country, at all. American democracy is a sham, no matter how much it's pumped by the oligarchs who run the country (and who control the nation's "news" media). The U.S., in other words, is basically similar to Russia or most other dubious "electoral" "democratic" countries. We weren't formerly, but we clearly are now. Today, after this exhaustive analysis of the data, "the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy." That's it, in a nutshell. Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010,and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity. -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sid-l" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sid-l+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. !DSPAM:2676,534c26bd215691645816401! Click here to report this email as spam. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG Tue Apr 15 08:08:08 2014 From: mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG (Mike Godwin (mgodwin@INTERNEWS.ORG)) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 08:08:08 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [be US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study In-Reply-To: <003301cf58a2$93d1cc20$bb756460$@gmail.com> References: <003301cf58a2$93d1cc20$bb756460$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Michael Gurstein writes: "It is to my mind quite bizarre to equate democracy with governmentalism…" Indeed, it would be bizarre to me too. That’s why I distinguished them rather than equating them. "The question is its relation to democratic practices i.e. substituting decision making by the few and self-selected for decision making by the many operating through accountable and transparent processes.” My reference to Laura DeNardis centers on her having addressed precisely the issue of where and when democratic processes best serve internet governance. I don’t endorse all of her views, but she brings nuance to issues that cannot easily be addressed by appeal to universals, much as I’m temperamentally inclined to do the latter. —Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From valeriab at apc.org Tue Apr 15 08:15:38 2014 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 07:15:38 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: References: <28D7250BBB2E4798BC6C1B7A93337D53@Toshiba> Message-ID: <3EE55ECD-39A2-4363-8611-9FDB4F7B44EA@apc.org> Congratulations, Nnenna! El 15/04/2014, a las 1:42, Joana Varon escribió: > ;) > happy to help. > > > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 3:38 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Congratulations Nnenna – great choice! > > > > From: Nnenna Nwakanma > Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 4:35 PM > To: Governance ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues > > Dear all, > > I got a message this morning from NetMundial Chair, Virgilo, inviting me to speak at the Opening Ceremony of Netmundial (meaning I have to pack one of those African dresses) for some 8 minutes. > > I have replied to say "I will be speaking from the Civil Society perspective, which is my Stakeholder Group". > > There is a Web Foundation media team that will help me put my ideas into place, but I cannot not request input from here, so that no major issues will be overlooked. > > > I travel Thursday evening thru Friday, so the earliest I can share a draft/keypoints will be Monday. > > Hope we can pull this off well. > > All for now > > Nnenna > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > -- > > 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: From valeriab at apc.org Tue Apr 15 08:16:24 2014 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 07:16:24 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: <534CE344.2050200@apc.org> References: <28D7250BBB2E4798BC6C1B7A93337D53@Toshiba> <534CDE5B.2010906@wzb.eu> <534CE344.2050200@apc.org> Message-ID: <3E5FA9C5-7BC8-442F-8A5C-53B62A00E838@apc.org> + 1 on Anriette’s points. El 15/04/2014, a las 2:44, Anriette Esterhuysen escribió: > Congrats Nnenna! > > Put on one of your fabulous outfits, and then remind them, that working inclusively and respectfully with all stakeholder groups, particularly those that lack power and influence - i.e. civil society - is very different from putting on a colourful West African outfit :) It takes hard work, change in behaviour, change in structures and procedures, consultation, respect, trust, debate, and struggle, because do not always agree. It also requires a common framework of principles that defines what the public interest is in internet governance that can be used to promote and protect this public interest across the internet governance ecosystem and it is this framework that we trust the NetMundial can get us closer to. > > You could also mention surveillance, with particularly - but not only - mass surveillance demonstrating how easy it is to destroy trust, and to deny accountability. And, is there any tougher test for multi-stakeholder internet governance? I think it would be good to get the message accross that the IANA transition is not the only issue that NetMundial should be discussing, but at the same time, it is a key opportunity to come up with solutions and approaches that are not simply cosmetic. > > Anriette > > On 15/04/2014 09:23, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> + 1 >> jeanette >> >> Am 15.04.14 08:38, schrieb Ian Peter: >>> Congratulations Nnenna – great choice! >>> *From:* Nnenna Nwakanma >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 15, 2014 4:35 PM >>> *To:* Governance ; >>> mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> *Subject:* [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society >>> major issues >>> Dear all, >>> >>> I got a message this morning from NetMundial Chair, Virgilo, inviting me >>> to speak at the Opening Ceremony of Netmundial (meaning I have to pack >>> one of those African dresses) for some 8 minutes. >>> >>> I have replied to say "I will be speaking from the Civil Society >>> perspective, which is my Stakeholder Group". >>> >>> There is a Web Foundation media team that will help me put my ideas into >>> place, but I cannot not request input from here, so that no major issues >>> will be overlooked. >>> >>> >>> I travel Thursday evening thru Friday, so the earliest I can share a >>> draft/keypoints will be Monday. >>> >>> Hope we can pull this off well. >>> >>> All for now >>> >>> Nnenna >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message 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: From fatimacambronero at gmail.com Tue Apr 15 08:47:50 2014 From: fatimacambronero at gmail.com (Fatima Cambronero) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 09:47:50 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: References: <28D7250BBB2E4798BC6C1B7A93337D53@Toshiba> <534CDE5B.2010906@wzb.eu> <534CE344.2050200@apc.org> <3E5FA9C5-7BC8-442F-8A5C-53B62A00E838@apc.org> Message-ID: Congrats Nnenna and thanks for representing us! I also support Anriette's points, especially those about trust, and I would add: -a REAL participation of civil society and Internet users in IG ecosystem > related to capacity building to allow that participation -infrastructure (development/access to) < it is still an issue in many of our developing countries -human rights: freedom of expression, privacy, freedom of association (respect to) -Openness, accountability, transparency, inclusiveness -Bottom-up and multistakeholder processes Thanks. Best Regards, Fatima 2014-04-15 9:19 GMT-03:00 Babatope Soremi : > Congrats Nnenna. > > +1 to Anriette's points with perhaps particular focus on the need to > ensure trust is not lost by users owing to recent developments regarding > invasive surveillance techniques deployed by governments specifically > > > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Valeria Betancourt wrote: > >> + 1 on Anriette's points. >> >> El 15/04/2014, a las 2:44, Anriette Esterhuysen >> escribió: >> >> Congrats Nnenna! >> >> Put on one of your fabulous outfits, and then remind them, that working >> inclusively and respectfully with all stakeholder groups, particularly >> those that lack power and influence - i.e. civil society - is very >> different from putting on a colourful West African outfit :) It takes hard >> work, change in behaviour, change in structures and procedures, >> consultation, respect, trust, debate, and struggle, because do not always >> agree. It also requires a common framework of principles that defines what >> the public interest is in internet governance that can be used to promote >> and protect this public interest across the internet governance ecosystem >> and it is this framework that we trust the NetMundial can get us closer to. >> >> You could also mention surveillance, with particularly - but not only - >> mass surveillance demonstrating how easy it is to destroy trust, and to >> deny accountability. And, is there any tougher test for multi-stakeholder >> internet governance? I think it would be good to get the message accross >> that the IANA transition is not the only issue that NetMundial should be >> discussing, but at the same time, it is a key opportunity to come up with >> solutions and approaches that are not simply cosmetic. >> >> Anriette >> >> On 15/04/2014 09:23, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >> + 1 >> jeanette >> >> Am 15.04.14 08:38, schrieb Ian Peter: >> >> Congratulations Nnenna - great choice! >> *From:* Nnenna Nwakanma >> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 15, 2014 4:35 PM >> *To:* Governance ; >> mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> *Subject:* [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society >> major issues >> Dear all, >> >> I got a message this morning from NetMundial Chair, Virgilo, inviting me >> to speak at the Opening Ceremony of Netmundial (meaning I have to pack >> one of those African dresses) for some 8 minutes. >> >> I have replied to say "I will be speaking from the Civil Society >> perspective, which is my Stakeholder Group". >> >> There is a Web Foundation media team that will help me put my ideas into >> place, but I cannot not request input from here, so that no major issues >> will be overlooked. >> >> >> I travel Thursday evening thru Friday, so the earliest I can share a >> draft/keypoints will be Monday. >> >> Hope we can pull this off well. >> >> All for now >> >> Nnenna >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> 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 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > Babatope Soremi > > A destructive means can not bring about a constructive end.... > > TB > > > Quality is never an accident. It is always the result of intelligent > effort. > > *John Ruskin * > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -- *Fatima Cambronero* Abogada-Argentina Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 Twitter: @facambronero Skype: fatima.cambronero -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Apr 15 08:54:32 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 18:24:32 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: <534D1CB0.4030301@cafonso.ca> References: <28D7250BBB2E4798BC6C1B7A93337D53@Toshiba> <534CDE5B.2010906@wzb.eu> <534CE344.2050200@apc.org> <534CFFD8.1090100@gold.ac.uk> <7CE12A31-A7B2-4BA9-A1C0-25FD6E6A7F03@gmail.com> <534D1CB0.4030301@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <534D2C08.7050207@itforchange.net> Carlos, Of course you know what net neutrality is - it is there in the Marco Civil; it is not here in this document... And even the half cock term 'neutrality' has been specifically removed, by those opposed to net neutrality, and you are trying to convince us that net neutrality is still there... Not only net neutrality has been removed, 'free flow of information' which figured twice in the earlier (leaked) draft has been removed from both places.. Plus the mention of 'necessary and proportionate' principle (s) has been removed.. Plus need for agreements on restraining cyber weapons have been removed... The part on access for disabled has been weakened... The recognition in the previous document of need for mechanisms to address emerging issues and those which do not have a existing home has been greatly diluted... So, the big business has done a thorough vetting of the doc to make sure that not a wisp of anything that could even potentially interfere with their free reign on the global Internet could pass through... And what happened to other suggestions form HLC members who are to big business or the US gov... Argentinian government and Indian government (and in a way also the European Commission) had asked for the insertion of the term 'democratic' in different places where the characteristics of Internet governance were listed.... But, no, that demand was not accepted... There is no place for democracy and democratic in the land of multistakeholderism, fronting or big business interests, as the changes in the document clearly show. BTW, India in its comments on the document (as per the leaked documents) seem to have also asked for a recognition of the Internet as a global commons... but of course no... what are you talking about! What are you asking the people of the world to do with this document... To endorse it and celebrate it just becuase in about 500 places it says multi-stakeholder.... parminder On Tuesday 15 April 2014 05:19 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Carol, it was not "taken out" of the document. It is there, in detail, > please re-read. > > --c.a. > > On 04/15/2014 08:10 AM, Carolina wrote: >> Pls, mention net neutrality which was taken out of the document put out >> for comments yesterday. More later. Should we consolidate all in a pad >> to help Nnenna? >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Apr 15, 2014, at 5:46 AM, Marianne Franklin > > wrote: >> >>> Dear all >>> >>> +1 from me re. Nnenna's role, and +1 from me re. Anriette's points below. >>> >>> best >>> MF >>> >>> On 15/04/2014 19:44, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>>> Congrats Nnenna! >>>> >>>> Put on one of your fabulous outfits, and then remind them, that >>>> working inclusively and respectfully with all stakeholder groups, >>>> particularly those that lack power and influence - i.e. civil society >>>> - is very different from putting on a colourful West African outfit >>>> :) It takes hard work, change in behaviour, change in structures and >>>> procedures, consultation, respect, trust, debate, and struggle, >>>> because do not always agree. It also requires a common framework of >>>> principles that defines what the public interest is in internet >>>> governance that can be used to promote and protect this public >>>> interest across the internet governance ecosystem and it is this >>>> framework that we trust the NetMundial can get us closer to. >>>> >>>> You could also mention surveillance, with particularly - but not only >>>> - mass surveillance demonstrating how easy it is to destroy trust, >>>> and to deny accountability. And, is there any tougher test for >>>> multi-stakeholder internet governance? I think it would be good to >>>> get the message accross that the IANA transition is not the only >>>> issue that NetMundial should be discussing, but at the same time, it >>>> is a key opportunity to come up with solutions and approaches that >>>> are not simply cosmetic. >>>> >>>> Anriette >>>> >>>> On 15/04/2014 09:23, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>>> + 1 >>>>> jeanette >>>>> >>>>> Am 15.04.14 08:38, schrieb Ian Peter: >>>>>> Congratulations Nnenna – great choice! >>>>>> *From:* Nnenna Nwakanma >>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 15, 2014 4:35 PM >>>>>> *To:* Governance ; >>>>>> mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>> *Subject:* [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society >>>>>> major issues >>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>> >>>>>> I got a message this morning from NetMundial Chair, Virgilo, >>>>>> inviting me >>>>>> to speak at the Opening Ceremony of Netmundial (meaning I have to pack >>>>>> one of those African dresses) for some 8 minutes. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have replied to say "I will be speaking from the Civil Society >>>>>> perspective, which is my Stakeholder Group". >>>>>> >>>>>> There is a Web Foundation media team that will help me put my ideas >>>>>> into >>>>>> place, but I cannot not request input from here, so that no major >>>>>> issues >>>>>> will be overlooked. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I travel Thursday evening thru Friday, so the earliest I can share a >>>>>> draft/keypoints will be Monday. >>>>>> >>>>>> Hope we can pull this off well. >>>>>> >>>>>> All for now >>>>>> >>>>>> Nnenna >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> -- >>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>> 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 Marianne Franklin >>> Professor of Global Media and Politics >>> Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program >>> Goldsmiths (University of London) >>> Department of Media & Communications >>> New Cross, London SE14 6NW >>> Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 >>> >>> @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/ >>> Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) >>> www.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>> @netrights >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com Tue Apr 15 08:55:56 2014 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Mwendwa Kivuva) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 15:55:56 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: References: <28D7250BBB2E4798BC6C1B7A93337D53@Toshiba> <534CDE5B.2010906@wzb.eu> <534CE344.2050200@apc.org> <3E5FA9C5-7BC8-442F-8A5C-53B62A00E838@apc.org> Message-ID: Nnenna, do not mince words. To echo Anriette's wisdom:- Privacy and surveillance are very key issues. Indeed, NSA's surveillance of President Rousseff's communication was the precursor to the meeting. Mass Surveillance is a serious case of violation of human rights and civil liberties, it is disrespectful and destroy's trust on the Internet. Also point out that All stakeholders have an equal voice and should be allowed to participate "as peers on equal footing" ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya twitter.com/lordmwesh On 15 April 2014 15:19, Babatope Soremi wrote: > Congrats Nnenna. > > +1 to Anriette's points with perhaps particular focus on the need to > ensure trust is not lost by users owing to recent developments regarding > invasive surveillance techniques deployed by governments specifically > > > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Valeria Betancourt wrote: > >> + 1 on Anriette's points. >> >> El 15/04/2014, a las 2:44, Anriette Esterhuysen >> escribió: >> >> Congrats Nnenna! >> >> Put on one of your fabulous outfits, and then remind them, that working >> inclusively and respectfully with all stakeholder groups, particularly >> those that lack power and influence - i.e. civil society - is very >> different from putting on a colourful West African outfit :) It takes hard >> work, change in behaviour, change in structures and procedures, >> consultation, respect, trust, debate, and struggle, because do not always >> agree. It also requires a common framework of principles that defines what >> the public interest is in internet governance that can be used to promote >> and protect this public interest across the internet governance ecosystem >> and it is this framework that we trust the NetMundial can get us closer to. >> >> You could also mention surveillance, with particularly - but not only - >> mass surveillance demonstrating how easy it is to destroy trust, and to >> deny accountability. And, is there any tougher test for multi-stakeholder >> internet governance? I think it would be good to get the message accross >> that the IANA transition is not the only issue that NetMundial should be >> discussing, but at the same time, it is a key opportunity to come up with >> solutions and approaches that are not simply cosmetic. >> >> Anriette >> >> On 15/04/2014 09:23, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >> + 1 >> jeanette >> >> Am 15.04.14 08:38, schrieb Ian Peter: >> >> Congratulations Nnenna - great choice! >> *From:* Nnenna Nwakanma >> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 15, 2014 4:35 PM >> *To:* Governance ; >> mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> *Subject:* [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society >> major issues >> Dear all, >> >> I got a message this morning from NetMundial Chair, Virgilo, inviting me >> to speak at the Opening Ceremony of Netmundial (meaning I have to pack >> one of those African dresses) for some 8 minutes. >> >> I have replied to say "I will be speaking from the Civil Society >> perspective, which is my Stakeholder Group". >> >> There is a Web Foundation media team that will help me put my ideas into >> place, but I cannot not request input from here, so that no major issues >> will be overlooked. >> >> >> I travel Thursday evening thru Friday, so the earliest I can share a >> draft/keypoints will be Monday. >> >> Hope we can pull this off well. >> >> All for now >> >> Nnenna >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> 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 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > Babatope Soremi > > A destructive means can not bring about a constructive end.... > > TB > > > Quality is never an accident. It is always the result of intelligent > effort. > > *John Ruskin * > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Apr 15 09:02:05 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 06:02:05 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00c701cf58aa$e83c3c20$b8b4b460$@gmail.com> Congrats Nnenna, Since you are asking for suggestions for points to cover I would suggest the following: 1. A formal commitment/re-commitment to the Internet for the Common Good/in the Public Interest… I only see minor and off-handed references to this in the NetMundial statement but there needs to be a full-on commitment/re-commitment to this. This is especially the case given the risks of fragmentation/privatization of interests a “stakeholder” approach to Internet governance presents. 2. Framing/reframing “multistakeholderism” as a useful element in policy consultation and development, with suitable measures being in place to ensure the probity and accountability of these processes, within the context of democratic decision making. I like the phrase “multistakeholder dialogue in a democratic framework”. 3. Linking Internet Governance with social (and economic) justice. The Internet is becoming a dominant means for economic activity and wealth distribution/redistribution. Internet Governance, which in the NetMundial document is extended to include the “Right to Development” needs also to address social justice issues which are rapidly becoming the dominant issues of our time. 4. Finding the means to allow the widest range of voices into the Internet Governance dialogue. What this means is going beyond simple “capacity building” which ultimately can only enable the few, into designing processes and mechanisms which allow for the many to have a useful understanding of the broader issues and mechanisms to give voice and have those voices heard. Good luck with it. Mike From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Nnenna Nwakanma Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 11:36 PM To: Governance; bestbits at lists.bestbits.netso Subject: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues Dear all, I got a message this morning from NetMundial Chair, Virgilo, inviting me to speak at the Opening Ceremony of Netmundial (meaning I have to pack one of those African dresses) for some 8 minutes. I have replied to say "I will be speaking from the Civil Society perspective, which is my Stakeholder Group". There is a Web Foundation media team that will help me put my ideas into place, but I cannot not request input from here, so that no major issues will be overlooked. I travel Thursday evening thru Friday, so the earliest I can share a draft/keypoints will be Monday. Hope we can pull this off well. All for now Nnenna -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Apr 15 09:07:03 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 09:07:03 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: <534D1CB0.4030301@cafonso.ca> References: <28D7250BBB2E4798BC6C1B7A93337D53@Toshiba> <534CDE5B.2010906@wzb.eu> <534CE344.2050200@apc.org> <534CFFD8.1090100@gold.ac.uk> <7CE12A31-A7B2-4BA9-A1C0-25FD6E6A7F03@gmail.com> <534D1CB0.4030301@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: They do not say NN but they do use things that describes it. Why the option to not say NN expressly? On Apr 15, 2014 7:49 AM, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > Carol, it was not "taken out" of the document. It is there, in detail, > please re-read. > > --c.a. > > On 04/15/2014 08:10 AM, Carolina wrote: > > Pls, mention net neutrality which was taken out of the document put out > > for comments yesterday. More later. Should we consolidate all in a pad > > to help Nnenna? > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > On Apr 15, 2014, at 5:46 AM, Marianne Franklin > > wrote: > > > >> Dear all > >> > >> +1 from me re. Nnenna's role, and +1 from me re. Anriette's points > below. > >> > >> best > >> MF > >> > >> On 15/04/2014 19:44, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > >>> Congrats Nnenna! > >>> > >>> Put on one of your fabulous outfits, and then remind them, that > >>> working inclusively and respectfully with all stakeholder groups, > >>> particularly those that lack power and influence - i.e. civil society > >>> - is very different from putting on a colourful West African outfit > >>> :) It takes hard work, change in behaviour, change in structures and > >>> procedures, consultation, respect, trust, debate, and struggle, > >>> because do not always agree. It also requires a common framework of > >>> principles that defines what the public interest is in internet > >>> governance that can be used to promote and protect this public > >>> interest across the internet governance ecosystem and it is this > >>> framework that we trust the NetMundial can get us closer to. > >>> > >>> You could also mention surveillance, with particularly - but not only > >>> - mass surveillance demonstrating how easy it is to destroy trust, > >>> and to deny accountability. And, is there any tougher test for > >>> multi-stakeholder internet governance? I think it would be good to > >>> get the message accross that the IANA transition is not the only > >>> issue that NetMundial should be discussing, but at the same time, it > >>> is a key opportunity to come up with solutions and approaches that > >>> are not simply cosmetic. > >>> > >>> Anriette > >>> > >>> On 15/04/2014 09:23, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >>>> + 1 > >>>> jeanette > >>>> > >>>> Am 15.04.14 08:38, schrieb Ian Peter: > >>>>> Congratulations Nnenna – great choice! > >>>>> *From:* Nnenna Nwakanma > >>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 15, 2014 4:35 PM > >>>>> *To:* Governance ; > >>>>> mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > >>>>> *Subject:* [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society > >>>>> major issues > >>>>> Dear all, > >>>>> > >>>>> I got a message this morning from NetMundial Chair, Virgilo, > >>>>> inviting me > >>>>> to speak at the Opening Ceremony of Netmundial (meaning I have to > pack > >>>>> one of those African dresses) for some 8 minutes. > >>>>> > >>>>> I have replied to say "I will be speaking from the Civil Society > >>>>> perspective, which is my Stakeholder Group". > >>>>> > >>>>> There is a Web Foundation media team that will help me put my ideas > >>>>> into > >>>>> place, but I cannot not request input from here, so that no major > >>>>> issues > >>>>> will be overlooked. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I travel Thursday evening thru Friday, so the earliest I can share a > >>>>> draft/keypoints will be Monday. > >>>>> > >>>>> Hope we can pull this off well. > >>>>> > >>>>> All for now > >>>>> > >>>>> Nnenna > >>>>> > >>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>> > >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > >>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > >>> > >>> -- > >>> ------------------------------------------------------ > >>> 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 Marianne Franklin > >> Professor of Global Media and Politics > >> Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program > >> Goldsmiths (University of London) > >> Department of Media & Communications > >> New Cross, London SE14 6NW > >> Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 > >> > >> @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/ > >> Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) > >> www.internetrightsandprinciples.org > >> @netrights > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Apr 15 09:11:11 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 10:11:11 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <534D2FEF.80701@cafonso.ca> This is great news! I want to hear your powerful voice and ideas make the walls of Hyatt (and all stakeholders present) tremble! It would be too arrogant on my part to dare to try putting words in your mouth. You know what to say. Congratulations, Nnenna! See you soon. --c.a. On 04/15/2014 03:35 AM, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > Dear all, > > I got a message this morning from NetMundial Chair, Virgilo, inviting me > to speak at the Opening Ceremony of Netmundial (meaning I have to pack > one of those African dresses) for some 8 minutes. > > I have replied to say "I will be speaking from the Civil Society > perspective, which is my Stakeholder Group". > > There is a Web Foundation media team that will help me put my ideas into > place, but I cannot not request input from here, so that no major issues > will be overlooked. > > > I travel Thursday evening thru Friday, so the earliest I can share a > draft/keypoints will be Monday. > > Hope we can pull this off well. > > All for now > > Nnenna From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Apr 15 09:11:54 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 10:11:54 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: References: <28D7250BBB2E4798BC6C1B7A93337D53@Toshiba> <534CDE5B.2010906@wzb.eu> <534CE344.2050200@apc.org> <534CFFD8.1090100@gold.ac.uk> <7CE12A31-A7B2-4BA9-A1C0-25FD6E6A7F03@gmail.com> <534D1CB0.4030301@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <534D301A.8020206@cafonso.ca> Not an option. We know it is there in detail. --c.a. On 04/15/2014 10:07 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > They do not say NN but they do use things that describes it. > Why the option to not say NN expressly? > > On Apr 15, 2014 7:49 AM, "Carlos A. Afonso" > wrote: > > Carol, it was not "taken out" of the document. It is there, in detail, > please re-read. > > --c.a. > > On 04/15/2014 08:10 AM, Carolina wrote: > > Pls, mention net neutrality which was taken out of the document > put out > > for comments yesterday. More later. Should we consolidate all in a pad > > to help Nnenna? > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > On Apr 15, 2014, at 5:46 AM, Marianne Franklin > > > >> > wrote: > > > >> Dear all > >> > >> +1 from me re. Nnenna's role, and +1 from me re. Anriette's > points below. > >> > >> best > >> MF > >> > >> On 15/04/2014 19:44, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > >>> Congrats Nnenna! > >>> > >>> Put on one of your fabulous outfits, and then remind them, that > >>> working inclusively and respectfully with all stakeholder groups, > >>> particularly those that lack power and influence - i.e. civil > society > >>> - is very different from putting on a colourful West African outfit > >>> :) It takes hard work, change in behaviour, change in structures and > >>> procedures, consultation, respect, trust, debate, and struggle, > >>> because do not always agree. It also requires a common framework of > >>> principles that defines what the public interest is in internet > >>> governance that can be used to promote and protect this public > >>> interest across the internet governance ecosystem and it is this > >>> framework that we trust the NetMundial can get us closer to. > >>> > >>> You could also mention surveillance, with particularly - but not > only > >>> - mass surveillance demonstrating how easy it is to destroy trust, > >>> and to deny accountability. And, is there any tougher test for > >>> multi-stakeholder internet governance? I think it would be good to > >>> get the message accross that the IANA transition is not the only > >>> issue that NetMundial should be discussing, but at the same time, it > >>> is a key opportunity to come up with solutions and approaches that > >>> are not simply cosmetic. > >>> > >>> Anriette > >>> > >>> On 15/04/2014 09:23, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >>>> + 1 > >>>> jeanette > >>>> > >>>> Am 15.04.14 08:38, schrieb Ian Peter: > >>>>> Congratulations Nnenna – great choice! > >>>>> *From:* Nnenna Nwakanma > > >>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 15, 2014 4:35 PM > >>>>> *To:* Governance > ; > >>>>> mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > >>>>> *Subject:* [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil > Society > >>>>> major issues > >>>>> Dear all, > >>>>> > >>>>> I got a message this morning from NetMundial Chair, Virgilo, > >>>>> inviting me > >>>>> to speak at the Opening Ceremony of Netmundial (meaning I have > to pack > >>>>> one of those African dresses) for some 8 minutes. > >>>>> > >>>>> I have replied to say "I will be speaking from the Civil Society > >>>>> perspective, which is my Stakeholder Group". > >>>>> > >>>>> There is a Web Foundation media team that will help me put my > ideas > >>>>> into > >>>>> place, but I cannot not request input from here, so that no major > >>>>> issues > >>>>> will be overlooked. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I travel Thursday evening thru Friday, so the earliest I can > share a > >>>>> draft/keypoints will be Monday. > >>>>> > >>>>> Hope we can pull this off well. > >>>>> > >>>>> All for now > >>>>> > >>>>> Nnenna > >>>>> > >>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>> > >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > >>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > >>> > >>> -- > >>> ------------------------------------------------------ > >>> 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 Marianne Franklin > >> Professor of Global Media and Politics > >> Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program > >> Goldsmiths (University of London) > >> Department of Media & Communications > >> New Cross, London SE14 6NW > >> Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 > >> > > >> @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/ > >> Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) > >> www.internetrightsandprinciples.org > > >> @netrights > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > >. > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Apr 15 09:20:38 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 18:50:38 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: <534D2C08.7050207@itforchange.net> References: <28D7250BBB2E4798BC6C1B7A93337D53@Toshiba> <534CDE5B.2010906@wzb.eu> <534CE344.2050200@apc.org> <534CFFD8.1090100@gold.ac.uk> <7CE12A31-A7B2-4BA9-A1C0-25FD6E6A7F03@gmail.com> <534D1CB0.4030301@cafonso.ca> <534D2C08.7050207@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <534D3226.3030703@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 15 April 2014 06:24 PM, parminder wrote: > SNIP > > And what happened to other suggestions form HLC members who are to big > business or the US gov... > > Argentinian government and Indian government (and in a way also the > European Commission) had asked for the insertion of the term > 'democratic' in different places where the characteristics of Internet > governance were listed.... But, no, that demand was not accepted... > > There is no place for democracy and democratic in the land of > multistakeholderism, fronting or big business interests, as the > changes in the document clearly show. And it is not just these two governments. President Rousseff in her famed UN speech has directly linked the privacy issue to democracy... To quote "In the absence of the right to privacy, there can be no true freedom of expression and opinion, and therefore no effective democracy. " That to her was the biggest point of Snowden revelations which set in motion a process that let to the Brazil meeting. But strangely, Brazilians seem to have handed over this meeting to the staus quoists... and democracy is simply not a favoured word with them.. Welcome to the brave new post-democratic world... the NetMundial doc as it stands is positioned to become a key milestone, even a trail blazer, towards a post-democratic global governance, from where it will trickle down to national levels. The neoliberal ideology is making really big strides and rapid gains.... parminder > > BTW, India in its comments on the document (as per the leaked > documents) seem to have also asked for a recognition of the Internet > as a global commons... but of course no... what are you talking about! > > What are you asking the people of the world to do with this > document... To endorse it and celebrate it just becuase in about 500 > places it says multi-stakeholder.... > > parminder > > > On Tuesday 15 April 2014 05:19 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> Carol, it was not "taken out" of the document. It is there, in detail, >> please re-read. >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 04/15/2014 08:10 AM, Carolina wrote: >>> Pls, mention net neutrality which was taken out of the document put out >>> for comments yesterday. More later. Should we consolidate all in a pad >>> to help Nnenna? >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On Apr 15, 2014, at 5:46 AM, Marianne Franklin >> > wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all >>>> >>>> +1 from me re. Nnenna's role, and +1 from me re. Anriette's points below. >>>> >>>> best >>>> MF >>>> >>>> On 15/04/2014 19:44, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>>>> Congrats Nnenna! >>>>> >>>>> Put on one of your fabulous outfits, and then remind them, that >>>>> working inclusively and respectfully with all stakeholder groups, >>>>> particularly those that lack power and influence - i.e. civil society >>>>> - is very different from putting on a colourful West African outfit >>>>> :) It takes hard work, change in behaviour, change in structures and >>>>> procedures, consultation, respect, trust, debate, and struggle, >>>>> because do not always agree. It also requires a common framework of >>>>> principles that defines what the public interest is in internet >>>>> governance that can be used to promote and protect this public >>>>> interest across the internet governance ecosystem and it is this >>>>> framework that we trust the NetMundial can get us closer to. >>>>> >>>>> You could also mention surveillance, with particularly - but not only >>>>> - mass surveillance demonstrating how easy it is to destroy trust, >>>>> and to deny accountability. And, is there any tougher test for >>>>> multi-stakeholder internet governance? I think it would be good to >>>>> get the message accross that the IANA transition is not the only >>>>> issue that NetMundial should be discussing, but at the same time, it >>>>> is a key opportunity to come up with solutions and approaches that >>>>> are not simply cosmetic. >>>>> >>>>> Anriette >>>>> >>>>> On 15/04/2014 09:23, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>>>> + 1 >>>>>> jeanette >>>>>> >>>>>> Am 15.04.14 08:38, schrieb Ian Peter: >>>>>>> Congratulations Nnenna – great choice! >>>>>>> *From:* Nnenna Nwakanma >>>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 15, 2014 4:35 PM >>>>>>> *To:* Governance ; >>>>>>> mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>>> *Subject:* [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society >>>>>>> major issues >>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I got a message this morning from NetMundial Chair, Virgilo, >>>>>>> inviting me >>>>>>> to speak at the Opening Ceremony of Netmundial (meaning I have to pack >>>>>>> one of those African dresses) for some 8 minutes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have replied to say "I will be speaking from the Civil Society >>>>>>> perspective, which is my Stakeholder Group". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is a Web Foundation media team that will help me put my ideas >>>>>>> into >>>>>>> place, but I cannot not request input from here, so that no major >>>>>>> issues >>>>>>> will be overlooked. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I travel Thursday evening thru Friday, so the earliest I can share a >>>>>>> draft/keypoints will be Monday. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hope we can pull this off well. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All for now >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nnenna >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>> -- >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> 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 >>>> -- >>>> Dr Marianne Franklin >>>> Professor of Global Media and Politics >>>> Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program >>>> Goldsmiths (University of London) >>>> Department of Media & Communications >>>> New Cross, London SE14 6NW >>>> Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 >>>> >>>> @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/ >>>> Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) >>>> www.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>>> @netrights >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Apr 15 09:35:47 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 10:35:47 -0300 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: References: <28D7250BBB2E4798BC6C1B7A93337D53@Toshiba> <534CDE5B.2010906@wzb.eu> <534CE344.2050200@apc.org> <534CFFD8.1090100@gold.ac.uk> <7CE12A31-A7B2-4BA9-A1C0-25FD6E6A7F03@gmail.com> <534D1CB0.4030301@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <534D35B3.1060801@cafonso.ca> It is very important that you insert comments on this in the comment are of the NETmundial portal. Please note you can insert comments on the docs as a whole and/or on each specific paragraph: http://document.netmundial.br/hello-world/ fraternal regards --c.a. On 04/15/2014 10:27 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > I would prefer a detailed definition to an undefined if popular term > which is open to interpretation. > Many of the current difficulties arise out of language which has become > current without acquiring a stable definition. > Deirdre > > > On 15 April 2014 09:07, Carolina Rossini > wrote: > > They do not say NN but they do use things that describes it. > Why the option to not say NN expressly? > > On Apr 15, 2014 7:49 AM, "Carlos A. Afonso" > wrote: > > Carol, it was not "taken out" of the document. It is there, in > detail, > please re-read. > > --c.a. > > On 04/15/2014 08:10 AM, Carolina wrote: > > Pls, mention net neutrality which was taken out of the > document put out > > for comments yesterday. More later. Should we consolidate all > in a pad > > to help Nnenna? > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > On Apr 15, 2014, at 5:46 AM, Marianne Franklin > > > >> wrote: > > > >> Dear all > >> > >> +1 from me re. Nnenna's role, and +1 from me re. Anriette's > points below. > >> > >> best > >> MF > >> > >> On 15/04/2014 19:44, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > >>> Congrats Nnenna! > >>> > >>> Put on one of your fabulous outfits, and then remind them, that > >>> working inclusively and respectfully with all stakeholder > groups, > >>> particularly those that lack power and influence - i.e. > civil society > >>> - is very different from putting on a colourful West African > outfit > >>> :) It takes hard work, change in behaviour, change in > structures and > >>> procedures, consultation, respect, trust, debate, and struggle, > >>> because do not always agree. It also requires a common > framework of > >>> principles that defines what the public interest is in internet > >>> governance that can be used to promote and protect this public > >>> interest across the internet governance ecosystem and it is this > >>> framework that we trust the NetMundial can get us closer to. > >>> > >>> You could also mention surveillance, with particularly - but > not only > >>> - mass surveillance demonstrating how easy it is to destroy > trust, > >>> and to deny accountability. And, is there any tougher test for > >>> multi-stakeholder internet governance? I think it would be > good to > >>> get the message accross that the IANA transition is not the only > >>> issue that NetMundial should be discussing, but at the same > time, it > >>> is a key opportunity to come up with solutions and > approaches that > >>> are not simply cosmetic. > >>> > >>> Anriette > >>> > >>> On 15/04/2014 09:23, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >>>> + 1 > >>>> jeanette > >>>> > >>>> Am 15.04.14 08:38, schrieb Ian Peter: > >>>>> Congratulations Nnenna – great choice! > >>>>> *From:* Nnenna Nwakanma > > >>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 15, 2014 4:35 PM > >>>>> *To:* Governance > ; > >>>>> mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > >>>>> *Subject:* [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - > Civil Society > >>>>> major issues > >>>>> Dear all, > >>>>> > >>>>> I got a message this morning from NetMundial Chair, Virgilo, > >>>>> inviting me > >>>>> to speak at the Opening Ceremony of Netmundial (meaning I > have to pack > >>>>> one of those African dresses) for some 8 minutes. > >>>>> > >>>>> I have replied to say "I will be speaking from the Civil > Society > >>>>> perspective, which is my Stakeholder Group". > >>>>> > >>>>> There is a Web Foundation media team that will help me put > my ideas > >>>>> into > >>>>> place, but I cannot not request input from here, so that > no major > >>>>> issues > >>>>> will be overlooked. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I travel Thursday evening thru Friday, so the earliest I > can share a > >>>>> draft/keypoints will be Monday. > >>>>> > >>>>> Hope we can pull this off well. > >>>>> > >>>>> All for now > >>>>> > >>>>> Nnenna > >>>>> > >>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>> > >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > . > >>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > >>> > >>> -- > >>> ------------------------------------------------------ > >>> 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 Marianne Franklin > >> Professor of Global Media and Politics > >> Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program > >> Goldsmiths (University of London) > >> Department of Media & Communications > >> New Cross, London SE14 6NW > >> Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 > >> > > >> @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/ > >> Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) > >> www.internetrightsandprinciples.org > > >> @netrights > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > >. > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > > https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp > > > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir > William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 From kichango at gmail.com Tue Apr 15 09:37:46 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:37:46 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] FW: US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study In-Reply-To: References: <1DEB7534D981B444BF234789326B22A8AF08BDFC51@MBX.INTERNEWS.LOCAL> <079f01cf5898$762b5ba0$628212e0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) < mgodwin at internews.org> wrote: > My own personal view, which I have to stress does not purport to represent > my employer, is more nuanced. I think all governments, from the most > democratic to the most authoritarian, share certain self-perceptions and > assumptions that tend to run against the radically democratic > potentialities of online media. (In my own work, I run into this constantly > -- the perception that the internet is so inherently disruptive that it must > be controlled in one way or another. It's how, until very recently, > democratic governments even thought of the traditional press.) This isn't > malice or selfishness -- instead, this is an "occupational hazard" if your > occupation is being a government, and nobody is immune, really. > Multi-stakeholderism at its best, in my view, formalizes the necessity of > taking input from non-governmental "outsiders." I think that's the right > outcome, democratically speaking. (I also happen to think that the USG's > favoring multi-stakeholderism--at least as it does right now--is a happy > circumstance, because institutional governmental self-interest over the > long term tends to favor governmental--or inter-governmental--bodies most > of the time.) > > So my "solution space" for internet governance tends to center on > multi-stakeholderism, clearly, but of course multi-stakeholderism has to be > structured correctly, and multi-stakeholderism is to be valued not in > itself but to the extent that it serves democratic values. > Exactly the direction that my own thinking... But I am still to write my self-promised piece on MSism :) > (A multistakeholder system favoring corporate dominance is no better than > one favoring institutional government dominance, and of course, as I think > you agree, might be worse.) By contrast, I don't view the ITU (for example) > as being a leading candidate for serving those values. > > We have a number of models to pick from. And as Laura DeNardis suggests in > her recent writings, we may actually need to pick different models for > different particular governance spaces and roles. > The only way that makes sense. I think one of the biggest problem we have been facing in our discussion of MSism is that many people are confusing different level of analysis (thus confusing or mis-characterizing aspects of the phenomena to be analyzed.) MSism is a decision-making process and I don't know where anyone could have possibly taken that bogus idea that MSism is the next big thing after democracy (just like democracy once was that next big thing after tyranny, aristocracy, etc.) Those two things are not contiguous (thus mutually exclusive) phenomena on the same plane (say, the timeline of history.) We still are in the era of democracy the benefits of which many peoples on earth are still waiting for. Democracy is not only about voting (it's not even exhaustively defined by that) and exclusively for nation-state governments. It is about getting the consent of the governed (through the inclusion of their concerns) to the matters of governing -- whatever is being governed. It's not because historically, democracy has reached its highest peak (in terms of the maximum people being involved) in the context of national governments where people freely vote that that has to be the only way democracy can be operationalized, much less the only possible meaning for its concept. When the Greeks coined the word to mean the rule of the people, did people vote? Free citizenship was only extended to a subset of people (probably still a numerical minority) excluding slaves and women, although presumably a larger elite than the one that exclusively ruled before democracy was established. It's not even clear to me whether those free citizens went to the poll to vote as we do today. And until the second half of last century, there were many suffrage movements to extend citizenship to women and (political) minorities for the right to vote, including in very developed countries. So democracy as a concept cannot be frozen into the practice of voting as we know it today (one person, one vote) in the sole context of nation-sates. It an idea that is still with us and still fully has its relevance while we are experimenting with emergent collective decision-making ideas and practices such as MSism. In that sense, as a decision-making process MSism can prove to be more, or less, democratic, in the sense of getting the consent of the governed (through the inclusion of their concerns) to the matters of governing. If it survives its infancy and grows robust, the specific value MSism may be said to bring is the ability to make collective decisions, particularly policy decisions, at supra- and transnational level where governments are not the only participants or direct actors (I locate the primary value at that level because so far it seems in supra-national spaces, policy decisions have been made directly by government reps voting while in sub-national spaces a full and well-implemented operationalization of democratic principles may lead to outcomes that are as good and legitimate as MSism applied in those spaces.) As a collective decision-making mechanisms chosen from various models to fit a particular governance space, each instance of MSism will be shaped and will perform based on the actors/stakeholders involved and the resources and tools available in that space. As a result, with multi-stakeholderism the devil will ALWAYS be in the detail (not to say MSism is the only thing for which this applies, so please don't start another useless discussion on this particular point, thanks.) P.S. Sorry, maybe I should have posted this in the MSism thread... I didn't mean to be that elaborate when I begun to reply. But, hey, that's what it is. Mawaki > > --Mike > > -- > > *Mike Godwin* | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project > > mgodwin at internews.org | *Mobile* 415-793-4446 > > *Skype* mnemonic1026 > > *Address* 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA > > > > *INTERNEWS* | *Local Voices. Global Change.* > > www.internews.org | @internews | > facebook.com/internews > > From: michael gurstein > Date: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 at 6:50 AM > To: Mike Godwin , 'Internet Governance Caucus > List' , 'bestbits' < > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > > Subject: RE: [bestbits] FW: US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says > Scientific Study > > Mike, > > > > Do I take you as saying below that you would trade (even the opportunity) > of influence via democratic participation for the many; in return for the > (in my opinion) illusion of not being "excluded" for the few via > multistakeholderism? > > > > M > > > > *From:* Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) [mailto:mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG] > > *Sent:* Monday, April 14, 2014 2:48 PM > *To:* michael gurstein; 1Net List; Internet Governance Caucus List; > bestbits > *Subject:* RE: [bestbits] FW: US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says > Scientific Study > > > > > Convergence is not causality. Lots of interested stakeholders may > legitimately prefer multistakeholder models from ones on which they are > baseline excluded. > > > > > Sent from my iPhone using Mail+ for Outlook > > *From:* michael gurstein > *Sent:* 4/14/14, 4:07 PM > *To:* 1Net List, Internet Governance Caucus List, bestbits > *Subject:* [bestbits] FW: US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says > Scientific Study > > I guess the below explains the overwhelming pressure from the USG to have > multistakeholderism implemented for global (Internet) governance since > MSism would be the political form through which oligarchies would exert > (and mask) their power in global decision making processes. > > > > Of course it also suggests why significant elements of CS in Internet > Governance processes would also support MSism since they are in many cases > the direct beneficiaries of these oligarchies. > > > > M > > > > *From:* sid-l at googlegroups.com [mailto:sid-l at googlegroups.com] > *On Behalf Of *Sid Shniad > *Sent:* Monday, April 14, 2014 11:20 AM > *To:* undisclosed-recipients: > *Subject:* US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study > > > > > > *http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/04/14 > Common Dreams April 14, > 2014 * > US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study > > > > *"The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, > near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy." by > Eric Zuesse* > > In America, money talks... and democracy dies under its crushing weight. > (Photo: Shutterstock)A study, > to appear in the Fall 2014 issue of the academic journal *Perspectives on > Politics*, finds that the U.S. is no democracy, but instead an oligarchy, > meaning profoundly corrupt, so that the answer to the study's opening > question, "Who governs? Who really rules?" in this country, is: > > "Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for > theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of > the American public actually have little influence over the policies our > government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic > governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, > and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But, ..." and then they go > on to say, it's not true, and that, "America's claims to being a democratic > society are seriously threatened" by the findings in this, the first-ever > comprehensive scientific study of the subject, which shows that there is > instead "the nearly total failure of 'median voter' and other Majoritarian > Electoral Democracy theories [of America]. When the preferences of economic > elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the > preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, > near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy." > > To put it short: The United States is no democracy, but actually an > oligarchy. > > The authors of this historically important study are Martin Gilens and > Benjamin I. Page, and their article is titled "Testing Theories of > American Politics." The > authors clarify that the data available are probably under-representing the > actual extent of control of the U.S. by the super-rich: > > Economic Elite Domination theories do rather well in our analysis, even > though our findings probably understate the political influence of elites. > Our measure of the preferences of wealthy or elite Americans - though > useful, and the best we could generate for a large set of policy cases - is > probably less consistent with the relevant preferences than are our > measures of the views of ordinary citizens or the alignments of engaged > interest groups. Yet we found substantial estimated effects even when using > this imperfect measure. The real-world impact of elites upon public policy > may be still greater. > > Nonetheless, this is the first-ever scientific study of the question of > whether the U.S. is a democracy. "Until recently it has not been possible > to test these contrasting theoretical predictions [that U.S. policymaking > operates as a democracy, versus as an oligarchy, versus as some mixture of > the two] against each other within a single statistical model. This paper > reports on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes > measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues." That's an enormous > number of policy-issues studied. > > What the authors are able to find, despite the deficiencies of the data, > is important: the first-ever scientific analysis of whether the U.S. is a > democracy, or is instead an oligarchy, or some combination of the two. The > clear finding is that the U.S. is an oligarchy, no democratic country, at > all. American democracy is a sham, no matter how much it's pumped by the > oligarchs who run the country (and who control the nation's "news" media). > The U.S., in other words, is basically similar to Russia or most other > dubious "electoral" "democratic" countries. We weren't formerly, but we > clearly are now. Today, after this exhaustive analysis of the data, "the > preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, > near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy." That's > it, in a nutshell. > > Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of *They're > Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010* > *,*and of *CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.* > > > > -- > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Sid-l" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to sid-l+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > !DSPAM:2676,534c26bd215691645816401! > > > > Click here to > report this email as spam. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeanette at wzb.eu Tue Apr 15 09:46:20 2014 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 15:46:20 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] free flow of information @ Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: <534D2C08.7050207@itforchange.net> References: <28D7250BBB2E4798BC6C1B7A93337D53@Toshiba> <534CDE5B.2010906@wzb.eu> <534CE344.2050200@apc.org> <534CFFD8.1090100@gold.ac.uk> <7CE12A31-A7B2-4BA9-A1C0-25FD6E6A7F03@gmail.com> <534D1CB0.4030301@cafonso.ca> <534D2C08.7050207@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <534D382C.5030502@wzb.eu> Hi, Am 15.04.2014 14:54, schrieb parminder: > Not only net neutrality has been removed, 'free flow of information' which figured twice in the earlier (leaked) draft has been removed from both places.. in my capacity as a HLMC member I have spoken up against free flow of information in the human rights section because free flow of information is not a human right. Ironically, someone from the business sector objected to removing this term from the human rights section. I am reporting this to illustrate that the negotiation of the text hasn't always followed the distribution of power and interest that some on this list may assume. The draft document represents victories and defeats on all sides. jeanette From joao.caribe at me.com Tue Apr 15 09:48:34 2014 From: joao.caribe at me.com (=?utf-8?Q? Jo=C3=A3o_Carlos_R._Carib=C3=A9 ?=) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 10:48:34 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44639672-FD8D-4AF4-AC9D-B30904F1A9A7@me.com> Congratulations Mnenna! João Carlos R. Caribé (021)4042 7727 (021)98761 1967 Skype joaocaribe Enviado via iPhone > Em 15/04/2014, às 03:35, Nnenna Nwakanma escreveu: > > Dear all, > > I got a message this morning from NetMundial Chair, Virgilo, inviting me to speak at the Opening Ceremony of Netmundial (meaning I have to pack one of those African dresses) for some 8 minutes. > > I have replied to say "I will be speaking from the Civil Society perspective, which is my Stakeholder Group". > > There is a Web Foundation media team that will help me put my ideas into place, but I cannot not request input from here, so that no major issues will be overlooked. > > > I travel Thursday evening thru Friday, so the earliest I can share a draft/keypoints will be Monday. > > Hope we can pull this off well. > > All for now > > Nnenna > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG Tue Apr 15 09:51:36 2014 From: mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG (Mike Godwin (mgodwin@INTERNEWS.ORG)) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 09:51:36 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] FW: US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study In-Reply-To: References: <1DEB7534D981B444BF234789326B22A8AF08BDFC51@MBX.INTERNEWS.LOCAL> <079f01cf5898$762b5ba0$628212e0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: +1 -- Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project mgodwin at internews.org | Mobile 415-793-4446 Skype mnemonic1026 Address 1640 Rhode Island Ave. NW, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20036 USA INTERNEWS | Local Voices. Global Change. www.internews.org | @internews | facebook.com/internews From: Mawaki Chango > Date: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 at 9:37 AM To: Mike Godwin > Cc: michael gurstein >, Internet Governance Caucus List >, bestbits > Subject: Re: [bestbits] FW: US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) > wrote: My own personal view, which I have to stress does not purport to represent my employer, is more nuanced. I think all governments, from the most democratic to the most authoritarian, share certain self-perceptions and assumptions that tend to run against the radically democratic potentialities of online media. (In my own work, I run into this constantly — the perception that the internet is so inherently disruptive that it must be controlled in one way or another. It’s how, until very recently, democratic governments even thought of the traditional press.) This isn’t malice or selfishness — instead, this is an “occupational hazard” if your occupation is being a government, and nobody is immune, really. Multi-stakeholderism at its best, in my view, formalizes the necessity of taking input from non-governmental “outsiders.” I think that’s the right outcome, democratically speaking. (I also happen to think that the USG’s favoring multi-stakeholderism--at least as it does right now--is a happy circumstance, because institutional governmental self-interest over the long term tends to favor governmental--or inter-governmental--bodies most of the time.) So my “solution space” for internet governance tends to center on multi-stakeholderism, clearly, but of course multi-stakeholderism has to be structured correctly, and multi-stakeholderism is to be valued not in itself but to the extent that it serves democratic values. Exactly the direction that my own thinking... But I am still to write my self-promised piece on MSism :) (A multistakeholder system favoring corporate dominance is no better than one favoring institutional government dominance, and of course, as I think you agree, might be worse.) By contrast, I don’t view the ITU (for example) as being a leading candidate for serving those values. We have a number of models to pick from. And as Laura DeNardis suggests in her recent writings, we may actually need to pick different models for different particular governance spaces and roles. The only way that makes sense. I think one of the biggest problem we have been facing in our discussion of MSism is that many people are confusing different level of analysis (thus confusing or mis-characterizing aspects of the phenomena to be analyzed.) MSism is a decision-making process and I don't know where anyone could have possibly taken that bogus idea that MSism is the next big thing after democracy (just like democracy once was that next big thing after tyranny, aristocracy, etc.) Those two things are not contiguous (thus mutually exclusive) phenomena on the same plane (say, the timeline of history.) We still are in the era of democracy the benefits of which many peoples on earth are still waiting for. Democracy is not only about voting (it's not even exhaustively defined by that) and exclusively for nation-state governments. It is about getting the consent of the governed (through the inclusion of their concerns) to the matters of governing -- whatever is being governed. It's not because historically, democracy has reached its highest peak (in terms of the maximum people being involved) in the context of national governments where people freely vote that that has to be the only way democracy can be operationalized, much less the only possible meaning for its concept. When the Greeks coined the word to mean the rule of the people, did people vote? Free citizenship was only extended to a subset of people (probably still a numerical minority) excluding slaves and women, although presumably a larger elite than the one that exclusively ruled before democracy was established. It's not even clear to me whether those free citizens went to the poll to vote as we do today. And until the second half of last century, there were many suffrage movements to extend citizenship to women and (political) minorities for the right to vote, including in very developed countries. So democracy as a concept cannot be frozen into the practice of voting as we know it today (one person, one vote) in the sole context of nation-sates. It an idea that is still with us and still fully has its relevance while we are experimenting with emergent collective decision-making ideas and practices such as MSism. In that sense, as a decision-making process MSism can prove to be more, or less, democratic, in the sense of getting the consent of the governed (through the inclusion of their concerns) to the matters of governing. If it survives its infancy and grows robust, the specific value MSism may be said to bring is the ability to make collective decisions, particularly policy decisions, at supra- and transnational level where governments are not the only participants or direct actors (I locate the primary value at that level because so far it seems in supra-national spaces, policy decisions have been made directly by government reps voting while in sub-national spaces a full and well-implemented operationalization of democratic principles may lead to outcomes that are as good and legitimate as MSism applied in those spaces.) As a collective decision-making mechanisms chosen from various models to fit a particular governance space, each instance of MSism will be shaped and will perform based on the actors/stakeholders involved and the resources and tools available in that space. As a result, with multi-stakeholderism the devil will ALWAYS be in the detail (not to say MSism is the only thing for which this applies, so please don't start another useless discussion on this particular point, thanks.) P.S. Sorry, maybe I should have posted this in the MSism thread... I didn't mean to be that elaborate when I begun to reply. But, hey, that's what it is. Mawaki —Mike -- Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project mgodwin at internews.org | Mobile 415-793-4446 Skype mnemonic1026 Address 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA INTERNEWS | Local Voices. Global Change. www.internews.org | @internews | facebook.com/internews From: michael gurstein > Date: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 at 6:50 AM To: Mike Godwin >, 'Internet Governance Caucus List' >, 'bestbits' > Subject: RE: [bestbits] FW: US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study Mike, Do I take you as saying below that you would trade (even the opportunity) of influence via democratic participation for the many; in return for the (in my opinion) illusion of not being “excluded” for the few via multistakeholderism? M From: Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) [mailto:mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG] Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 2:48 PM To: michael gurstein; 1Net List; Internet Governance Caucus List; bestbits Subject: RE: [bestbits] FW: US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study Convergence is not causality. Lots of interested stakeholders may legitimately prefer multistakeholder models from ones on which they are baseline excluded. Sent from my iPhone using Mail+ for Outlook From: michael gurstein Sent: 4/14/14, 4:07 PM To: 1Net List, Internet Governance Caucus List, bestbits Subject: [bestbits] FW: US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study I guess the below explains the overwhelming pressure from the USG to have multistakeholderism implemented for global (Internet) governance since MSism would be the political form through which oligarchies would exert (and mask) their power in global decision making processes. Of course it also suggests why significant elements of CS in Internet Governance processes would also support MSism since they are in many cases the direct beneficiaries of these oligarchies. M From:sid-l at googlegroups.com [mailto:sid-l at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sid Shniad Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 11:20 AM To: undisclosed-recipients: Subject: US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/04/14 Common Dreams April 14, 2014 US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study “The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.” by Eric Zuesse In America, money talks... and democracy dies under its crushing weight. (Photo: Shutterstock)A study, to appear in the Fall 2014 issue of the academic journal Perspectives on Politics, finds that the U.S. is no democracy, but instead an oligarchy, meaning profoundly corrupt, so that the answer to the study’s opening question, "Who governs? Who really rules?" in this country, is: "Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But, ..." and then they go on to say, it's not true, and that, "America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened" by the findings in this, the first-ever comprehensive scientific study of the subject, which shows that there is instead "the nearly total failure of 'median voter' and other Majoritarian Electoral Democracy theories [of America]. When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy." To put it short: The United States is no democracy, but actually an oligarchy. The authors of this historically important study are Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, and their article is titled "Testing Theories of American Politics." The authors clarify that the data available are probably under-representing the actual extent of control of the U.S. by the super-rich: Economic Elite Domination theories do rather well in our analysis, even though our findings probably understate the political influence of elites. Our measure of the preferences of wealthy or elite Americans – though useful, and the best we could generate for a large set of policy cases – is probably less consistent with the relevant preferences than are our measures of the views of ordinary citizens or the alignments of engaged interest groups. Yet we found substantial estimated effects even when using this imperfect measure. The real-world impact of elites upon public policy may be still greater. Nonetheless, this is the first-ever scientific study of the question of whether the U.S. is a democracy. "Until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions [that U.S. policymaking operates as a democracy, versus as an oligarchy, versus as some mixture of the two] against each other within a single statistical model. This paper reports on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues." That’s an enormous number of policy-issues studied. What the authors are able to find, despite the deficiencies of the data, is important: the first-ever scientific analysis of whether the U.S. is a democracy, or is instead an oligarchy, or some combination of the two. The clear finding is that the U.S. is an oligarchy, no democratic country, at all. American democracy is a sham, no matter how much it's pumped by the oligarchs who run the country (and who control the nation's "news" media). The U.S., in other words, is basically similar to Russia or most other dubious "electoral" "democratic" countries. We weren't formerly, but we clearly are now. Today, after this exhaustive analysis of the data, “the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.” That's it, in a nutshell. Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010,and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity. -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sid-l" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sid-l+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. !DSPAM:2676,534c26bd215691645816401! Click here to report this email as spam. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Apr 15 10:09:50 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 19:39:50 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] FW: US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study In-Reply-To: References: <1DEB7534D981B444BF234789326B22A8AF08BDFC51@MBX.INTERNEWS.LOCAL> <079f01cf5898$762b5ba0$628212e0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <534D3DAE.20100@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 15 April 2014 07:07 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > SNIP > . So democracy as a concept cannot be frozen into the practice of > voting as we know it today (one person, one vote) in the sole context > of nation-sates. It may not be frozen into the practice of voting-- there is a huge amount of literature and practice of participatory democracy that says exactly that.. But, can we freeze in not having a vote for corporates - in fact multiple and exclusive votes, where ordinary people do not have votes... That is MS decision making... Why do we need to go beyond participatory democracy as the means of fulfilling the ideal of democracy and rather jump to MSism which is simply not democratic in a thousand way..... parminder > It an idea that is still with us and still fully has its relevance > while we are experimenting with emergent collective decision-making > ideas and practices such as MSism. > > In that sense, as a decision-making process MSism can prove to be > more, or less, democratic, in the sense of getting the consent of the > governed (through the inclusion of their concerns) to the matters of > governing. If it survives its infancy and grows robust, the specific > value MSism may be said to bring is the ability to make collective > decisions, particularly policy decisions, at supra- and transnational > level where governments are not the only participants or direct actors > (I locate the primary value at that level because so far it seems in > supra-national spaces, policy decisions have been made directly by > government reps voting while in sub-national spaces a full and > well-implemented operationalization of democratic principles may lead > to outcomes that are as good and legitimate as MSism applied in those > spaces.) > > As a collective decision-making mechanisms chosen from various models > to fit a particular governance space, each instance of MSism will be > shaped and will perform based on the actors/stakeholders involved and > the resources and tools available in that space. As a result, with > multi-stakeholderism the devil will ALWAYS be in the detail (not to > say MSism is the only thing for which this applies, so please don't > start another useless discussion on this particular point, thanks.) > > P.S. Sorry, maybe I should have posted this in the MSism thread... I > didn't mean to be that elaborate when I begun to reply. But, hey, > that's what it is. > > Mawaki > > > > —Mike > > -- > > *Mike Godwin* | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project > > mgodwin at internews.org | *Mobile* > 415-793-4446 > > *Skype* mnemonic1026 > > *Address* 1601 R Street NW, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20009 USA > > *INTERNEWS*|***Local Voices. Global Change.* > > www.internews.org | @internews > | facebook.com/internews > > > > From: michael gurstein > > Date: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 at 6:50 AM > To: Mike Godwin >, 'Internet Governance Caucus List' > >, 'bestbits' > > > > Subject: RE: [bestbits] FW: US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, > says Scientific Study > > Mike, > > Do I take you as saying below that you would trade (even the > opportunity) of influence via democratic participation for the > many; in return for the (in my opinion) illusion of not being > “excluded” for the few via multistakeholderism? > > M > > *From:*Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG > ) [mailto:mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG] > *Sent:* Monday, April 14, 2014 2:48 PM > *To:* michael gurstein; 1Net List; Internet Governance Caucus > List; bestbits > *Subject:* RE: [bestbits] FW: US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, > says Scientific Study > > > Convergence is not causality. Lots of interested stakeholders may > legitimately prefer multistakeholder models from ones on which > they are baseline excluded. > > > Sent from my iPhone using Mail+ for Outlook > > *From:*michael gurstein > *Sent:* 4/14/14, 4:07 PM > *To:* 1Net List, Internet Governance Caucus List, bestbits > *Subject:* [bestbits] FW: US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says > Scientific Study > > I guess the below explains the overwhelming pressure from the USG > to have multistakeholderism implemented for global (Internet) > governance since MSism would be the political form through which > oligarchies would exert (and mask) their power in global decision > making processes. > > Of course it also suggests why significant elements of CS in > Internet Governance processes would also support MSism since they > are in many cases the direct beneficiaries of these oligarchies. > > M > > *From:*sid-l at googlegroups.com > [mailto:sid-l at googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Sid Shniad > *Sent:* Monday, April 14, 2014 11:20 AM > *To:* undisclosed-recipients: > *Subject:* US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study > > *http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/04/14 > > Common Dreams April 14, 2014 * > > > US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study > > *“The preferences of the average American appear to have only a > minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon > public policy.” > > by Eric Zuesse* > > In America, money talks... and democracy dies under its crushing > weight. (Photo: Shutterstock)A study > , > to appear in the Fall 2014 issue of the academic journal > /Perspectives on Politics/, finds that the U.S. is no democracy, > but instead an oligarchy, meaning profoundly corrupt, so that the > answer to the study’s opening question, "Who governs? Who really > rules?" in this country, is: > > "Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous > studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses > suggest that majorities of the American public actually have > little influence over the policies our government adopts. > Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, > such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and > a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But, ..." and then > they go on to say, it's not true, and that, "America's claims to > being a democratic society are seriously threatened" by the > findings in this, the first-ever comprehensive scientific study of > the subject, which shows that there is instead "the nearly total > failure of 'median voter' and other Majoritarian Electoral > Democracy theories [of America]. When the preferences of economic > elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled > for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a > minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon > public policy." > > To put it short: The United States is no democracy, but actually > an oligarchy. > > The authors of this historically important study are Martin Gilens > and Benjamin I. Page, and their article is titled "Testing > Theories of American Politics." > The > authors clarify that the data available are probably > under-representing the actual extent of control of the U.S. by the > super-rich: > > Economic Elite Domination theories do rather well in our > analysis, even though our findings probably understate the > political influence of elites. Our measure of the preferences > of wealthy or elite Americans – though useful, and the best we > could generate for a large set of policy cases – is probably > less consistent with the relevant preferences than are our > measures of the views of ordinary citizens or the alignments > of engaged interest groups. Yet we found substantial estimated > effects even when using this imperfect measure. The real-world > impact of elites upon public policy may be still greater. > > Nonetheless, this is the first-ever scientific study of the > question of whether the U.S. is a democracy. "Until recently it > has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical > predictions [that U.S. policymaking operates as a democracy, > versus as an oligarchy, versus as some mixture of the two] against > each other within a single statistical model. This paper reports > on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes > measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues." That’s an > enormous number of policy-issues studied. > > What the authors are able to find, despite the deficiencies of the > data, is important: the first-ever scientific analysis of whether > the U.S. is a democracy, or is instead an oligarchy, or some > combination of the two. The clear finding is that the U.S. is an > oligarchy, no democratic country, at all. American democracy is a > sham, no matter how much it's pumped by the oligarchs who run the > country (and who control the nation's "news" media). The U.S., in > other words, is basically similar to Russia or most other dubious > "electoral" "democratic" countries. We weren't formerly, but we > clearly are now. Today, after this exhaustive analysis of the > data, “the preferences of the average American appear to have only > a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon > public policy.” That's it, in a nutshell. > > Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, > of /They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic > Records, 1910-2010/ > /,/and > of /CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity./ > > > -- > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Sid-l" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, > send an email to sid-l+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > !DSPAM:2676,534c26bd215691645816401! > > Click here > to > report this email as spam. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Tue Apr 15 10:11:56 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 10:11:56 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] multistakeholderism is democracy was Re: [] FW: US Is an O... In-Reply-To: References: <1DEB7534D981B444BF234789326B22A8AF08BDFC51@MBX.INTERNEWS.LOCAL> <079f01cf5898$762b5ba0$628212e0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <534D3E2C.6020609@acm.org> On 15-Apr-14 09:37, Mawaki Chango wrote: > MSism is a decision-making process and I don't know where anyone could > have possibly taken that bogus idea that MSism is the next big thing > after democracy (just like democracy once was that next big thing after > tyranny, aristocracy, etc.) I am one who does argues that Multistakeholderism is not just another decision making process. I also do not claim in is the next big thing after democracy. I argue that it is a form of democracy. Multistakeholderism includes modalities of democratic organization as well as a variety of mechanisms. It is a form of participatory democracy that builds upon the varieties of representational democracy that one finds in some countries and the various forms of self-organization that people in society uses to organize itself on issues of importance and brings them in the greater democratic mix. I do agree that there is not just one form of the multistakeholder model, but argue that there are attributes of Multistakeholderism as participatory democracy that are necessary. I too have yet to finish my self-promised work on multistakeholderism. Though I have written on this a bit. avri From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Apr 15 10:19:11 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 23:19:11 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] free flow of information @ Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: <534D382C.5030502@wzb.eu> References: <28D7250BBB2E4798BC6C1B7A93337D53@Toshiba> <534CDE5B.2010906@wzb.eu> <534CE344.2050200@apc.org> <534CFFD8.1090100@gold.ac.uk> <7CE12A31-A7B2-4BA9-A1C0-25FD6E6A7F03@gmail.com> <534D1CB0.4030301@cafonso.ca> <534D2C08.7050207@itforchange.net> <534D382C.5030502@wzb.eu> Message-ID: On Apr 15, 2014, at 10:46 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi, > > > Am 15.04.2014 14:54, schrieb parminder: >> Not only net neutrality has been removed, > 'free flow of information' which figured twice in the earlier (leaked) draft has been removed from both places.. > > in my capacity as a HLMC member I have spoken up against free flow of information in the human rights section because free flow of information is not a human right. Ironically, someone from the business sector objected to removing this term from the human rights section. > > I am reporting this to illustrate that the negotiation of the text hasn't always followed the distribution of power and interest that some on this list may assume. The draft document represents victories and defeats on all sides. > I hope it represents progress. How we moved on since Tunis -- just look at the statements about Human Rights. What chance of those being considered a few years ago. And much more. Everything could be better, but I am quite satisfied we are making progress. Please comment on the documents. Adam > jeanette > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Tue Apr 15 10:21:14 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 16:21:14 +0200 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: <00c701cf58aa$e83c3c20$b8b4b460$@gmail.com> References: <00c701cf58aa$e83c3c20$b8b4b460$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Congrats Nnenna! May I add to Mike excellent comments, one point? Nnenna, I am not sure if you will be there intuitu personae, persona grata or representing some, part, or all of Civil society entities (?!), but just in case you represent some of our thoughts and opinions, I think it would be nice to mention that among civil society there are people who disagree with the equal stakeholder - equal rights - equal footing thinking and narrative. Stakeholder voices might all be equal, meaning equally audible, but that amusing "equal footing" expression doesn't mean that these respectable voices are legitimate or representative of anything, anyone, and properly checked and balanced. So equal voices with different rights, that might be interesting to explore. But equal footing meaning equal rights among stakeholders, that jungle is right the opposite of Democracy, where corporations are still not invited to make the law, and participate and seat in parliaments on an equal footing. The market seating in the Congress, I wish never to see that in my life. It sounds like some kind of very un-democratic thing. I do remember that some comments on these lists where made about civil servants (and their so called legendary inability to work without other people holding the pencil for them, which I tend to think as very untrue), and I know that governmental bashing is just the legitimate cousin of democratic bashing, but please voice equally and multistakeholderly that there are a diversity of views. We know that NetMundial will not be able to provide dialogue, but more some sort of convergence (+1...) out of magic wonder, still it would to see some principles are respected when it comes to express the diversity of views. Sorry for the ironic tone in that last sentence. JC Le 15 avr. 2014 à 15:02, michael gurstein a écrit :ung > Congrats Nnenna, > > Since you are asking for suggestions for points to cover I would suggest the following: > 1. A formal commitment/re-commitment to the Internet for the Common Good/in the Public Interest… I only see minor and off-handed references to this in the NetMundial statement but there needs to be a full-on commitment/re-commitment to this. This is especially the case given the risks of fragmentation/privatization of interests a “stakeholder” approach to Internet governance presents. > 2. Framing/reframing “multistakeholderism” as a useful element in policy consultation and development, with suitable measures being in place to ensure the probity and accountability of these processes, within the context of democratic decision making. I like the phrase “multistakeholder dialogue in a democratic framework”. > 3. Linking Internet Governance with social (and economic) justice. The Internet is becoming a dominant means for economic activity and wealth distribution/redistribution. Internet Governance, which in the NetMundial document is extended to include the “Right to Development” needs also to address social justice issues which are rapidly becoming the dominant issues of our time. > 4. Finding the means to allow the widest range of voices into the Internet Governance dialogue. What this means is going beyond simple “capacity building” which ultimately can only enable the few, into designing processes and mechanisms which allow for the many to have a useful understanding of the broader issues and mechanisms to give voice and have those voices heard. > Good luck with it. > > Mike > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Nnenna Nwakanma > Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 11:36 PM > To: Governance; bestbits at lists.bestbits.netso > Subject: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues > > Dear all, > > I got a message this morning from NetMundial Chair, Virgilo, inviting me to speak at the Opening Ceremony of Netmundial (meaning I have to pack one of those African dresses) for some 8 minutes. > > I have replied to say "I will be speaking from the Civil Society perspective, which is my Stakeholder Group". > > There is a Web Foundation media team that will help me put my ideas into place, but I cannot not request input from here, so that no major issues will be overlooked. > > > I travel Thursday evening thru Friday, so the earliest I can share a draft/keypoints will be Monday. > > Hope we can pull this off well. > > All for now > > Nnenna > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Apr 15 10:29:20 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 19:59:20 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] multistakeholderism is democracy was Re: [] FW: US Is an O... In-Reply-To: <534D3E2C.6020609@acm.org> References: <1DEB7534D981B444BF234789326B22A8AF08BDFC51@MBX.INTERNEWS.LOCAL> <079f01cf5898$762b5ba0$628212e0$@gmail.com> <534D3E2C.6020609@acm.org> Message-ID: <534D4240.3040209@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 15 April 2014 07:41 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 15-Apr-14 09:37, Mawaki Chango wrote: >> MSism is a decision-making process and I don't know where anyone could >> have possibly taken that bogus idea that MSism is the next big thing >> after democracy (just like democracy once was that next big thing after >> tyranny, aristocracy, etc.) You had in your email sought focussing on actual practices... Therefore you need to look at practices of MSism... It is indeed the next thing after democracy, and NOT democracy... MSism gives big business a veto on public policy making. This kind of thing is impossible to even mention in a democratic discourse.. But the same unmentionable has been dressed by employment of huge expenditure of resources in the respectable clothes if MSism. Do you disagree that MSism as being practiced in its 'equal footing' model (1) gives veto power to big business and (2) such a thing is unattainable in democratic discourse and practice.. Now you may say that I am speaking about entirely imaginary models of MSism, and creatign strawmen of MSism... Well, no.. On the BestBit list an elaborate model has been developed and presented, latest in response to the leaked NetMundial draft (did you also support this model?) which creates a multistakeholder screening mechanism for taking up any public policy issue.. Does this not give big business a veto on what matters can be taken for public policy treatment? Is this democratic? Second, the NetMundial draft document seeks public policy making through consensus basis alone - which is an multistakeholder consensus on equal footing... It says that processes of governance have to be first be agreed by all stakeholders (keep reading business when I say stakeholders bec it is they for whom these models are fashioned).... Now, is it democratic to give business (big business, no one asked my corner shop guy) such structural vetos over public policy making? What could be more democratic... Since you said devil is in the details, lets talk about the detail and the devil... Lets talk specifics, and these above are the specifics of MSism... parminder > I am one who does argues that Multistakeholderism is not just another > decision making process. > > I also do not claim in is the next big thing after democracy. I argue > that it is a form of democracy. Multistakeholderism includes modalities > of democratic organization as well as a variety of mechanisms. It is > a form of participatory democracy that builds upon the varieties of > representational democracy that one finds in some countries and the > various forms of self-organization that people in society uses to > organize itself on issues of importance and brings them in the greater > democratic mix. > > I do agree that there is not just one form of the multistakeholder > model, but argue that there are attributes of Multistakeholderism as > participatory democracy that are necessary. > > I too have yet to finish my self-promised work on multistakeholderism. > Though I have written on this a bit. > > avri From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com Tue Apr 15 10:28:51 2014 From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 10:28:51 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] (might help understanding the limits of multistakeholderism) Message-ID: Brian Carpenter posed the question pasted below on the ietf discussion list. My (verbose) comments on the thread may help get a handle on the limits of multistakeholderism in the international context, which requires understanding democracy not in terms of the regular representational and/or participatory aspects, but key elements of the foundation that makes it work. It addresses the present DMARC imbroglio triggered by Yahoo and a few other industry cohorts. Read through the thread for the fuller explanation. Seth On Tuesday, April 15, 2014, Brian E Carpenter wrote: I thought that standard operating procedure in the IT industry was: if you roll something out and it causes serious breakage to some of your users, you roll it back as soon as possible. Why hasn't Yahoo rolled back its 'reject' policy by now? Regards Brian ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Seth Johnson Date: Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 7:36 AM Subject: Re: What I've been wondering about the DMARC problem To: Miles Fidelman Cc: IETF Discussion Jimmy Wales is, perhaps partially unconsciously, referencing this with his point on a "culture of free expression." Note: I am not implying in making these observations that stewardship should be by any particular country, or any number less than the totality for that matter -- only that we rely on systems that we have claimed for the people to create such a context, and the international arena (and the various systems so far presented for "checks and balances" or even simply handoff to privatized systems to multistakeholder-ish processes that must not be government-led or inter-governmental) does not presently support that. Seth On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 1:29 AM, Seth Johnson wrote: > (one insert/correction inline) > > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 1:20 AM, Seth Johnson wrote: > >> The framework internationally is different. Within free countries, >> there's a culture of expectations that certain things will be unacceptable, >> or will be resisted by self-respecting citizens. That culture is based in >> a system that guards fundamental liberties, and people are able to rely on >> it to do so, though for private firms the limits aren't so definitive as >> they are for the government. >> >> Internationally, the limits are no longer so definitive, and that's >> because even though governments will sign onto instruments like the UDHR, >> those rights are not actually fundamental, even if we call them that. >> Fundamental rights have an undeniable priority within countries where they >> have been claimed in the founding act. On that foundation, judges are >> always obliged to assess fundamental rights in light of the unarguable fact >> that their priority over the government was part of the original creation >> of the whole system. There's no founding act in the international arena >> that sets the priority of people over the governments of the world, so >> rights are actually at the indulgence of governments, and governments can >> always assert their state interests are so important that they warrant >> impinging on fundamental liberties. >> >> We just saw an example of this with the Snowden disclosures. We've been >> through a long period where we couldn't get our government to actually do >> much for us, or conversely to not invade our liberties -- because the >> claims that the government was snooping pervasively were kept marginal in >> various ways. >> > > > >> But once documentation moved those considerations out of the frame of >> "conspiracy" or zealotry by activist organizations, we suddenly began >> seeing the appeals work again: "that's not the kind of country we are, what >> we set up for ourselves," we started saying again. >> > > > (eom) > > >> And while it's still in a bit of denial, we are seeing a gradual grudging >> retracting -- again, because the basis in fundamental liberties is >> unarguably related to how we set the government up in the founding act(s). >> >> This is for governments and the more definitive relationship between >> fundamental liberties and the government; that is, that they are limits on >> the government. The judicial system treats fundamental rights violations >> by the government in terms of "strict scrutiny," which means a governmental >> act that impinges on fundamental liberties must serve a compelling state >> interest, and even then, must be narrowly tailored. For private parties, >> it's more that the working system creates a culture of people who enjoy >> this ability to live in a system where these limits on the government are >> actually at play -- and that's a context that more easily supports >> attitudes of resistance and pushback from people who see their dignity >> invaded by private firms that do excessive things. >> >> None of this exists internationally. The best you can place some faint >> hope in is that national/state interests will be "balanced" against rights >> expressed in a treaty. That's a totally different standard from strict >> scrutiny. And relying on even that is unrealistic, because governments >> have the "epistemic priority" -- and so they often, quite freely, simply >> claim their sovereignty and act according to what they claim is an >> important state interest. They simply have that wherewithal at the >> international level. >> >> All of which is preface to say that the result is that governments and >> private parties (and corporations, who have concocted trans-state "rights" >> through judges acting to fill in gaps in the law over the years) know the >> rules don't apply the same way in the international arena. >> >> In fact, given the transitions currently being attempted, whether with >> the IANA functions or "Internet governance" more generally, Yahoo's DMARC >> behavior may really be a sort of dry run, testing the ability to take >> advantage of the moves to put concerns related to the operation of the >> Internet into an international frame, which folks are pushing for without >> really recognizing what's missing in that context, what they have sort of >> unconsciously relied on and taken for granted within systems of checks and >> balances that are rooted solidly at national levels. >> >> The checks and balances don't work the same internationally, and that >> circumstance can be exploited (and is, all the time, these days). >> >> People might push back, but they don't really do so with the same sense >> of fundamental recourse assured by a solidly rooted system. And Yahoo >> knows this. And we're just shoring that up by saying we can just switch >> multistakeholderism to the international arena. >> >> (All of this is aside from other factors not generally acknowledged -- >> that there are actually inter-governmentally endorsed frames in place that >> will have a bearing on IANA type functions or domain names (Names, Numbers, >> Addresses and Identifiers/NNAI, in the ITU parlance), regardless of the >> fact the IANA transition defines itself as non-governmentally-led or >> inter-governmental. Looking at this in that light, Yahoo may be forcing >> the creation of a context in which it can start to exercise those >> frameworks.) >> >> >> Seth >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 12:07 AM, Miles Fidelman < >> mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote: >> >>> Important business users, with Yahoo accounts? Is that a joke? >>> >>> Just as a reference point: >>> - I just logged into my long-unused, and un-publicized yahoo email >>> account - and the only thing there is Spam >>> - the lion's share of mail that comes from yahoo, to my normal account, >>> is spam >>> - unfortunately, a good number of people on the email lists that I run >>> seem to have Yahoo mail accounts - and a good amount of the mail that comes >>> from those accounts is... you guessed it... spam - because yahoo email >>> accounts seem to be vulnerable to cracking and exploitation >>> >>> So, just who is it that Yahoo is protecting here? >>> >>> >>> Abdussalam Baryun wrote: >>> >>>> The standard procedure in many companies is business scoped, so they >>>> identify important business users and the business returns/damages. Most >>>> important users are not IT experts, and use email for personal exchange. >>>> Yahoo has signed an agreement with users to protect its information system, >>>> so all seem to follow that, and all users are free to stop using services >>>> or not. >>>> >>>> AB >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, April 15, 2014, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>>> >>>> I thought that standard operating procedure in the IT industry >>>> was: if you roll something out and it causes serious breakage to >>>> some of your users, you roll it back as soon as possible. >>>> >>>> Why hasn't Yahoo rolled back its 'reject' policy by now? >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> Brian >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. >>> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra >>> >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anne at webfoundation.org Tue Apr 15 10:33:24 2014 From: anne at webfoundation.org (Anne Jellema) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 16:33:24 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] free flow of information @ Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: <534D382C.5030502@wzb.eu> References: <28D7250BBB2E4798BC6C1B7A93337D53@Toshiba> <534CDE5B.2010906@wzb.eu> <534CE344.2050200@apc.org> <534CFFD8.1090100@gold.ac.uk> <7CE12A31-A7B2-4BA9-A1C0-25FD6E6A7F03@gmail.com> <534D1CB0.4030301@cafonso.ca> <534D2C08.7050207@itforchange.net> <534D382C.5030502@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Jeanette, thanks - the example serves your purpose of illustrating the complexity of positioning in the textual negotiations. On a side note, though, I'm surprised to hear you say that you have opposed free flow of information on grounds that it is not a human right. Article 19 of the UDHR states that: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and *to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers*. Best Anne On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi, > > > Am 15.04.2014 14:54, schrieb parminder: > >> Not only net neutrality has been removed, >> > 'free flow of information' which figured twice in the earlier (leaked) > draft has been removed from both places.. > > in my capacity as a HLMC member I have spoken up against free flow of > information in the human rights section because free flow of information is > not a human right. Ironically, someone from the business sector objected to > removing this term from the human rights section. > > I am reporting this to illustrate that the negotiation of the text hasn't > always followed the distribution of power and interest that some on this > list may assume. The draft document represents victories and defeats on all > sides. > > jeanette > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Anne Jellema CEO +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) +1 202 684 6885 (US) @afjellema *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Apr 15 10:44:30 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 23:44:30 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] free flow of information @ Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: References: <28D7250BBB2E4798BC6C1B7A93337D53@Toshiba> <534CDE5B.2010906@wzb.eu> <534CE344.2050200@apc.org> <534CFFD8.1090100@gold.ac.uk> <7CE12A31-A7B2-4BA9-A1C0-25FD6E6A7F03@gmail.com> <534D1CB0.4030301@cafonso.ca> <534D2C08.7050207@itforchange.net> <534D382C.5030502@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <18DCC0AC-B3B7-4393-9569-0A3D4FDFC888@glocom.ac.jp> Hi Anne, Para's 2-8, what can we improve, what is missing? Thanks, Adam On Apr 15, 2014, at 11:33 PM, Anne Jellema wrote: > Jeanette, thanks - the example serves your purpose of illustrating the complexity of positioning in the textual negotiations. On a side note, though, I'm surprised to hear you say that you have opposed free flow of information on grounds that it is not a human right. Article 19 of the UDHR states that: > Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. > > Best > > Anne > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi, > > > Am 15.04.2014 14:54, schrieb parminder: > Not only net neutrality has been removed, > 'free flow of information' which figured twice in the earlier (leaked) draft has been removed from both places.. > > in my capacity as a HLMC member I have spoken up against free flow of information in the human rights section because free flow of information is not a human right. Ironically, someone from the business sector objected to removing this term from the human rights section. > > I am reporting this to illustrate that the negotiation of the text hasn't always followed the distribution of power and interest that some on this list may assume. The draft document represents victories and defeats on all sides. > > jeanette > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > Anne Jellema > CEO > +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) > +1 202 684 6885 (US) > @afjellema > > World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Apr 15 10:44:26 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 20:14:26 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] free flow of information @ Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: References: <28D7250BBB2E4798BC6C1B7A93337D53@Toshiba> <534CDE5B.2010906@wzb.eu> <534CE344.2050200@apc.org> <534CFFD8.1090100@gold.ac.uk> <7CE12A31-A7B2-4BA9-A1C0-25FD6E6A7F03@gmail.com> <534D1CB0.4030301@cafonso.ca> <534D2C08.7050207@itforchange.net> <534D382C.5030502@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <534D45CA.1070200@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 15 April 2014 07:49 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > SNIP > > I hope it represents progress. How we moved on since Tunis -- just look at the statements about Human Rights. What chance of those being considered a few years ago. And much more. Dont know what you are talking about. You sure have read WSIS docs, right? > > Everything could be better, but I am quite satisfied we are making progress. There is no progress... It is going backwards, and steeply... BTW, do you think democracy is a human right, or it isnt... What is your comment on this human right not only being absent in the initial text but also not being included when a few HLC members asked for it. Will really like to know parminder > > Please comment on the documents. > > Adam > > > > >> jeanette >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Tue Apr 15 10:48:26 2014 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 22:48:26 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Agenda for Civil Society pre-NetMundial Coordination Meeting Message-ID: <3B978AD6-7A77-4CEF-AA81-6F420D6EAF30@Malcolm.id.au> Dear all, On behalf of civil society groups organising the Civil Society pre-NetMundial Coordination Meeting (herein “CS pre-NM”), we would like to share with you the meeting agenda as follows. The “CS pre-NM” is a gathering of over 90 civil society groups from around the world involved in internet governance and broader internet-related public policy debates regionally and globally. This is an action-oriented group with the aim to facilitate the expression of civil society views and feed them into the discussions at NetMundial and beyond. You can find a preliminary list of civil society representatives attending the meeting here1. Example initiatives and statements from members of this group can be found here2. The agenda is focused on setting points of consensus, discussing strategic action and distilling key messages for members of civil society that are able to pursue common goals, based on 1) defending fundamental Human Rights; 2) ensuring the Open, Decentralized and Interoperable Architecture of the Web and 3) fostering an Open, Inclusive, Democratic and Decentralised Multistakeholder model of Internet Governance. Based in this three pillars, in order to have a clear mapping of the state of consensus within Civil Society, we are convening 3 working groups (Principles, Roadmap and IANA transition) of resource persons that will be focused until the day of our meeting on analyzing CS contributions and comments posted at NetMundial platform to deliver: a) a set of bullet points of possible ground of consensus and b) a set of questions around key issues that will require us to have agreement on during our meeting. Our hope is to honor different CS points of view presented so far, and quickly air disagreements and the arguments for each approach. We hope we can count on your collaboration to achieve our goals and, in the end, have a clear message from civil society that enable those who seek to refine their tactics and strategies for the Conference to do so. AGENDA: Venue: Espaço Missões, Centro Cultural Sao Paulo, Rua Vergueiro 1000, Sao Paulo. http://www.centrocultural.sp.gov.br/ 9:30am - 10:00 - Introductions: NETmundial 2014 introduction and Goal of our meeting and rules of engagement Welcome and goal of the meeting presented by organizers: Joana Varon (Brazil), Jeremy Malcolm (BestBits), Valeria Betancourt (APC), Veridiana Alimonti (IDEC, Brazil) and Laura Tresca (Article 19, Brazil) (3-5min) Briefing by EMC CS reps: Marilia Maciel, Adam Peake [TBC], Carlos Afonso [TBC] 10:00-11:15am Principles: Guaranteeing protection of Human Rights and Ensuring the Open and Interoperable Architecture of the Web Facilitator: Anriette Esterhuysen (APC, South Africa) [TBC] Goals: clarify and set the common ground regarding core principles for IG that this group of CS will defend at NetMundial and in talks among other stakeholder groups Resource persons** for Internet governance principles: Matthew Shears, Carolina Rossini, Anriette Esterhuysen/Valeria Betancourt and Veridiana Alimonti. Volunteers are welcome, please, just ping any of the resource persons. 11:15-11:30am - Coffee Break 11:30 - 13:00 Roadmap: towards a coordinated, decentralized, inclusive and open multistakeholder model of Internet Governance Facilitators: Matthew Shears (CDT, USA and UK, with international work) [TBC] Goal: clarify and set the common ground regarding a coordinated, decentralized, democratic, inclusive and open multistakeholder model of Internet Governance Resource persons for Internet governance principles: Anja Kovacs, Jeremy Malcolm, Joana Varon, Carolina Rossini. On IANA transition: Niels ten Oever, Rafik Dammak, Stephanie Perrin. Volunteers are welcome, please, just ping any of the resource persons. 13:00 - 14:00 - NetMundial: The rules of the game: how to maximize civil society impact in the interventions and the meetings to follow Facilitator: Bia Barbosa (Intervozes, Brazil) Brief Notes by Daniel Fink (Executive Director at NETmundial 2014) [TBC] Goal: By this time, resource persons from the previous sessions shall deliver a set of bullet points as final agreements and names who have volunteered to deliver the bullet points in NetMundial plenary. These documents will serve as input for this session that have to goal to build the strategy about how to deliver these points, vis a vis NetMundial dynamic for interactions in the floor, so we end with a clear, consolidated and final matrix of interactions at NetMundial plenary (which shall be made public soon). 14:00 - 15:00 - Lunch (provided by the meeting organizers) - CCSP restaurant 15:00 - 16:00 - Media Strategy, Hubs for remote participation and Stakeholder relations Goal: brief the media hub on our main points, and briefing for the following open sessions with the technical community and governments included suggested strategy to engage with them on conflictual issues. Media strategy facilitators: Renata Avila (WebWeWant, Guatemala) and Jyoti Panday (CIS, India) Technical community relations: Avri Doria (XXX, XXX) Government relations: Jovan Kurbalija (Diplo Foundation) and Gene Kimmelman (Public Knowledge, USA) 16:00 - 17:00: Open session with technical community Facilitator: William Drake / Marilia Maciel? [TBC] Comments: Fadi (ICANN) [TBC] Goal: learn core issues for technical community and communicate core CS concerns/positions. Explore opportunities for collaboration. 17:00-17:15 - Coffee Break 17:30 - 19:00: Meeting(s) with invited governments (bilateral or mixed - TBC) Facilitator(s): Marilia Maciel (CTS/FGV, Brazil) Goal: Learn core issues for governments and communicate core CS concerns/positions. Explore opportunities for collaboration. 19hrs- Dinner on your own/ engage in activities at the Arena (ps. Lula and Brazilian civil society activits will be talking about MarcoCivil at ArenaMundial at 19:00) ** ROLE OF RESOURCE PERSONS: Resource persons shall develop a set of bullet points of consensus and a set of questions (stress tests) around key issue areas that will most likely arise and that will require us to have discourse and agreement on during our meeting. They will work as a fluid working group analyzing CS contributions and comments posted at NetMundial platform so final achievements are as inclusive as possible. They will have 15 min to present this briefing in the beginning of their respective session. Your faithfully, The organizers Association for Progressive Communications – APC (Global), Article 19 (Global), Best Bits (Global), Center for Studies on Freedom of Expression – CELE (Argentina), CTS/FGV (Brazil), Derechos Digitales (Chile), Global Partners Digital (UK), Institutito de Defesa do Consumidor – IDEC (Brazil), Instituto de Tecnologia e Sociedade – ITS (Brazil), and the Web We Want (Global) 1 http://bestbits.net/events/netmundial-coordination/ 2 http://bestbits.net/ -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Tue Apr 15 11:07:31 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 17:07:31 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] multistakeholderism is democracy was Re: [] FW: US Is an O... In-Reply-To: <534D3E2C.6020609@acm.org> References: <1DEB7534D981B444BF234789326B22A8AF08BDFC51@MBX.INTERNEWS.LOCAL> <079f01cf5898$762b5ba0$628212e0$@gmail.com> <534D3E2C.6020609@acm.org> Message-ID: <1DE096C8-5A57-459A-9304-F03E525E8C5B@theglobaljournal.net> Avri, It is good/sad to see how deep we disagree. At least, this below shows once again that we are lost in definition. How can anything good come out of that mess? Mawaki disagrees with MSism would pretend to be an enhanced Democracy idea as proposed by many MSists. Avri says MSism is a form of Democracy. So you are saying that MSism is this famous Democracy ++ thing. This is very dangerous game. I am afraid to consider what your "cooking" looks like apprenti-sorcier efforts. MSism is a Cheval de Troie for vested interests to escape rules of law, democracy, social justice, fair and sustainable development, citizens/users expression of direct interest or concerns. Big corps have to come after! All of this make it impossible for people to join the conversation in a clear, understandable (no definition), and trusted fashion. Why do you refuse to see that this is part of the reality that is not acceptable to honest democrats. One of the major point with Democracy is trust. When trust disappears in a Democracy, the people is taking up the street, and sometime overthrowing these authorities whom lose trust. From what an honest observer can tell, regarding MSism, is that MSism kills trust for most of it. Self-appointments, no check and balance, lots of happy-few meetings, approach, parallel mailing list, corruption, lobbying, pressure, out-of-nowhere decisions, absence of common definition... See where we are today! At least under the Internet Governance debate, driven by the tenants of MSism. To say that Internet has become a global commons is not to declare war, or to declare that Internet is sick. It is just a fact. There is no future for a MSism system of governance, if it doesn't accept first and foremost to put itself under the command of very democratic rules and principles. If not, the market forces will always prevail. And your MSistic dreams and ideal will fade away. JC Le 15 avr. 2014 à 16:11, Avri Doria a écrit : > > > On 15-Apr-14 09:37, Mawaki Chango wrote: >> MSism is a decision-making process and I don't know where anyone could >> have possibly taken that bogus idea that MSism is the next big thing >> after democracy (just like democracy once was that next big thing after >> tyranny, aristocracy, etc.) > > I am one who does argues that Multistakeholderism is not just another > decision making process. > > I also do not claim in is the next big thing after democracy. I argue > that it is a form of democracy. Multistakeholderism includes modalities > of democratic organization as well as a variety of mechanisms. It is > a form of participatory democracy that builds upon the varieties of > representational democracy that one finds in some countries and the > various forms of self-organization that people in society uses to > organize itself on issues of importance and brings them in the greater > democratic mix. > > I do agree that there is not just one form of the multistakeholder > model, but argue that there are attributes of Multistakeholderism as > participatory democracy that are necessary. > > I too have yet to finish my self-promised work on multistakeholderism. > Though I have written on this a bit. > > avri > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG Tue Apr 15 11:21:13 2014 From: mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG (Mike Godwin (mgodwin@INTERNEWS.ORG)) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 11:21:13 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] A disaggregated internet governance taxonomy Message-ID: Following a suggestion made by Carolina Rossini at a New America Foundation panel she moderated, I mined Laura DeNardis’s and Mark Raymond’s paper (“Thinking Clearly about Multistakeholder Governance”) for its big chart of “disaggregated internet governance” functions. I find it’s useful to look at this chart (somewhat clumsily assembled by me and attached here as a PDF) and ask which of these functions are best administered by multi-stakeholder process, which are best administered by expert bodies (including self-selected experts), which are best administered by governments or intergovernmental entities, and so forth. Here’s a link to DeNardis’s talk about her new internet-governance book: The Global War for Internet Governance with Dr. Laura DeNardis: http://youtu.be/i_bZw-O7cC0 via @YouTube Unsurprisingly, DeNardis says there’s no one-size-fits-all solution for administering every aspect of internet governance. —Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DisaggregatedInternetGovernanceFunctions.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 114760 bytes Desc: DisaggregatedInternetGovernanceFunctions.pdf URL: From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com Tue Apr 15 11:21:46 2014 From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 11:21:46 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] multistakeholderism is democracy was Re: [] FW: US Is an O... In-Reply-To: <534D4240.3040209@itforchange.net> References: <1DEB7534D981B444BF234789326B22A8AF08BDFC51@MBX.INTERNEWS.LOCAL> <079f01cf5898$762b5ba0$628212e0$@gmail.com> <534D3E2C.6020609@acm.org> <534D4240.3040209@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I addressed some of this in preparing for the WTPF: http://internetdistinction.com/bricoleur/#EnhancedInsight You can scroll up from that name tag for an earlier version of the observations I have just posted under my own subject header. Seth On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 10:29 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Tuesday 15 April 2014 07:41 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> >> On 15-Apr-14 09:37, Mawaki Chango wrote: >> >>> MSism is a decision-making process and I don't know where anyone could >>> have possibly taken that bogus idea that MSism is the next big thing >>> after democracy (just like democracy once was that next big thing after >>> tyranny, aristocracy, etc.) >>> >> > You had in your email sought focussing on actual practices... Therefore > you need to look at practices of MSism... It is indeed the next thing after > democracy, and NOT democracy... MSism gives big business a veto on public > policy making. This kind of thing is impossible to even mention in a > democratic discourse.. But the same unmentionable has been dressed by > employment of huge expenditure of resources in the respectable clothes if > MSism. > > Do you disagree that MSism as being practiced in its 'equal footing' model > (1) gives veto power to big business and (2) such a thing is unattainable > in democratic discourse and practice.. > > Now you may say that I am speaking about entirely imaginary models of > MSism, and creatign strawmen of MSism... > > Well, no.. > > On the BestBit list an elaborate model has been developed and presented, > latest in response to the leaked NetMundial draft (did you also support > this model?) which creates a multistakeholder screening mechanism for > taking up any public policy issue.. Does this not give big business a veto > on what matters can be taken for public policy treatment? Is this > democratic? > > Second, the NetMundial draft document seeks public policy making through > consensus basis alone - which is an multistakeholder consensus on equal > footing... It says that processes of governance have to be first be agreed > by all stakeholders (keep reading business when I say stakeholders bec it > is they for whom these models are fashioned).... > > Now, is it democratic to give business (big business, no one asked my > corner shop guy) such structural vetos over public policy making? What > could be more democratic... > > Since you said devil is in the details, lets talk about the detail and the > devil... Lets talk specifics, and these above are the specifics of MSism... > > parminder > > > > > > > > > I am one who does argues that Multistakeholderism is not just another >> decision making process. >> >> I also do not claim in is the next big thing after democracy. I argue >> that it is a form of democracy. Multistakeholderism includes modalities >> of democratic organization as well as a variety of mechanisms. It is >> a form of participatory democracy that builds upon the varieties of >> representational democracy that one finds in some countries and the >> various forms of self-organization that people in society uses to >> organize itself on issues of importance and brings them in the greater >> democratic mix. >> >> I do agree that there is not just one form of the multistakeholder >> model, but argue that there are attributes of Multistakeholderism as >> participatory democracy that are necessary. >> >> I too have yet to finish my self-promised work on multistakeholderism. >> Though I have written on this a bit. >> >> avri >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nnenna75 at gmail.com Tue Apr 15 11:25:35 2014 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 15:25:35 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Agenda for Civil Society pre-NetMundial Coordination Meeting In-Reply-To: <3B978AD6-7A77-4CEF-AA81-6F420D6EAF30@Malcolm.id.au> References: <3B978AD6-7A77-4CEF-AA81-6F420D6EAF30@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: Thanks Jeremy. One quick one, this is scheduled for Tuesday the 22nd. Right? N On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Dear all, > > On behalf of civil society groups organising the Civil Society > pre-NetMundial Coordination Meeting (herein “CS pre-NM”), we would like to > share with you the meeting agenda as follows. > > The “CS pre-NM” is a gathering of over 90 civil society groups from around > the world involved in internet governance and broader internet-related > public policy debates regionally and globally. This is an action-oriented > group with the aim to facilitate the expression of civil society views and > feed them into the discussions at NetMundial and beyond. You can find a > preliminary list of civil society representatives attending the meeting > *here* 1<#14565dca1871f9b5_sdfootnote1sym>. > Example initiatives and statements from members of this group can be found > *here* 2 <#14565dca1871f9b5_sdfootnote2sym>. > > The agenda is focused on setting points of consensus, discussing strategic > action and distilling key messages for members of civil society that are > able to pursue common goals, based on 1) defending fundamental Human > Rights; 2) ensuring the Open, Decentralized and Interoperable Architecture > of the Web and 3) fostering an Open, Inclusive, Democratic and > Decentralised Multistakeholder model of Internet Governance. > > Based in this three pillars, in order to have a clear mapping of the state > of consensus within Civil Society, we are convening 3 working groups > (Principles, Roadmap and IANA transition) of resource persons that will be > focused until the day of our meeting on analyzing CS contributions and > comments posted at NetMundial platform to deliver: a) a set of bullet > points of possible ground of consensus and b) a set of questions around key > issues that will require us to have agreement on during our meeting. Our > hope is to honor different CS points of view presented so far, and quickly > air disagreements and the arguments for each approach. > > We hope we can count on your collaboration to achieve our goals and, in > the end, have a clear message from civil society that enable those who seek > to refine their tactics and strategies for the Conference to do so. > > *AGENDA:* > > *Venue: Espaço Missões, Centro Cultural Sao Paulo, Rua Vergueiro 1000, Sao > Paulo. **http :// > www > . > centrocultural > . > sp > . > gov > . > br > / > * > > *9:30am - 10:00 - Introductions: NETmundial 2014 introduction and Goal of > our meeting and rules of engagement* > > - > > *Welcome and goal of the meeting presented by organizers*: Joana Varon > (Brazil), Jeremy Malcolm (BestBits), Valeria Betancourt (APC), Veridiana > Alimonti (IDEC, Brazil) and Laura Tresca (Article 19, Brazil) (3-5min) > - > > *Briefing by EMC CS reps:* Marilia Maciel, Adam Peake [TBC], Carlos > Afonso [TBC] > > *10:00-11:15am Principles: Guaranteeing protection of Human Rights and > Ensuring the Open and Interoperable Architecture of the Web* > > - > > *Facilitator: *Anriette Esterhuysen (APC, South Africa) [TBC] > - > > *Goals:* clarify and set the common ground regarding core principles > for IG that this group of CS will defend at NetMundial and in talks among > other stakeholder groups > - > > *Resource persons** for Internet governance principles*: Matthew > Shears, Carolina Rossini, Anriette Esterhuysen/Valeria Betancourt and > Veridiana Alimonti. Volunteers are welcome, please, just ping any of the > resource persons. > > *11:15-11:30am - Coffee Break* > > *11:30 - 13:00 Roadmap: towards a coordinated, decentralized, inclusive > and open multistakeholder model of Internet Governance * > > *Facilitators:* Matthew Shears (CDT, USA and UK, with international work) > [TBC] > > - > > *Goal:* clarify and set the common ground regarding a coordinated, > decentralized, democratic, inclusive and open multistakeholder model of > Internet Governance > - > > *Resource persons for **Internet governance principles: *Anja Kovacs, > Jeremy Malcolm, Joana Varon, Carolina Rossini. On IANA transition: Niels > ten Oever, Rafik Dammak, Stephanie Perrin. Volunteers are welcome, please, > just ping any of the resource persons. > > *13:00 - 14:00 - NetMundial: The rules of the game: how to maximize civil > society impact in the interventions and the meetings to follow* > > - > > *Facilitator:* Bia Barbosa (Intervozes, Brazil) > - > > *Brief Notes *by Daniel Fink (Executive Director at NETmundial 2014) > [TBC] > - > > *Goal: *By this time, resource persons from the previous sessions > shall deliver a set of bullet points as final agreements and names who have > volunteered to deliver the bullet points in NetMundial plenary. These > documents will serve as input for this session that have to goal to build > the strategy about how to deliver these points, vis a vis NetMundial > dynamic for interactions in the floor, so we end with a clear, consolidated > and final matrix of interactions at NetMundial plenary (which shall be made > public soon). > > *14:00 - 15:00 - Lunch (provided by the meeting organizers) - CCSP > restaurant* > > *15:00 - 16:00 - Media Strategy, Hubs for remote participation and > Stakeholder relations* > > - > > *Goal*: brief the media hub on our main points, and briefing for the > following open sessions with the technical community and governments > included suggested strategy to engage with them on conflictual issues. > > > - > > *Media strategy facilitators: *Renata Avila (WebWeWant, Guatemala) and > Jyoti Panday (CIS, India) > - > > *Technical community relations: *Avri Doria (XXX, XXX) > - > > *Government relations: *Jovan Kurbalija (Diplo Foundation) and Gene > Kimmelman (Public Knowledge, USA) > > *16:00 - 17:00:* *Open session with technical community* > > - > > *Facilitator: *William Drake / Marilia Maciel? [TBC] > - > > *Comments:* Fadi (ICANN) [TBC] > - > > *Goal: *learn core issues for technical community and communicate core > CS concerns/positions. Explore opportunities for collaboration. > > *17:00-17:15 - Coffee Break* > > *17:30 - 19:00: Meeting(s) with invited governments (bilateral or mixed - > TBC)* > > - > > *Facilitator(s):* Marilia Maciel (CTS/FGV, Brazil) > - > > *Goal:* Learn core issues for governments and communicate core CS > concerns/positions. Explore opportunities for collaboration. > > *19hrs- Dinner on your own/ engage in activities at the Arena (ps. Lula > and Brazilian civil society activits will be talking about MarcoCivil at > ArenaMundial at 19:00)* > > *** ROLE OF RESOURCE PERSONS: Resource persons shall develop a set of > bullet points of consensus and a set of questions (stress tests) around key > issue areas that will most likely arise and that will require us to have > discourse and agreement on during our meeting. They will work as a fluid > working group analyzing CS contributions and comments posted at NetMundial > platform so final achievements are as inclusive as possible. They will have > 15 min to present this briefing in the beginning of their respective > session.* > > > Your faithfully, > > The organizers > > Association for Progressive Communications – APC (Global), Article 19 > (Global), Best Bits (Global), Center for Studies on Freedom of Expression – > CELE (Argentina), CTS/FGV (Brazil), Derechos Digitales (Chile), Global > Partners Digital (UK), Institutito de Defesa do Consumidor – IDEC (Brazil), > Instituto de Tecnologia e Sociedade – ITS (Brazil), and the Web We Want > (Global) > > > 1 <#14565dca1871f9b5_sdfootnote1anc> *http > :// > bestbits > . > net > / > events > / > netmundial > - > coordination > / > * > > 2 <#14565dca1871f9b5_sdfootnote2anc> *http :// > bestbits . > net / * > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see > http://jere.my/l/pgp. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Apr 15 11:27:24 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 11:27:24 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Agenda for Civil Society pre-NetMundial Coordination Meeting In-Reply-To: References: <3B978AD6-7A77-4CEF-AA81-6F420D6EAF30@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: yes On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > Thanks Jeremy. > > One quick one, this is scheduled for Tuesday the 22nd. Right? > > N > > > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> On behalf of civil society groups organising the Civil Society >> pre-NetMundial Coordination Meeting (herein “CS pre-NM”), we would like to >> share with you the meeting agenda as follows. >> >> The “CS pre-NM” is a gathering of over 90 civil society groups from >> around the world involved in internet governance and broader >> internet-related public policy debates regionally and globally. This is an >> action-oriented group with the aim to facilitate the expression of civil >> society views and feed them into the discussions at NetMundial and beyond. >> You can find a preliminary list of civil society representatives attending >> the meeting *here* >> 1 <#14565fec5da333d9_14565dca1871f9b5_sdfootnote1sym>. Example >> initiatives and statements from members of this group can be found *here* >> 2 <#14565fec5da333d9_14565dca1871f9b5_sdfootnote2sym>. >> >> The agenda is focused on setting points of consensus, discussing >> strategic action and distilling key messages for members of civil society >> that are able to pursue common goals, based on 1) defending fundamental >> Human Rights; 2) ensuring the Open, Decentralized and Interoperable >> Architecture of the Web and 3) fostering an Open, Inclusive, Democratic and >> Decentralised Multistakeholder model of Internet Governance. >> >> Based in this three pillars, in order to have a clear mapping of the >> state of consensus within Civil Society, we are convening 3 working groups >> (Principles, Roadmap and IANA transition) of resource persons that will be >> focused until the day of our meeting on analyzing CS contributions and >> comments posted at NetMundial platform to deliver: a) a set of bullet >> points of possible ground of consensus and b) a set of questions around key >> issues that will require us to have agreement on during our meeting. Our >> hope is to honor different CS points of view presented so far, and quickly >> air disagreements and the arguments for each approach. >> >> We hope we can count on your collaboration to achieve our goals and, in >> the end, have a clear message from civil society that enable those who seek >> to refine their tactics and strategies for the Conference to do so. >> >> *AGENDA:* >> >> *Venue: Espaço Missões, Centro Cultural Sao Paulo, Rua Vergueiro 1000, >> Sao Paulo. **http :// >> www >> . >> centrocultural >> . >> sp >> . >> gov >> . >> br >> / >> * >> >> *9:30am - 10:00 - Introductions: NETmundial 2014 introduction and Goal of >> our meeting and rules of engagement* >> >> - >> >> *Welcome and goal of the meeting presented by organizers*: Joana >> Varon (Brazil), Jeremy Malcolm (BestBits), Valeria Betancourt (APC), >> Veridiana Alimonti (IDEC, Brazil) and Laura Tresca (Article 19, Brazil) >> (3-5min) >> - >> >> *Briefing by EMC CS reps:* Marilia Maciel, Adam Peake [TBC], Carlos >> Afonso [TBC] >> >> *10:00-11:15am Principles: Guaranteeing protection of Human Rights and >> Ensuring the Open and Interoperable Architecture of the Web* >> >> - >> >> *Facilitator: *Anriette Esterhuysen (APC, South Africa) [TBC] >> - >> >> *Goals:* clarify and set the common ground regarding core principles >> for IG that this group of CS will defend at NetMundial and in talks among >> other stakeholder groups >> - >> >> *Resource persons** for Internet governance principles*: Matthew >> Shears, Carolina Rossini, Anriette Esterhuysen/Valeria Betancourt and >> Veridiana Alimonti. Volunteers are welcome, please, just ping any of the >> resource persons. >> >> *11:15-11:30am - Coffee Break* >> >> *11:30 - 13:00 Roadmap: towards a coordinated, decentralized, inclusive >> and open multistakeholder model of Internet Governance * >> >> *Facilitators:* Matthew Shears (CDT, USA and UK, with international >> work) [TBC] >> >> - >> >> *Goal:* clarify and set the common ground regarding a coordinated, >> decentralized, democratic, inclusive and open multistakeholder model of >> Internet Governance >> - >> >> *Resource persons for **Internet governance principles: *Anja Kovacs, >> Jeremy Malcolm, Joana Varon, Carolina Rossini. On IANA transition: Niels >> ten Oever, Rafik Dammak, Stephanie Perrin. Volunteers are welcome, please, >> just ping any of the resource persons. >> >> *13:00 - 14:00 - NetMundial: The rules of the game: how to maximize civil >> society impact in the interventions and the meetings to follow* >> >> - >> >> *Facilitator:* Bia Barbosa (Intervozes, Brazil) >> - >> >> *Brief Notes *by Daniel Fink (Executive Director at NETmundial 2014) >> [TBC] >> - >> >> *Goal: *By this time, resource persons from the previous sessions >> shall deliver a set of bullet points as final agreements and names who have >> volunteered to deliver the bullet points in NetMundial plenary. These >> documents will serve as input for this session that have to goal to build >> the strategy about how to deliver these points, vis a vis NetMundial >> dynamic for interactions in the floor, so we end with a clear, consolidated >> and final matrix of interactions at NetMundial plenary (which shall be made >> public soon). >> >> *14:00 - 15:00 - Lunch (provided by the meeting organizers) - CCSP >> restaurant* >> >> *15:00 - 16:00 - Media Strategy, Hubs for remote participation and >> Stakeholder relations* >> >> - >> >> *Goal*: brief the media hub on our main points, and briefing for the >> following open sessions with the technical community and governments >> included suggested strategy to engage with them on conflictual issues. >> >> >> - >> >> *Media strategy facilitators: *Renata Avila (WebWeWant, Guatemala) >> and Jyoti Panday (CIS, India) >> - >> >> *Technical community relations: *Avri Doria (XXX, XXX) >> - >> >> *Government relations: *Jovan Kurbalija (Diplo Foundation) and Gene >> Kimmelman (Public Knowledge, USA) >> >> *16:00 - 17:00:* *Open session with technical community* >> >> - >> >> *Facilitator: *William Drake / Marilia Maciel? [TBC] >> - >> >> *Comments:* Fadi (ICANN) [TBC] >> - >> >> *Goal: *learn core issues for technical community and communicate >> core CS concerns/positions. Explore opportunities for collaboration. >> >> *17:00-17:15 - Coffee Break* >> >> *17:30 - 19:00: Meeting(s) with invited governments (bilateral or mixed - >> TBC)* >> >> - >> >> *Facilitator(s):* Marilia Maciel (CTS/FGV, Brazil) >> - >> >> *Goal:* Learn core issues for governments and communicate core CS >> concerns/positions. Explore opportunities for collaboration. >> >> *19hrs- Dinner on your own/ engage in activities at the Arena (ps. Lula >> and Brazilian civil society activits will be talking about MarcoCivil at >> ArenaMundial at 19:00)* >> >> *** ROLE OF RESOURCE PERSONS: Resource persons shall develop a set of >> bullet points of consensus and a set of questions (stress tests) around key >> issue areas that will most likely arise and that will require us to have >> discourse and agreement on during our meeting. They will work as a fluid >> working group analyzing CS contributions and comments posted at NetMundial >> platform so final achievements are as inclusive as possible. They will have >> 15 min to present this briefing in the beginning of their respective >> session.* >> >> >> Your faithfully, >> >> The organizers >> >> Association for Progressive Communications – APC (Global), Article 19 >> (Global), Best Bits (Global), Center for Studies on Freedom of Expression – >> CELE (Argentina), CTS/FGV (Brazil), Derechos Digitales (Chile), Global >> Partners Digital (UK), Institutito de Defesa do Consumidor – IDEC (Brazil), >> Instituto de Tecnologia e Sociedade – ITS (Brazil), and the Web We Want >> (Global) >> >> >> 1 <#14565fec5da333d9_14565dca1871f9b5_sdfootnote1anc> *http >> :// >> bestbits >> . >> net >> / >> events >> / >> netmundial >> - >> coordination >> / >> * >> >> 2 <#14565fec5da333d9_14565dca1871f9b5_sdfootnote2anc> *http >> :// bestbits >> . net / >> * >> >> -- >> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com >> Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see >> http://jere.my/l/pgp. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- *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: From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Apr 15 11:46:44 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 21:16:44 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] A disaggregated internet governance taxonomy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <534D5464.6040405@itforchange.net> The focus here is of one clear set of functions - public policy making, that also, specifically decision making vis a vis public polices... If we need closures somewhere. Power does not disappear in absence of legitimate governance. The Internet is right now being shaped by the powerful for their benefit. At one point we need to agree on should be taking decisions for public policies. And to reach that point faster than slower is more in the interest to those most excluded in current power configurations.. parminder On Tuesday 15 April 2014 08:51 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) wrote: > > Following a suggestion made by Carolina Rossini at a New America > Foundation panel she moderated, I mined Laura DeNardis’s and Mark > Raymond’s paper (“Thinking Clearly about Multistakeholder Governance”) > for its big chart of “disaggregated internet governance” functions. > > I find it’s useful to look at this chart (somewhat clumsily assembled > by me and attached here as a PDF) and ask which of these functions are > best administered by multi-stakeholder process, which are best > administered by expert bodies (including self-selected experts), which > are best administered by governments or intergovernmental entities, > and so forth. > > Here’s a link to DeNardis’s talk about her new internet-governance book: > The Global War for Internet Governance with Dr. Laura DeNardis: > http://youtu.be/i_bZw-O7cC0 > via @YouTube > > Unsurprisingly, DeNardis says there’s no one-size-fits-all solution > for administering every aspect of internet governance. > > > —Mike > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeanette at wzb.eu Tue Apr 15 12:06:47 2014 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 18:06:47 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] free flow of information @ Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: References: <28D7250BBB2E4798BC6C1B7A93337D53@Toshiba> <534CDE5B.2010906@wzb.eu> <534CE344.2050200@apc.org> <534CFFD8.1090100@gold.ac.uk> <7CE12A31-A7B2-4BA9-A1C0-25FD6E6A7F03@gmail.com> <534D1CB0.4030301@cafonso.ca> <534D2C08.7050207@itforchange.net> <534D382C.5030502@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <534D5917.3080304@wzb.eu> Hi Anne, I have argued for integrating Human Rights language into the draft document. "Free flow of information" is not part of any UN resolution and thus not the same as the right to freedom of opinion and expression. Free flow of information neither implies enforceable rights nor does is it imply any obligations of governments. Language is very important when it comes to human rights. jeanette Am 15.04.2014 16:33, schrieb Anne Jellema: > Jeanette, thanks - the example serves your purpose of illustrating the > complexity of positioning in the textual negotiations. On a side note, > though, I'm surprised to hear you say that you have opposed free flow of > information on grounds that it is not a human right. Article 19 of the > UDHR states that: > > Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right > includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and */to seek, > receive and impart information and ideas through any media and > regardless of frontiers/*. > > Best > > Anne > > > > > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Jeanette Hofmann > wrote: > > Hi, > > > Am 15.04.2014 14:54, schrieb parminder: > > Not only net neutrality has been removed, > > 'free flow of information' which figured twice in the earlier > (leaked) draft has been removed from both places.. > > in my capacity as a HLMC member I have spoken up against free flow > of information in the human rights section because free flow of > information is not a human right. Ironically, someone from the > business sector objected to removing this term from the human rights > section. > > I am reporting this to illustrate that the negotiation of the text > hasn't always followed the distribution of power and interest that > some on this list may assume. The draft document represents > victories and defeats on all sides. > > jeanette > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > Anne Jellema > CEO > +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) > +1 202 684 6885 (US) > @afjellema > * > * > *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington > DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org | > Twitter: @webfoundation* > From mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG Tue Apr 15 12:07:56 2014 From: mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG (Mike Godwin (mgodwin@INTERNEWS.ORG)) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 12:07:56 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] A disaggregated internet governance taxonomy In-Reply-To: <534D5464.6040405@itforchange.net> References: <534D5464.6040405@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <9F93EE7C-063A-4147-8418-B853981C71D9@INTERNEWS.ORG> DeNardis's response to this (she addresses this very question in the talk you can find at the video link below) is to say that there is a public-policy dimension to every level of these functions. --Mike Sent from my iPad On Apr 15, 2014, at 11:46, "parminder" > wrote: The focus here is of one clear set of functions - public policy making, that also, specifically decision making vis a vis public polices... If we need closures somewhere. Power does not disappear in absence of legitimate governance. The Internet is right now being shaped by the powerful for their benefit. At one point we need to agree on should be taking decisions for public policies. And to reach that point faster than slower is more in the interest to those most excluded in current power configurations.. parminder On Tuesday 15 April 2014 08:51 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) wrote: Following a suggestion made by Carolina Rossini at a New America Foundation panel she moderated, I mined Laura DeNardis’s and Mark Raymond’s paper (“Thinking Clearly about Multistakeholder Governance”) for its big chart of “disaggregated internet governance” functions. I find it’s useful to look at this chart (somewhat clumsily assembled by me and attached here as a PDF) and ask which of these functions are best administered by multi-stakeholder process, which are best administered by expert bodies (including self-selected experts), which are best administered by governments or intergovernmental entities, and so forth. Here’s a link to DeNardis’s talk about her new internet-governance book: The Global War for Internet Governance with Dr. Laura DeNardis: http://youtu.be/i_bZw-O7cC0 via @YouTube Unsurprisingly, DeNardis says there’s no one-size-fits-all solution for administering every aspect of internet governance. —Mike Click here to report this email as spam. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matthias.kettemann at gmail.com Tue Apr 15 12:15:20 2014 From: matthias.kettemann at gmail.com (Matthias C. Kettemann) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 18:15:20 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] free flow of information @ Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: <534D5917.3080304@wzb.eu> References: <28D7250BBB2E4798BC6C1B7A93337D53@Toshiba> <534CDE5B.2010906@wzb.eu> <534CE344.2050200@apc.org> <534CFFD8.1090100@gold.ac.uk> <7CE12A31-A7B2-4BA9-A1C0-25FD6E6A7F03@gmail.com> <534D1CB0.4030301@cafonso.ca> <534D2C08.7050207@itforchange.net> <534D382C.5030502@wzb.eu> <534D5917.3080304@wzb.eu> Message-ID: I'm not sure I agree. I think the case can be made that "free flow of information" is an implied condition for everyone to seek, receive, impart information (Article 19 UDHR). This argument is strengthened by the the language of Art. 19 (2) ICCPR ..... freedom "to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". That sounds very much like being premised upon the free flow of information. A UN resolution doesn't instantly change the character of a right. The UDHR is by and large customary law, the ICCPR signed by practically all states. Further, the free flow of information is an essential precondition to exercisizing FoE online - the 2011 and 2012 Special Rapporteur reports by Frank La Rue are helpful in explaining this. So: custom and treaty (and some recent explaining by the Special Rapporteur): You won't get much stronger commitments in international law. Kind regards Matthias On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi Anne, > > I have argued for integrating Human Rights language into the draft > document. "Free flow of information" is not part of any UN resolution and > thus not the same as the right to freedom of opinion and expression. Free > flow of information neither implies enforceable rights nor does is it imply > any obligations of governments. Language is very important when it comes to > human rights. > > jeanette > > Am 15.04.2014 16:33, schrieb Anne Jellema: > >> Jeanette, thanks - the example serves your purpose of illustrating the >> complexity of positioning in the textual negotiations. On a side note, >> though, I'm surprised to hear you say that you have opposed free flow of >> information on grounds that it is not a human right. Article 19 of the >> UDHR states that: >> >> Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right >> includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and */to seek, >> >> receive and impart information and ideas through any media and >> regardless of frontiers/*. >> >> >> Best >> >> Anne >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Jeanette Hofmann > > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> Am 15.04.2014 14:54, schrieb parminder: >> >> Not only net neutrality has been removed, >> >> 'free flow of information' which figured twice in the earlier >> (leaked) draft has been removed from both places.. >> >> in my capacity as a HLMC member I have spoken up against free flow >> of information in the human rights section because free flow of >> information is not a human right. Ironically, someone from the >> business sector objected to removing this term from the human rights >> section. >> >> I am reporting this to illustrate that the negotiation of the text >> hasn't always followed the distribution of power and interest that >> some on this list may assume. The draft document represents >> victories and defeats on all sides. >> >> jeanette >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Anne Jellema >> CEO >> +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) >> +1 202 684 6885 (US) >> @afjellema >> * >> * >> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington >> DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org | >> Twitter: @webfoundation* >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Dr. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard) Post-Doc Fellow | Cluster of Excellence „Normative Orders ”, University of Frankfurt/Main Lecturer | Institute of International Law and International Relations, University of Graz Research Affiliate | European Training and Research Centre for Human Rights and Democracy, University of Graz Exzellenzcluster "Normative Ordnungen", Goethe-Universität Frankfurt/Main EXC-8, Grüneburgplatz 1 60323 Frankfurt/Main, Deutschland E | matthias.kettemann at gmail.com T | 0049 176 817 50 920 (mobile, Germany) T | 0043 676 7017175 (mobile, Austria) T | 0049 69 798 31508 (office) Blog | SSRN | Google Scholar | my new book | Amazon Authors' Page Twitter | Facebook | Google+ Recent publications: Freedom of Expression and the Internet (2014, co-author) Bestand und Wandel im Völkerrecht [Continuity and Change in Int'l Law] (2014, co-editor) Netzpolitik in Österreich [Net Politics in Austria] (2013, co-editor) Grenzen im Völkerrecht [Limits of International Law] (2013, editor) The Future of Individuals in International Law (2013) European Yearbook on Human Rights 2013 (2013, co-editor) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Apr 15 12:20:57 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 21:50:57 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] A disaggregated internet governance taxonomy In-Reply-To: <9F93EE7C-063A-4147-8418-B853981C71D9@INTERNEWS.ORG> References: <534D5464.6040405@itforchange.net> <9F93EE7C-063A-4147-8418-B853981C71D9@INTERNEWS.ORG> Message-ID: <534D5C69.3070203@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 15 April 2014 09:37 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) wrote: > DeNardis's response to this (she addresses this very question in the > talk you can find at the video link below) is to say that there is a > public-policy dimension to every level of these functions. And then the conclusion on how public policies should be decided is what? Because in default, public polices are not decided, and that is itself a political stance, befitting some and not others. parminder > > --Mike > > > > Sent from my iPad > > On Apr 15, 2014, at 11:46, "parminder" > wrote: > >> >> The focus here is of one clear set of functions - public policy >> making, that also, specifically decision making vis a vis public >> polices... >> >> If we need closures somewhere. Power does not disappear in absence of >> legitimate governance. The Internet is right now being shaped by the >> powerful for their benefit. >> >> At one point we need to agree on should be taking decisions for >> public policies. >> >> And to reach that point faster than slower is more in the interest to >> those most excluded in current power configurations.. >> >> parminder >> >> On Tuesday 15 April 2014 08:51 PM, Mike Godwin >> (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) wrote: >>> >>> Following a suggestion made by Carolina Rossini at a New America >>> Foundation panel she moderated, I mined Laura DeNardis’s and Mark >>> Raymond’s paper (“Thinking Clearly about Multistakeholder >>> Governance”) for its big chart of “disaggregated internet >>> governance” functions. >>> >>> I find it’s useful to look at this chart (somewhat clumsily >>> assembled by me and attached here as a PDF) and ask which of these >>> functions are best administered by multi-stakeholder process, which >>> are best administered by expert bodies (including self-selected >>> experts), which are best administered by governments or >>> intergovernmental entities, and so forth. >>> >>> Here’s a link to DeNardis’s talk about her new internet-governance book: >>> The Global War for Internet Governance with Dr. Laura DeNardis: >>> http://youtu.be/i_bZw-O7cC0 >>> via @YouTube >>> >>> Unsurprisingly, DeNardis says there’s no one-size-fits-all solution >>> for administering every aspect of internet governance. >>> >>> >>> —Mike >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> Click here >> >> to report this email as spam. >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Apr 15 12:22:20 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 01:22:20 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] free flow of information @ Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: <534D45CA.1070200@itforchange.net> References: <28D7250BBB2E4798BC6C1B7A93337D53@Toshiba> <534CDE5B.2010906@wzb.eu> <534CE344.2050200@apc.org> <534CFFD8.1090100@gold.ac.uk> <7CE12A31-A7B2-4BA9-A1C0-25FD6E6A7F03@gmail.com> <534D1CB0.4030301@cafonso.ca> <534D2C08.7050207@itforchange.net> <534D382C.5030502@wzb.eu> <534D45CA.1070200@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Apr 15, 2014, at 11:44 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Tuesday 15 April 2014 07:49 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> SNIP >> >> I hope it represents progress. How we moved on since Tunis -- just look at the statements about Human Rights. What chance of those being considered a few years ago. And much more. > > Dont know what you are talking about. You sure have read WSIS docs, right? > > Thanks Parminder. The documents are open for comment. Adam >> >> Everything could be better, but I am quite satisfied we are making progress. > > There is no progress... It is going backwards, and steeply... BTW, do you think democracy is a human right, or it isnt... What is your comment on this human right not only being absent in the initial text but also not being included when a few HLC members asked for it. Will really like to know > > parminder >> >> Please comment on the documents. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >>> jeanette >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG Tue Apr 15 13:25:35 2014 From: mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG (Mike Godwin (mgodwin@INTERNEWS.ORG)) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:25:35 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] A disaggregated internet governance taxonomy References: [bestbits] A disaggregated internet governance taxonomy Message-ID: <1DEB7534D981B444BF234789326B22A8AF08BDFC67@MBX.INTERNEWS.LOCAL> Parminder writes: "And then the conclusion on how public policies should be decided is what? Because in default, public polices are not decided, and that is itself a political stance, befitting some and not others. " Exactly. --Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Tue Apr 15 13:26:19 2014 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 19:26:19 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: NETmundial / European Commission to facilitate a conference call for information sharing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > [ *Apologies if you receive this message multiple times. Please share > with your contacts.* ] > > > > In view of the forthcoming Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future > of Internet Governance (NETMundial, http://www.netmundial.br/) which will > take place in Sao Paulo, Brazil, on 23-24 April 2014, the European > Commission is organising an open conference call, with the purpose of > sharing information among stakeholders. > Please note that a summary of the"information sharing" conference call on NETmundial, which the European Commission hosted and chaired on 8.4.2014, is now available at http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/netmundial-european-commission-facilitate-conference-call-information-sharing-0(scroll down to "Related Documents" and click on "Agenda and Minutes"). All the best, -- Andrea Glorioso (Mr) European Commission - DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology Unit D1 (International relations) + Task Force on Internet Policy Development Avenue de Beaulieu 25 (4/64) / B-1049 / Brussels / Belgium T: +32-2-29-97682 M: +32-460-797-682 E: Andrea.Glorioso at ec.europa.eu Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro The views expressed above are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission. Les opinions exprimées ci-dessus n'engagent que leur auteur et ne sauraient en aucun cas être assimilées à une position officielle de la Commission européenne. Be transparent - Sign up to the European Commission's Register of Interest Representatives http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regrin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG Tue Apr 15 13:31:54 2014 From: mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG (Mike Godwin (mgodwin@INTERNEWS.ORG)) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:31:54 -0400 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] free flow of information @ Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: References: <28D7250BBB2E4798BC6C1B7A93337D53@Toshiba> <534CDE5B.2010906@wzb.eu> <534CE344.2050200@apc.org> <534CFFD8.1090100@gold.ac.uk> <7CE12A31-A7B2-4BA9-A1C0-25FD6E6A7F03@gmail.com> <534D1CB0.4030301@cafonso.ca> <534D2C08.7050207@itforchange.net> <534D382C.5030502@wzb.eu> <534D5917.3080304@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <594EF7EC-A99B-4FB2-BE37-D1170BF1A813@INTERNEWS.ORG> Fwiw, I think free flow of information falls squarely under Article 19. Sent from my iPhone On Apr 15, 2014, at 12:15 PM, "Matthias C. Kettemann" > wrote: I'm not sure I agree. I think the case can be made that "free flow of information" is an implied condition for everyone to seek, receive, impart information (Article 19 UDHR). This argument is strengthened by the the language of Art. 19 (2) ICCPR ..... freedom "to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". That sounds very much like being premised upon the free flow of information. A UN resolution doesn't instantly change the character of a right. The UDHR is by and large customary law, the ICCPR signed by practically all states. Further, the free flow of information is an essential precondition to exercisizing FoE online - the 2011 and 2012 Special Rapporteur reports by Frank La Rue are helpful in explaining this. So: custom and treaty (and some recent explaining by the Special Rapporteur): You won't get much stronger commitments in international law. Kind regards Matthias On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jeanette Hofmann > wrote: Hi Anne, I have argued for integrating Human Rights language into the draft document. "Free flow of information" is not part of any UN resolution and thus not the same as the right to freedom of opinion and expression. Free flow of information neither implies enforceable rights nor does is it imply any obligations of governments. Language is very important when it comes to human rights. jeanette Am 15.04.2014 16:33, schrieb Anne Jellema: Jeanette, thanks - the example serves your purpose of illustrating the complexity of positioning in the textual negotiations. On a side note, though, I'm surprised to hear you say that you have opposed free flow of information on grounds that it is not a human right. Article 19 of the UDHR states that: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and */to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers/*. Best Anne On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Jeanette Hofmann >> wrote: Hi, Am 15.04.2014 14:54, schrieb parminder: Not only net neutrality has been removed, 'free flow of information' which figured twice in the earlier (leaked) draft has been removed from both places.. in my capacity as a HLMC member I have spoken up against free flow of information in the human rights section because free flow of information is not a human right. Ironically, someone from the business sector objected to removing this term from the human rights section. I am reporting this to illustrate that the negotiation of the text hasn't always followed the distribution of power and interest that some on this list may assume. The draft document represents victories and defeats on all sides. jeanette ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Anne Jellema CEO +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) +1 202 684 6885 (US) @afjellema * * *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation* ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Dr. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard) Post-Doc Fellow | Cluster of Excellence „Normative Orders”, University of Frankfurt/Main Lecturer | Institute of International Law and International Relations, University of Graz Research Affiliate | European Training and Research Centre for Human Rights and Democracy, University of Graz Exzellenzcluster "Normative Ordnungen", Goethe-Universität Frankfurt/Main EXC-8, Grüneburgplatz 1 60323 Frankfurt/Main, Deutschland E | matthias.kettemann at gmail.com T | 0049 176 817 50 920 (mobile, Germany) T | 0043 676 7017175 (mobile, Austria) T | 0049 69 798 31508 (office) Blog | SSRN | Google Scholar | my new book | Amazon Authors' Page Twitter | Facebook | Google+ Recent publications: Freedom of Expression and the Internet (2014, co-author) Bestand und Wandel im Völkerrecht [Continuity and Change in Int'l Law] (2014, co-editor) Netzpolitik in Österreich [Net Politics in Austria] (2013, co-editor) Grenzen im Völkerrecht [Limits of International Law] (2013, editor) The Future of Individuals in International Law (2013) European Yearbook on Human Rights 2013 (2013, co-editor) Click here to report this email as spam. _______________________________________________ IRP mailing list IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Apr 15 14:11:55 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 14:11:55 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: NETmundial / European Commission to facilitate a conference call for information sharing In-Reply-To: <0E54E4EA78DD6A40BC64BF9D08960059329DB499@S-DC-ESTJ04-B.net1.cec.eu.int> References: <0E54E4EA78DD6A40BC64BF9D08960059329DB499@S-DC-ESTJ04-B.net1.cec.eu.int> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Date: Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 1:24 PM Subject: RE: NETmundial / European Commission to facilitate a conference call for information sharing To: Andrea.GLORIOSO at ec.europa.eu Cc: Silvia.VICECONTE at ec.europa.eu, Cristina.MONTI at ec.europa.eu Dear all: _____________________________________________ *From:* GLORIOSO Andrea (CNECT) *Sent:* Tuesday, March 25, 2014 2:56 PM *Subject:* NETmundial / European Commission to facilitate a conference call for information sharing [ *Apologies if you receive this message multiple times. Please share with your contacts.* ] In view of the forthcoming Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (NETMundial, *http://www.netmundial.br/*) which will take place in Sao Paulo, Brazil, on 23-24 April 2014, the European Commission is organising an open conference call, with the purpose of sharing information among stakeholders. The online meeting will be facilitated by the European Commission, but we do expect stakeholders to actively contribute to the conversation. We kindly ask those who plan to attend the conference call and would like to share their views with other participants, possibly on the basis of their / their organisation's contribution to NETmundial, to *let us know in advance*so that we can allocate a fair number of slots for interventions. Please note that a summary of the "information sharing" conference call on NETmundial, which the European Commission hosted and chaired on 8.4.2014, is now available at *http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/netmundial-european-commission-facilitate-conference-call-information-sharing-0*(scroll down to "Related Documents" and click on "Agenda and Minutes"). All the best, -- Andrea Glorioso (Mr) European Commission - DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology Unit D1 (International relations) + Task Force on Internet Policy Development Avenue de Beaulieu 25 (4/64) / B-1049 / Brussels / Belgium T: +32-2-29-97682 M: +32-460-797-682 E: Andrea.Glorioso at ec.europa.eu Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: *https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso* LinkedIn: *http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro* The views expressed above are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission. Les opinions exprimées ci-dessus n'engagent que leur auteur et ne sauraient en aucun cas être assimilées à une position officielle de la Commission européenne. Be transparent - Sign up to the European Commission's Register of Interest Representatives *http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regrin* -- *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: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Tue Apr 15 14:34:22 2014 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 00:04:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: References: <00c701cf58aa$e83c3c20$b8b4b460$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Congrats, Nnenna! This is very good news indeed. Many good proposals have been made already. Following up on Anriette's comments on multistakeholderism and trust, I would in particularly like to support recommendations to not just mention the struggle of engaging with multiple stakeholders etc, but also the urgent need for checks and balances, including transparency and accountability, and appropriate action where these standards are violated. It might be worthwhile to add that if such efforts are not stepped up, support from multistakeholderism will erode quickly as trust in the system will simply have disappeared. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input and make proposals - much appreciated. Anja On 15 April 2014 19:51, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal < jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote: > Congrats Nnenna! > > May I add to Mike excellent comments, one point? > > Nnenna, I am not sure if you will be there *intuitu personae, persona > grata *or representing some, part, or all of Civil society entities (?!), > but just in case you represent some of our thoughts and opinions, I think > it would be nice to mention that among civil society there are people who > disagree with the *equal stakeholder - equal rights - equal footing* thinking and narrative. Stakeholder voices might all be equal, meaning > equally audible, but that amusing "equal footing" expression doesn't mean > that these respectable voices are legitimate or representative of anything, > anyone, and properly checked and balanced. So equal voices with different > rights, that might be interesting to explore. But equal footing meaning > equal rights among stakeholders, that jungle is right the opposite of > Democracy, where corporations are still not invited to make the law, and > participate and seat in parliaments on an equal footing. The *market*seating in the Congress, I wish never to see that in my life. It sounds > like some kind of very un-democratic thing. I do remember that some > comments on these lists where made about civil servants (and their so > called legendary inability to work without other people holding the pencil > for them, which I tend to think as very untrue), and I know that > governmental bashing is just the legitimate cousin of democratic bashing, > but please voice equally and multistakeholderly that there are a diversity > of views. We know that NetMundial will not be able to provide dialogue, but > more some sort of convergence (+1...) out of magic wonder, still it would > to see some principles are respected when it comes to express the diversity > of views. > > Sorry for the ironic tone in that last sentence. > > JC > > Le 15 avr. 2014 à 15:02, michael gurstein a écrit :ung > > Congrats Nnenna, > > Since you are asking for suggestions for points to cover I would suggest > the following: > 1. A formal commitment/re-commitment to the Internet for the Common > Good/in the Public Interest... I only see minor and off-handed references to > this in the NetMundial statement but there needs to be a full-on > commitment/re-commitment to this. This is especially the case given the > risks of fragmentation/privatization of interests a "stakeholder" approach > to Internet governance presents. > 2. Framing/reframing "multistakeholderism" as a useful element in > policy consultation and development, with suitable measures being in place > to ensure the probity and accountability of these processes, within the > context of democratic decision making. I like the phrase "multistakeholder > dialogue in a democratic framework". > 3. Linking Internet Governance with social (and economic) justice. > The Internet is becoming a dominant means for economic activity and wealth > distribution/redistribution. Internet Governance, which in the NetMundial > document is extended to include the "Right to Development" needs also to > address social justice issues which are rapidly becoming the dominant > issues of our time. > 4. Finding the means to allow the widest range of voices into the > Internet Governance dialogue. What this means is going beyond simple > "capacity building" which ultimately can only enable the few, into > designing processes and mechanisms which allow for the many to have a > useful understanding of the broader issues and mechanisms to give voice and > have those voices heard. > Good luck with it. > > Mike > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: > bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Nnenna Nwakanma > *Sent:* Monday, April 14, 2014 11:36 PM > *To:* Governance; bestbits at lists.bestbits.netso > *Subject:* [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society > major issues > > > Dear all, > > I got a message this morning from NetMundial Chair, Virgilo, inviting me > to speak at the Opening Ceremony of Netmundial (meaning I have to pack one > of those African dresses) for some 8 minutes. > > I have replied to say "I will be speaking from the Civil Society > perspective, which is my Stakeholder Group". > > There is a Web Foundation media team that will help me put my ideas into > place, but I cannot not request input from here, so that no major issues > will be overlooked. > > I travel Thursday evening thru Friday, so the earliest I can share a > draft/keypoints will be Monday. > > Hope we can pull this off well. > All for now > > Nnenna > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeanette at wzb.eu Tue Apr 15 14:55:53 2014 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 20:55:53 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] free flow of information @ Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: References: <28D7250BBB2E4798BC6C1B7A93337D53@Toshiba> <534CDE5B.2010906@wzb.eu> <534CE344.2050200@apc.org> <534CFFD8.1090100@gold.ac.uk> <7CE12A31-A7B2-4BA9-A1C0-25FD6E6A7F03@gmail.com> <534D1CB0.4030301@cafonso.ca> <534D2C08.7050207@itforchange.net> <534D382C.5030502@wzb.eu> <534D5917.3080304@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <534D80B9.3030500@wzb.eu> Hi all, yes, Matthias this case can be made. The problem with this terminology is that all sorts of other cases also can be made, for example that privacy regulation obstruct the free flow of information. For those interested in this topic I would recommend a brief by Alberto Cerda and Carolina Rossini for Consumers International on Information Flow and Trade agreements. Here is short quote from the study: "The expression “free flow of information” is a complex topic that encompasses a great variety of issues, political views and policies, and has been part of international rhetoric for many decades, varying from the protection of cultural diversity in the 1960s to trade, cross-data flow and privacy starting in the 1980s and 1990s to access to knowledge, freedom of expression, and scientific data sharing more recently. These issues intertwine across surveillance, human rights, e-commerce and the expansion of ICT based services, international trade, and more. The complexity of these issues almost guarantees a natural clash of views depending on which actor or institution uses the phrase “free flow of information”. Those entities pushing for commerce see free flow as a way to monetize the networks of networks we refer to as the Internet, while those pushing for human rights see it as an avenue to enrich global civil society. (...) International trade policy has ironically taken advantage of the spaces created by the clash of freedoms to create enclosure, prioritizing the causes of business built on the free flow of information, while pushing for privacy frameworks that are only “liberal” in the sense of rights waived by individuals rather than in the sense of creating positive individual rights to digital privacy." http://a2knetwork.org/sites/default/files/tpp_and_free_flow.pdf In short, my point is that "free flow of information" isn't as innocent and unambiguously positive (anymore) as it sounds. Certain interest groups use this language in trade regulation to challenge data protection. This is why I argued against this wording in the human right section of the draft document. Jeanette Am 15.04.2014 18:15, schrieb Matthias C. Kettemann: > I'm not sure I agree. I think the case can be made that "free flow of > information" is an implied condition for everyone to seek, receive, > impart information (Article 19 UDHR). This argument is strengthened by > the the language of Art. 19 (2) ICCPR ..... freedom "to seek, receive > and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, > either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through > any other media of his choice". That sounds very much like being > premised upon the free flow of information. A UN resolution doesn't > instantly change the character of a right. The UDHR is by and large > customary law, the ICCPR signed by practically all states. Further, the > free flow of information is an essential precondition to exercisizing > FoE online - the 2011 and 2012 Special Rapporteur reports by Frank La > Rue are helpful in explaining this. So: custom and treaty (and some > recent explaining by the Special Rapporteur): You won't get much > stronger commitments in international law. > > Kind regards > Matthias > > > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jeanette Hofmann > wrote: > > Hi Anne, > > I have argued for integrating Human Rights language into the draft > document. "Free flow of information" is not part of any UN > resolution and thus not the same as the right to freedom of opinion > and expression. Free flow of information neither implies enforceable > rights nor does is it imply any obligations of governments. Language > is very important when it comes to human rights. > > jeanette > > Am 15.04.2014 16:33, schrieb Anne Jellema: > > Jeanette, thanks - the example serves your purpose of > illustrating the > complexity of positioning in the textual negotiations. On a > side note, > though, I'm surprised to hear you say that you have opposed free > flow of > information on grounds that it is not a human right. Article 19 > of the > UDHR states that: > > Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; > this right > includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and */to > seek, > > receive and impart information and ideas through any media and > regardless of frontiers/*. > > > Best > > Anne > > > > > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Jeanette Hofmann > > >> wrote: > > Hi, > > > Am 15.04.2014 14:54, schrieb parminder: > > Not only net neutrality has been removed, > > 'free flow of information' which figured twice in the earlier > (leaked) draft has been removed from both places.. > > in my capacity as a HLMC member I have spoken up against > free flow > of information in the human rights section because free flow of > information is not a human right. Ironically, someone from the > business sector objected to removing this term from the > human rights > section. > > I am reporting this to illustrate that the negotiation of > the text > hasn't always followed the distribution of power and > interest that > some on this list may assume. The draft document represents > victories and defeats on all sides. > > jeanette > > ______________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > >. > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/__info/bestbits > > > > > > -- > Anne Jellema > CEO > +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) > +1 202 684 6885 (US) > @afjellema > * > * > *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, > Washington > DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org > | > Twitter: @webfoundation* > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > > Dr. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard) > Post-Doc Fellow | Cluster of Excellence „ > Normative > Orders > ” > , > University of Frankfurt/Main > Lecturer | Institute of International Law and International Relations, > University of Graz > Research Affiliate | European Training and Research Centre for Human > Rights and Democracy, University of Graz > > > Exzellenzcluster "Normative Ordnungen", Goethe-Universität Frankfurt/Main > EXC-8, Grüneburgplatz 1 > 60323 Frankfurt/Main, Deutschland > > E | matthias.kettemann at gmail.com > T | 0049 176 817 50 920 (mobile, Germany) > T | 0043 676 7017175 (mobile, Austria) > T | 0049 69 798 31508 (office) > Blog | SSRN > | Google Scholar > | my new book > | > Amazon Authors' Page > Twitter | Facebook > | Google+ > > > Recent publications: > Freedom of Expression and the Internet (2014, co-author) > > Bestand und Wandel im Völkerrecht [Continuity and Change in Int'l Law] > (2014, co-editor) > > Netzpolitik in Österreich [Net Politics in Austria] (2013, co-editor) > > Grenzen im Völkerrecht [Limits of International Law] (2013, editor) > > The Future of Individuals in International Law (2013) > > European Yearbook on Human Rights 2013 (2013, co-editor) > > From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Tue Apr 15 15:12:54 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 21:12:54 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Government and innovation Message-ID: <2FB96B57-B445-4226-BE50-1E28C59B2672@theglobaljournal.net> I think this is of interest, thanks to the New York Review of Books, specially for the usual government bashing multitude. Innovation and the Government Jeff Madrick A new book makes a forceful case for the value and competence of government itself, and for its ability to do what the private sector simply cannot. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/apr/24/innovation-government-was-crucial-after-all/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=April+15+2014&utm_content=April+15+2014+CID_8a397ba65c247c05c90bf915a78ff13b&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=Innovation%20and%20the%20Government __________________________ Jean-Christophe Nothias Editor in Chief jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net @jc_nothias Follow us on Twitter and Like us on Facebook Follow my Op-Eds at the Huffington Post US www.theglobaljournal.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Global_logo-175x50px.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 14790 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ekenyanito at gmail.com Tue Apr 15 15:17:22 2014 From: ekenyanito at gmail.com (Ephraim Percy Kenyanito) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 22:17:22 +0300 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: References: <00c701cf58aa$e83c3c20$b8b4b460$@gmail.com> Message-ID: +1 on Anja's conments. Best, Ephraim Percy Kenyanito On Apr 15, 2014 9:34 PM, "Anja Kovacs" wrote: > Congrats, Nnenna! This is very good news indeed. > > Many good proposals have been made already. Following up on Anriette's > comments on multistakeholderism and trust, I would in particularly like to > support recommendations to not just mention the struggle of engaging with > multiple stakeholders etc, but also the urgent need for checks and > balances, including transparency and accountability, and appropriate action > where these standards are violated. It might be worthwhile to add that if > such efforts are not stepped up, support from multistakeholderism will > erode quickly as trust in the system will simply have disappeared. > > Thank you for the opportunity to provide input and make proposals - much > appreciated. > > Anja > > > > > On 15 April 2014 19:51, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal < > jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote: > >> Congrats Nnenna! >> >> May I add to Mike excellent comments, one point? >> >> Nnenna, I am not sure if you will be there *intuitu personae, persona >> grata *or representing some, part, or all of Civil society entities >> (?!), but just in case you represent some of our thoughts and opinions, I >> think it would be nice to mention that among civil society there are people >> who disagree with the *equal stakeholder - equal rights - equal footing* thinking and narrative. Stakeholder voices might all be equal, meaning >> equally audible, but that amusing "equal footing" expression doesn't mean >> that these respectable voices are legitimate or representative of anything, >> anyone, and properly checked and balanced. So equal voices with different >> rights, that might be interesting to explore. But equal footing meaning >> equal rights among stakeholders, that jungle is right the opposite of >> Democracy, where corporations are still not invited to make the law, and >> participate and seat in parliaments on an equal footing. The *market*seating in the Congress, I wish never to see that in my life. It sounds >> like some kind of very un-democratic thing. I do remember that some >> comments on these lists where made about civil servants (and their so >> called legendary inability to work without other people holding the pencil >> for them, which I tend to think as very untrue), and I know that >> governmental bashing is just the legitimate cousin of democratic bashing, >> but please voice equally and multistakeholderly that there are a diversity >> of views. We know that NetMundial will not be able to provide dialogue, but >> more some sort of convergence (+1...) out of magic wonder, still it would >> to see some principles are respected when it comes to express the diversity >> of views. >> >> Sorry for the ironic tone in that last sentence. >> >> JC >> >> Le 15 avr. 2014 à 15:02, michael gurstein a écrit :ung >> >> Congrats Nnenna, >> >> Since you are asking for suggestions for points to cover I would suggest >> the following: >> 1. A formal commitment/re-commitment to the Internet for the >> Common Good/in the Public Interest… I only see minor and off-handed >> references to this in the NetMundial statement but there needs to be a >> full-on commitment/re-commitment to this. This is especially the case >> given the risks of fragmentation/privatization of interests a “stakeholder” >> approach to Internet governance presents. >> 2. Framing/reframing “multistakeholderism” as a useful element in >> policy consultation and development, with suitable measures being in place >> to ensure the probity and accountability of these processes, within the >> context of democratic decision making. I like the phrase “multistakeholder >> dialogue in a democratic framework”. >> 3. Linking Internet Governance with social (and economic) >> justice. The Internet is becoming a dominant means for economic activity >> and wealth distribution/redistribution. Internet Governance, which in the >> NetMundial document is extended to include the “Right to Development” needs >> also to address social justice issues which are rapidly becoming the >> dominant issues of our time. >> 4. Finding the means to allow the widest range of voices into the >> Internet Governance dialogue. What this means is going beyond simple >> “capacity building” which ultimately can only enable the few, into >> designing processes and mechanisms which allow for the many to have a >> useful understanding of the broader issues and mechanisms to give voice and >> have those voices heard. >> Good luck with it. >> >> Mike >> >> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: >> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Nnenna Nwakanma >> *Sent:* Monday, April 14, 2014 11:36 PM >> *To:* Governance; bestbits at lists.bestbits.netso >> *Subject:* [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society >> major issues >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> I got a message this morning from NetMundial Chair, Virgilo, inviting me >> to speak at the Opening Ceremony of Netmundial (meaning I have to pack one >> of those African dresses) for some 8 minutes. >> >> I have replied to say "I will be speaking from the Civil Society >> perspective, which is my Stakeholder Group". >> >> There is a Web Foundation media team that will help me put my ideas into >> place, but I cannot not request input from here, so that no major issues >> will be overlooked. >> >> I travel Thursday evening thru Friday, so the earliest I can share a >> draft/keypoints will be Monday. >> >> Hope we can pull this off well. >> All for now >> >> Nnenna >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pouzin at well.com Tue Apr 15 16:21:28 2014 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 22:21:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: References: <00c701cf58aa$e83c3c20$b8b4b460$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Bravo Nnenna, an honour for you, Africa, and the CS. some bits - linguistic diversity - translation in workshop sessions - funding for LDC delegates in international events - protection of traditional knowledge - affordable medicine - free educational material . Louis -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Apr 15 16:25:23 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 06:25:23 +1000 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: References: <00c701cf58aa$e83c3c20$b8b4b460$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6DAA9AE69F1945B1848B429849D23801@Toshiba> and thank Edward Snowden for bringing us all together From: Louis Pouzin (well) Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 6:21 AM To: Nnenna Nwakanma Cc: Best Bits ; mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues Bravo Nnenna, an honour for you, Africa, and the CS. some bits - linguistic diversity - translation in workshop sessions - funding for LDC delegates in international events - protection of traditional knowledge - affordable medicine - free educational material . Louis -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Wed Apr 16 01:45:05 2014 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 02:45:05 -0300 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: <6DAA9AE69F1945B1848B429849D23801@Toshiba> References: <00c701cf58aa$e83c3c20$b8b4b460$@gmail.com> <6DAA9AE69F1945B1848B429849D23801@Toshiba> Message-ID: Ian has just read my mind: Nnenna, please, thank Mr Snowden, for slightly changing the geopolitics! Also, it seams you will be sharing the stage with our president Dilma! +1 to anriette's and Anja's points + my potpourri from the topics that kept coming in this thread with some additions: - Surveillance and the right to privacy - digital divide is still an issue - net neutrality shall be reinforced - IANA transition shall not overcome the debate, but transparency and inclusiveness in this process, beyond ICANN community shall be enforced - multistakeholderism is not enough, we need a bottom up democratic participation, which enables balance to the lack of power and influence within stakeholder groups. But also checks and balances, transparency, accountability and eventually sanctions - we need to increase meaningful participation from people in developing parts of the world (I guess at the end we are all very privileged to be able to engage and understand this debate, as well as responsible for the outcome) - need for capacity building and there was a lot of reference to trust trust trust.. So, I guess, the web we want, is the web we trust. ;) On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > and thank Edward Snowden for bringing us all together > > *From:* Louis Pouzin (well) > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 16, 2014 6:21 AM > *To:* Nnenna Nwakanma > *Cc:* Best Bits ; > mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at > Netmundial - Civil Society major issues > > Bravo Nnenna, an honour for you, Africa, and the CS. > > some bits > - linguistic diversity > - translation in workshop sessions > - funding for LDC delegates in international events > - protection of traditional knowledge > - affordable medicine > - free educational material > . > Louis > > ------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joana at varonferraz.com Wed Apr 16 01:48:19 2014 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 02:48:19 -0300 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: References: <00c701cf58aa$e83c3c20$b8b4b460$@gmail.com> <6DAA9AE69F1945B1848B429849D23801@Toshiba> Message-ID: would also mention the need to come up with some sort of coordination mechanism for addressing the gaps on IG policies... rock it! On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 2:45 AM, Joana Varon wrote: > Ian has just read my mind: Nnenna, please, thank Mr Snowden, for slightly > changing the geopolitics! > > Also, it seams you will be sharing the stage with our president Dilma! > +1 to anriette's and Anja's points + my potpourri from the topics that > kept coming in this thread with some additions: > > - Surveillance and the right to privacy > > - digital divide is still an issue > > - net neutrality shall be reinforced > > - IANA transition shall not overcome the debate, but transparency and > inclusiveness in this process, beyond ICANN community shall be enforced > > - multistakeholderism is not enough, we need a bottom up democratic > participation, which enables balance to the lack of power and influence > within stakeholder groups. But also checks and balances, transparency, > accountability and eventually sanctions > > - we need to increase meaningful participation from people in developing > parts of the world (I guess at the end we are all very privileged to be > able to engage and understand this debate, as well as responsible for the > outcome) > > - need for capacity building > > and there was a lot of reference to trust trust trust.. So, I guess, the > web we want, is the web we trust. > > ;) > > > > > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> and thank Edward Snowden for bringing us all together >> >> *From:* Louis Pouzin (well) >> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 16, 2014 6:21 AM >> *To:* Nnenna Nwakanma >> *Cc:* Best Bits ; >> mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at >> Netmundial - Civil Society major issues >> >> Bravo Nnenna, an honour for you, Africa, and the CS. >> >> some bits >> - linguistic diversity >> - translation in workshop sessions >> - funding for LDC delegates in international events >> - protection of traditional knowledge >> - affordable medicine >> - free educational material >> . >> Louis >> >> ------------------------------ >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Apr 16 03:17:31 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 16:17:31 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: <534D3226.3030703@itforchange.net> References: <28D7250BBB2E4798BC6C1B7A93337D53@Toshiba> <534CDE5B.2010906@wzb.eu> <534CE344.2050200@apc.org> <534CFFD8.1090100@gold.ac.uk> <7CE12A31-A7B2-4BA9-A1C0-25FD6E6A7F03@gmail.com> <534D1CB0.4030301@cafonso.ca> <534D2C08.7050207@itforchange.net> <534D3226.3030703@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <69FF6247-8681-4343-A922-5ED3458CD40E@glocom.ac.jp> On Apr 15, 2014, at 10:20 PM, parminder wrote: > > SNIP > And it is not just these two governments. President Rousseff in her famed UN speech has directly linked the privacy issue to democracy... To quote > > "In the absence of the right to privacy, there can be no true freedom of expression and opinion, and therefore no effective democracy. " > looks to me you have picked up something very important in that quote. How about making a comment on paragraph 2, or perhaps add a preamble to paragraph 14 of principles, or paragraph 4 of roadmap? Thanks, Adam (in my individual capacity) > But strangely, Brazilians seem to have handed over this meeting to the staus quoists... and democracy is simply not a favoured word with them.. > > Welcome to the brave new post-democratic world... the NetMundial doc as it stands is positioned to become a key milestone, even a trail blazer, towards a post-democratic global governance, from where it will trickle down to national levels. The neoliberal ideology is making really big strides and rapid gains.... > > parminder > > > >> >> BTW, India in its comments on the document (as per the leaked documents) seem to have also asked for a recognition of the Internet as a global commons... but of course no... what are you talking about! >> >> What are you asking the people of the world to do with this document... To endorse it and celebrate it just becuase in about 500 places it says multi-stakeholder.... >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Tuesday 15 April 2014 05:19 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>> Carol, it was not "taken out" of the document. It is there, in detail, >>> please re-read. >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> On 04/15/2014 08:10 AM, Carolina wrote: >>> >>>> Pls, mention net neutrality which was taken out of the document put out >>>> for comments yesterday. More later. Should we consolidate all in a pad >>>> to help Nnenna? >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> On Apr 15, 2014, at 5:46 AM, Marianne Franklin < >>>> m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk >>>> >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Dear all >>>>> >>>>> +1 from me re. Nnenna's role, and +1 from me re. Anriette's points below. >>>>> >>>>> best >>>>> MF >>>>> >>>>> On 15/04/2014 19:44, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Congrats Nnenna! >>>>>> >>>>>> Put on one of your fabulous outfits, and then remind them, that >>>>>> working inclusively and respectfully with all stakeholder groups, >>>>>> particularly those that lack power and influence - i.e. civil society >>>>>> - is very different from putting on a colourful West African outfit >>>>>> :) It takes hard work, change in behaviour, change in structures and >>>>>> procedures, consultation, respect, trust, debate, and struggle, >>>>>> because do not always agree. It also requires a common framework of >>>>>> principles that defines what the public interest is in internet >>>>>> governance that can be used to promote and protect this public >>>>>> interest across the internet governance ecosystem and it is this >>>>>> framework that we trust the NetMundial can get us closer to. >>>>>> >>>>>> You could also mention surveillance, with particularly - but not only >>>>>> - mass surveillance demonstrating how easy it is to destroy trust, >>>>>> and to deny accountability. And, is there any tougher test for >>>>>> multi-stakeholder internet governance? I think it would be good to >>>>>> get the message accross that the IANA transition is not the only >>>>>> issue that NetMundial should be discussing, but at the same time, it >>>>>> is a key opportunity to come up with solutions and approaches that >>>>>> are not simply cosmetic. >>>>>> >>>>>> Anriette >>>>>> >>>>>> On 15/04/2014 09:23, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> + 1 >>>>>>> jeanette >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Am 15.04.14 08:38, schrieb Ian Peter: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Congratulations Nnenna – great choice! >>>>>>>> *From:* Nnenna Nwakanma >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 15, 2014 4:35 PM >>>>>>>> *To:* Governance >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ; >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Subject:* [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society >>>>>>>> major issues >>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I got a message this morning from NetMundial Chair, Virgilo, >>>>>>>> inviting me >>>>>>>> to speak at the Opening Ceremony of Netmundial (meaning I have to pack >>>>>>>> one of those African dresses) for some 8 minutes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have replied to say "I will be speaking from the Civil Society >>>>>>>> perspective, which is my Stakeholder Group". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is a Web Foundation media team that will help me put my ideas >>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>> place, but I cannot not request input from here, so that no major >>>>>>>> issues >>>>>>>> will be overlooked. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I travel Thursday evening thru Friday, so the earliest I can share a >>>>>>>> draft/keypoints will be Monday. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hope we can pull this off well. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All for now >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nnenna >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>> -- >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> 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 Marianne Franklin >>>>> Professor of Global Media and Politics >>>>> Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program >>>>> Goldsmiths (University of London) >>>>> Department of Media & Communications >>>>> New Cross, London SE14 6NW >>>>> Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> @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/ >>>>> >>>>> Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) >>>>> >>>>> www.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>>>> >>>>> @netrights >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>> . >>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>> >>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From anne at webfoundation.org Wed Apr 16 03:56:50 2014 From: anne at webfoundation.org (Anne Jellema) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 09:56:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: References: <00c701cf58aa$e83c3c20$b8b4b460$@gmail.com> <6DAA9AE69F1945B1848B429849D23801@Toshiba> Message-ID: Hi all Resource issues have been mentioned several times in proposals for Nnenna's speech: - Access issues, closing the digital divide(s) - Resources needed for civil society to play its part in IG processes on a more equal footing with other 'stakeholders' - Resources needed for the IGF to function well I strongly agree that these issues need to be raised. I think we will be most effective if we also put forward proposals for acting on them. I wonder if we want to suggest that a portion of domain name revenue should be set aside in a public benefit fund to help close the above resource gaps. Clearly the design and governance of such a fund would be incredibly hard to get right. But at this stage, it's a matter of pushing for a broad principle: i.e. that a part of the hundreds of millions raised every year in domain name fees (ICANN alone will earn $200m in 2014, according to their 2014 budget statement) should be reinvested in public benefit efforts that would contribute to achieving the admirable rights and principles listed in the outcome document. Additionally, in tackling the first point (access/digital divide), is there broad consensus among us that the internet should be considered a common good and/or a public utility? Best Anne On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 7:45 AM, Joana Varon wrote: > Ian has just read my mind: Nnenna, please, thank Mr Snowden, for slightly > changing the geopolitics! > > Also, it seams you will be sharing the stage with our president Dilma! > +1 to anriette's and Anja's points + my potpourri from the topics that > kept coming in this thread with some additions: > > - Surveillance and the right to privacy > > - digital divide is still an issue > > - net neutrality shall be reinforced > > - IANA transition shall not overcome the debate, but transparency and > inclusiveness in this process, beyond ICANN community shall be enforced > > - multistakeholderism is not enough, we need a bottom up democratic > participation, which enables balance to the lack of power and influence > within stakeholder groups. But also checks and balances, transparency, > accountability and eventually sanctions > > - we need to increase meaningful participation from people in developing > parts of the world (I guess at the end we are all very privileged to be > able to engage and understand this debate, as well as responsible for the > outcome) > > - need for capacity building > > and there was a lot of reference to trust trust trust.. So, I guess, the > web we want, is the web we trust. > > ;) > > > > > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> and thank Edward Snowden for bringing us all together >> >> *From:* Louis Pouzin (well) >> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 16, 2014 6:21 AM >> *To:* Nnenna Nwakanma >> *Cc:* Best Bits ; >> mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at >> Netmundial - Civil Society major issues >> >> Bravo Nnenna, an honour for you, Africa, and the CS. >> >> some bits >> - linguistic diversity >> - translation in workshop sessions >> - funding for LDC delegates in international events >> - protection of traditional knowledge >> - affordable medicine >> - free educational material >> . >> Louis >> >> ------------------------------ >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Anne Jellema CEO +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) +1 202 684 6885 (US) @afjellema *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Apr 16 04:25:30 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 18:25:30 +1000 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: References: <00c701cf58aa$e83c3c20$b8b4b460$@gmail.com> <6DAA9AE69F1945B1848B429849D23801@Toshiba> Message-ID: <135BE807247043E291087169A6BF8F24@Toshiba> I like Anne’s suggestion. I definitely think that a percentage of ICANN revenue (aka taxes) should be set aside for such purposes. As regards common good/ public utility; I am very interested to see what others think. I am reminded of the Macbride description of mass media as “a tool for the development of humankind”, and also of the various arguments (Bob Franklin and others) that we should treat Internet as we do footpaths, roads, etc – available to all to use and not restricted on the grounds of affordability. As yet, I dont think the internet is a common good or a public utility. Perhaps it should be; an interesting question is what will need to happen before it is a common good or a public utility. Ian Peter From: Anne Jellema Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 5:56 PM To: Joana Varon Cc: Ian Peter ; Louis Pouzin (well) ; Nnenna Nwakanma ; Best Bits ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues Hi all Resource issues have been mentioned several times in proposals for Nnenna's speech: - Access issues, closing the digital divide(s) - Resources needed for civil society to play its part in IG processes on a more equal footing with other 'stakeholders' - Resources needed for the IGF to function well I strongly agree that these issues need to be raised. I think we will be most effective if we also put forward proposals for acting on them. I wonder if we want to suggest that a portion of domain name revenue should be set aside in a public benefit fund to help close the above resource gaps. Clearly the design and governance of such a fund would be incredibly hard to get right. But at this stage, it's a matter of pushing for a broad principle: i.e. that a part of the hundreds of millions raised every year in domain name fees (ICANN alone will earn $200m in 2014, according to their 2014 budget statement) should be reinvested in public benefit efforts that would contribute to achieving the admirable rights and principles listed in the outcome document. Additionally, in tackling the first point (access/digital divide), is there broad consensus among us that the internet should be considered a common good and/or a public utility? Best Anne On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 7:45 AM, Joana Varon wrote: Ian has just read my mind: Nnenna, please, thank Mr Snowden, for slightly changing the geopolitics! Also, it seams you will be sharing the stage with our president Dilma! +1 to anriette's and Anja's points + my potpourri from the topics that kept coming in this thread with some additions: - Surveillance and the right to privacy - digital divide is still an issue - net neutrality shall be reinforced - IANA transition shall not overcome the debate, but transparency and inclusiveness in this process, beyond ICANN community shall be enforced - multistakeholderism is not enough, we need a bottom up democratic participation, which enables balance to the lack of power and influence within stakeholder groups. But also checks and balances, transparency, accountability and eventually sanctions - we need to increase meaningful participation from people in developing parts of the world (I guess at the end we are all very privileged to be able to engage and understand this debate, as well as responsible for the outcome) - need for capacity building and there was a lot of reference to trust trust trust.. So, I guess, the web we want, is the web we trust. ;) On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Ian Peter wrote: and thank Edward Snowden for bringing us all together From: Louis Pouzin (well) Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 6:21 AM To: Nnenna Nwakanma Cc: Best Bits ; mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues Bravo Nnenna, an honour for you, Africa, and the CS. some bits - linguistic diversity - translation in workshop sessions - funding for LDC delegates in international events - protection of traditional knowledge - affordable medicine - free educational material . Louis ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Anne Jellema CEO +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) +1 202 684 6885 (US) @afjellema World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lorena at collaboratory.de Wed Apr 16 05:41:15 2014 From: lorena at collaboratory.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 11:41:15 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] free flow of information @ Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: <534D80B9.3030500@wzb.eu> References: <28D7250BBB2E4798BC6C1B7A93337D53@Toshiba> <534CDE5B.2010906@wzb.eu> <534CE344.2050200@apc.org> <534CFFD8.1090100@gold.ac.uk> <7CE12A31-A7B2-4BA9-A1C0-25FD6E6A7F03@gmail.com> <534D1CB0.4030301@cafonso.ca> <534D2C08.7050207@itforchange.net> <534D382C.5030502@wzb.eu> <534D5917.3080304@wzb.eu> <534D80B9.3030500@wzb.eu> Message-ID: 2014-04-15 20:55 GMT+02:00 Jeanette Hofmann : > Hi all, > > yes, Matthias this case can be made. The problem with this terminology is > that all sorts of other cases also can be made, for example that privacy > regulation obstruct the free flow of information. > > For those interested in this topic I would recommend a brief by Alberto > Cerda and Carolina Rossini for Consumers International on Information Flow > and Trade agreements. Here is short quote from the study: > > "The expression “free flow of information” is a complex topic that > encompasses a great variety of issues, > political views and policies, and has been part of international rhetoric > for many decades, varying from the > protection of cultural diversity in the 1960s to trade, cross-data flow > and privacy starting in the 1980s and > 1990s to access to knowledge, freedom of expression, and scientific data > sharing more recently. These > issues intertwine across surveillance, human rights, e-commerce and the > expansion of ICT based services, > international trade, and more. > The complexity of these issues almost guarantees a natural clash of views > depending on which actor or > institution uses the phrase “free flow of information”. Those entities > pushing for commerce see free flow as a > way to monetize the networks of networks we refer to as the Internet, > while those pushing for human rights > see it as an avenue to enrich global civil society. (...) International > trade policy has ironically taken advantage of the spaces created by the > clash of > freedoms to create enclosure, prioritizing the causes of business built on > the free flow of information, > while pushing for privacy frameworks that are only “liberal” in the sense > of rights waived by individuals > rather than in the sense of creating positive individual rights to digital > privacy." > > http://a2knetwork.org/sites/default/files/tpp_and_free_flow.pdf > > In short, my point is that "free flow of information" isn't as innocent > and unambiguously positive (anymore) as it sounds. Certain interest groups > use this language in trade regulation to challenge data protection. This is > why I argued against this wording in the human right section of the draft > document. > This cuts both ways. Free flow of information may restrain privacy (which in some cases may be because of good reasons- like in cases of public interest (people of public interest like politicians, for instance)) and privacy may also restrain free flow of information. There needs to be a balance between both rights, not a hierarchy. No human right is among the others (with the exception of human dignity). So imho strengthenning one right among others may lead to an imbalance with very bad outcomes. Kind regards, Lorena > Jeanette > > Am 15.04.2014 18:15, schrieb Matthias C. Kettemann: > >> I'm not sure I agree. I think the case can be made that "free flow of >> information" is an implied condition for everyone to seek, receive, >> impart information (Article 19 UDHR). This argument is strengthened by >> the the language of Art. 19 (2) ICCPR ..... freedom "to seek, receive >> and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, >> either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through >> any other media of his choice". That sounds very much like being >> premised upon the free flow of information. A UN resolution doesn't >> instantly change the character of a right. The UDHR is by and large >> customary law, the ICCPR signed by practically all states. Further, the >> free flow of information is an essential precondition to exercisizing >> FoE online - the 2011 and 2012 Special Rapporteur reports by Frank La >> Rue are helpful in explaining this. So: custom and treaty (and some >> recent explaining by the Special Rapporteur): You won't get much >> stronger commitments in international law. >> >> Kind regards >> Matthias >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jeanette Hofmann > > wrote: >> >> Hi Anne, >> >> I have argued for integrating Human Rights language into the draft >> document. "Free flow of information" is not part of any UN >> resolution and thus not the same as the right to freedom of opinion >> and expression. Free flow of information neither implies enforceable >> rights nor does is it imply any obligations of governments. Language >> is very important when it comes to human rights. >> >> jeanette >> >> Am 15.04.2014 16:33, schrieb Anne Jellema: >> >> Jeanette, thanks - the example serves your purpose of >> illustrating the >> complexity of positioning in the textual negotiations. On a >> side note, >> though, I'm surprised to hear you say that you have opposed free >> flow of >> information on grounds that it is not a human right. Article 19 >> of the >> UDHR states that: >> >> Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; >> this right >> includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and */to >> seek, >> >> receive and impart information and ideas through any media and >> regardless of frontiers/*. >> >> >> Best >> >> Anne >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Jeanette Hofmann >> >> >> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> Am 15.04.2014 14:54, schrieb parminder: >> >> Not only net neutrality has been removed, >> >> 'free flow of information' which figured twice in the earlier >> (leaked) draft has been removed from both places.. >> >> in my capacity as a HLMC member I have spoken up against >> free flow >> of information in the human rights section because free flow >> of >> information is not a human right. Ironically, someone from >> the >> business sector objected to removing this term from the >> human rights >> section. >> >> I am reporting this to illustrate that the negotiation of >> the text >> hasn't always followed the distribution of power and >> interest that >> some on this list may assume. The draft document represents >> victories and defeats on all sides. >> >> jeanette >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> __ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> > >> >. >> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/__info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Anne Jellema >> CEO >> +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) >> +1 202 684 6885 (US) >> >> @afjellema >> * >> * >> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, >> Washington >> DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org >> >> | >> >> Twitter: @webfoundation* >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Dr. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard) >> Post-Doc Fellow | Cluster of Excellence „ >> > mitarbeiter-a-z/person/442>Normative >> Orders >> > mitarbeiter-a-z/person/442>” >> > mitarbeiter-a-z/person/442>, >> >> University of Frankfurt/Main >> Lecturer | Institute of International Law and International Relations, >> University of Graz >> >> Research Affiliate | European Training and Research Centre for Human >> Rights and Democracy, University of Graz >> > infos-fuer-studierende/> >> >> >> Exzellenzcluster "Normative Ordnungen", Goethe-Universität Frankfurt/Main >> EXC-8, Grüneburgplatz 1 >> 60323 Frankfurt/Main, Deutschland >> >> E | matthias.kettemann at gmail.com >> >> T | 0049 176 817 50 920 (mobile, Germany) >> T | 0043 676 7017175 (mobile, Austria) >> T | 0049 69 798 31508 (office) >> Blog | SSRN >> | Google Scholar >> | my new book >> > individuals-in-international-law> | >> Amazon Authors' Page >> Twitter | Facebook >> | Google+ >> >> >> >> Recent publications: >> Freedom of Expression and the Internet (2014, co-author) >> > 5810-freedom-of-expression-and-the-internet.html> >> >> Bestand und Wandel im Völkerrecht [Continuity and Change in Int'l Law] >> (2014, co-editor) >> > seitenstruktur.detailseiten&seitentyp=produkt&pk=77956&concordeid=264568> >> >> Netzpolitik in Österreich [Net Politics in Austria] (2013, co-editor) >> >> >> Grenzen im Völkerrecht [Limits of International Law] (2013, editor) >> > buchID=139&cHash=e856a8a762> >> >> The Future of Individuals in International Law (2013) >> > individuals-in-international-law> >> >> European Yearbook on Human Rights 2013 (2013, co-editor) >> > european_yearbook_on_human_rights_2013/> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. ∙ Coordinator of the Global Internet Governance (GIG) Ohu Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ Youtube -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Apr 16 06:08:46 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 15:38:46 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: <534D2C08.7050207@itforchange.net> References: <28D7250BBB2E4798BC6C1B7A93337D53@Toshiba> <534CDE5B.2010906@wzb.eu> <534CE344.2050200@apc.org> <534CFFD8.1090100@gold.ac.uk> <7CE12A31-A7B2-4BA9-A1C0-25FD6E6A7F03@gmail.com> <534D1CB0.4030301@cafonso.ca> <534D2C08.7050207@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <534E56AE.3020800@itforchange.net> And yes, I forgot to mention, 'public' has disappeared from 'open and public standards' which was in the initial draft...... I think we need to be discussing the draft netmundial outcome document that has been put for public comments.. Can people tell me one good thing about the document... I have not heard anyone present it. This was the event that we invested so much in, looked so much forward to... Why we have not anything to say about the outcome document. parminder On Tuesday 15 April 2014 06:24 PM, parminder wrote: > Carlos, > > Of course you know what net neutrality is - it is there in the Marco > Civil; it is not here in this document... > > And even the half cock term 'neutrality' has been specifically > removed, by those opposed to net neutrality, and you are trying to > convince us that net neutrality is still there... > > Not only net neutrality has been removed, 'free flow of information' > which figured twice in the earlier (leaked) draft has been removed > from both places.. > > Plus the mention of 'necessary and proportionate' principle (s) has > been removed.. > > Plus need for agreements on restraining cyber weapons have been removed... > > The part on access for disabled has been weakened... > > The recognition in the previous document of need for mechanisms to > address emerging issues and those which do not have a existing home > has been greatly diluted... > > So, the big business has done a thorough vetting of the doc to make > sure that not a wisp of anything that could even potentially interfere > with their free reign on the global Internet could pass through... > > And what happened to other suggestions form HLC members who are to big > business or the US gov... > > Argentinian government and Indian government (and in a way also the > European Commission) had asked for the insertion of the term > 'democratic' in different places where the characteristics of Internet > governance were listed.... But, no, that demand was not accepted... > > There is no place for democracy and democratic in the land of > multistakeholderism, fronting or big business interests, as the > changes in the document clearly show. > > BTW, India in its comments on the document (as per the leaked > documents) seem to have also asked for a recognition of the Internet > as a global commons... but of course no... what are you talking about! > > What are you asking the people of the world to do with this > document... To endorse it and celebrate it just becuase in about 500 > places it says multi-stakeholder.... > > parminder > > > On Tuesday 15 April 2014 05:19 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> Carol, it was not "taken out" of the document. It is there, in detail, >> please re-read. >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 04/15/2014 08:10 AM, Carolina wrote: >>> Pls, mention net neutrality which was taken out of the document put out >>> for comments yesterday. More later. Should we consolidate all in a pad >>> to help Nnenna? >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On Apr 15, 2014, at 5:46 AM, Marianne Franklin >> > wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all >>>> >>>> +1 from me re. Nnenna's role, and +1 from me re. Anriette's points below. >>>> >>>> best >>>> MF >>>> >>>> On 15/04/2014 19:44, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>>>> Congrats Nnenna! >>>>> >>>>> Put on one of your fabulous outfits, and then remind them, that >>>>> working inclusively and respectfully with all stakeholder groups, >>>>> particularly those that lack power and influence - i.e. civil society >>>>> - is very different from putting on a colourful West African outfit >>>>> :) It takes hard work, change in behaviour, change in structures and >>>>> procedures, consultation, respect, trust, debate, and struggle, >>>>> because do not always agree. It also requires a common framework of >>>>> principles that defines what the public interest is in internet >>>>> governance that can be used to promote and protect this public >>>>> interest across the internet governance ecosystem and it is this >>>>> framework that we trust the NetMundial can get us closer to. >>>>> >>>>> You could also mention surveillance, with particularly - but not only >>>>> - mass surveillance demonstrating how easy it is to destroy trust, >>>>> and to deny accountability. And, is there any tougher test for >>>>> multi-stakeholder internet governance? I think it would be good to >>>>> get the message accross that the IANA transition is not the only >>>>> issue that NetMundial should be discussing, but at the same time, it >>>>> is a key opportunity to come up with solutions and approaches that >>>>> are not simply cosmetic. >>>>> >>>>> Anriette >>>>> >>>>> On 15/04/2014 09:23, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>>>> + 1 >>>>>> jeanette >>>>>> >>>>>> Am 15.04.14 08:38, schrieb Ian Peter: >>>>>>> Congratulations Nnenna – great choice! >>>>>>> *From:* Nnenna Nwakanma >>>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 15, 2014 4:35 PM >>>>>>> *To:* Governance ; >>>>>>> mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>>> *Subject:* [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society >>>>>>> major issues >>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I got a message this morning from NetMundial Chair, Virgilo, >>>>>>> inviting me >>>>>>> to speak at the Opening Ceremony of Netmundial (meaning I have to pack >>>>>>> one of those African dresses) for some 8 minutes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have replied to say "I will be speaking from the Civil Society >>>>>>> perspective, which is my Stakeholder Group". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is a Web Foundation media team that will help me put my ideas >>>>>>> into >>>>>>> place, but I cannot not request input from here, so that no major >>>>>>> issues >>>>>>> will be overlooked. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I travel Thursday evening thru Friday, so the earliest I can share a >>>>>>> draft/keypoints will be Monday. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hope we can pull this off well. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All for now >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nnenna >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>> -- >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> 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 >>>> -- >>>> Dr Marianne Franklin >>>> Professor of Global Media and Politics >>>> Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program >>>> Goldsmiths (University of London) >>>> Department of Media & Communications >>>> New Cross, London SE14 6NW >>>> Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 >>>> >>>> @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/ >>>> Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) >>>> www.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>>> @netrights >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kichango at gmail.com Wed Apr 16 07:13:42 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 11:13:42 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] multistakeholderism is democracy was Re: [] FW: US Is an O... In-Reply-To: References: <1DEB7534D981B444BF234789326B22A8AF08BDFC51@MBX.INTERNEWS.LOCAL> <079f01cf5898$762b5ba0$628212e0$@gmail.com> <534D3E2C.6020609@acm.org> <534D4240.3040209@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi, On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 2:09 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Tuesday 15 April 2014 07:07 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > > SNIP > > > . So democracy as a concept cannot be frozen into the practice of voting > as we know it today (one person, one vote) in the sole context of > nation-sates. > > > It may not be frozen into the practice of voting-- there is a huge amount > of literature and practice of participatory democracy that says exactly > that.. But, can we freeze in not having a vote for corporates - in fact > multiple and exclusive votes, where ordinary people do not have votes... > That is MS decision making... > By that sentence plus the phrase that says MSism may be more, or less, democratic --as indeed the gist of a good chunk of my message-- I was in fact addressing the party that reacts against any reference to democracy in the Ig context (as seems to be the case with Milton reacting to EC's Neelie Kroes' blog post on the NETmundial outcome draft document.) So don't get me wrong: I am not satisfied with everything about MSism although I remain open to the fact that some implementation(s) of it may work well in some setting(s). And as I have suggested, I can't even effectively compare Democracy and Multi-stakeholderism because, as I said, it seems to me we're conflating different levels of analysis (it's even worse when one thinks Democracy is something that is necessarily confined within nation-state boundaries for government affairs.) Furthermore, the simple word "democracy" (the rule of the people) tells me a good deal about the intent, goal and set of values being in play, while the simple word "multistakeholderism" only tells me that multiple stakeholders are involved. It doesn't even say "multi-stakeholder-cracy" and it's much easier for so many people around the world to understand the notion of "the people" than it is for us here to even agree on what constitutes "stakeholder" (let alone for people at large to understand what it is.) And for those who think they can effectively compare MSism with Democracy (putting them on the same plane of analysis), I would like someone to tell me (indeed demonstrate) how you're going to use MSism to elect the US President and members of Congress -- in a way that will convince American people that this will better serve their interests as opposed to what they have right now. Further on that line of reflection, one might wonder what are those state Republicans (still in the US) intent on vote suppression or making it harder to some people to vote at elections up to? And what about all the gerrymandering of the districts? Are they being less democratic in a democracy, or more democratic? Are they having their own version of MSism? (I'm asking this not to be provocative but because it was my impression that some people see any reference to voting, equated with Democracy, as something counter to MSism.) And if they're just messing around for pure political/election gains (IOW, making "rational choices") what would be the (principled?) response of Democracy to that and what would be MSism's? [Again, the boundaries for the questions in the above 2 paragraphs to make sense, in my view, are delineated by the thinking that assumes both models are comparable in such a way that one can be said to be better than and to supersede the other.] > > > Why do we need to go beyond participatory democracy as the means of > fulfilling the ideal of democracy and rather jump to MSism which is simply > not democratic in a thousand way..... > On the other hand, could you please elaborate on how you would concretely apply participatory democracy to decision-making about the Internet and all what we're referring to as its governance? Sorry if you've done this elsewhere and I haven't read it. Otherwise, my sense is that all your criticism is being construed as advocacy for intergovernmental mode of governance, notably though traditional treaty-making. I don't have answers to all the questions. I still have a lot of thinking to do and a lot to learn. But those are the things I can say so far regarding the question of MSism and Democracy. Democracy is much older and has delivered many goods, and I don't think anybody can say (nor do I think anybody is saying) it's time to throw that away. MSism is much younger (in its infancy) and still needs to prove itself in the eyes of countless number of people. However, I don't think one can replace the other because I see them conceptually and to some extent operationally at different levels. That's why I can conceive of a MSism instance that is less democratic, even anti-democratic, as well as I can conceive of one that is more democratic or maybe even enhancing Democracy in an already existing form. It will all depend on the specifics on the implementation at hand: the setting, what is in a "stakeholder" and how do they impact the decision-making process, to mention the most obvious ones. On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > On 15-Apr-14 09:37, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > MSism is a decision-making process and I don't know where anyone could > > have possibly taken that bogus idea that MSism is the next big thing > > after democracy (just like democracy once was that next big thing after > > tyranny, aristocracy, etc.) > > I am one who does argues that Multistakeholderism is not just another > decision making process. > > I also do not claim in is the next big thing after democracy. I argue > that it is a form of democracy. I cannot fundamentally disagree with that but I might say it differently: Multistakeholderism may be a form of exercise of democracy. For it to be effectively so, we would need (as I mention above) consensus on who are the stakeholders (or even what is a stakeholder) and how do they impact decisions, etc. Are all the conditions in place for everyone to have equal chance to participate and influence the outcome, if they're so inclined? It is those details that will make MSism a form of Democracy or not. > . > > I do agree that there is not just one form of the multistakeholder > model, but argue that there are attributes of Multistakeholderism as > participatory democracy that are necessary. > Do you think we could initiate collaborative work with the aim to put together a table which will include those attributes as well as the points of criticism? > > > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 10:29 AM, parminder wrote: > >> >> On Tuesday 15 April 2014 07:41 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >>> >>> On 15-Apr-14 09:37, Mawaki Chango wrote: >>> >>>> MSism is a decision-making process and I don't know where anyone could >>>> have possibly taken that bogus idea that MSism is the next big thing >>>> after democracy (just like democracy once was that next big thing after >>>> tyranny, aristocracy, etc.) >>>> >>> >> You had in your email sought focussing on actual practices... Therefore >> you need to look at practices of MSism... It is indeed the next thing after >> democracy, and NOT democracy... MSism gives big business a veto on public >> policy making. This kind of thing is impossible to even mention in a >> democratic discourse.. But the same unmentionable has been dressed by >> employment of huge expenditure of resources in the respectable clothes if >> MSism. >> >> Do you disagree that MSism as being practiced in its 'equal footing' >> model (1) gives veto power to big business and (2) such a thing is >> unattainable in democratic discourse and practice.. >> > I agree with (2). I haven't seen a formal veto power accorded to any stakeholder group but in some instances there is de facto something bordering a veto. Based on my experience with the GNSO Council at ICANN, particularly with the WHOIS policy debate. It seemed that business would push for yet another task force, and yet another working group, etc. until they get what they wanted (and the system allowed for that kind of manoeuvre.) The issue was so contentious we had to take a vote and their party lost. Their refusal to take a No for an answer led the Chair to accept, at the Marrakesh meeting (2006? or 07) the request that those who voted for the definition of Whois that won the vote to explain their... vote. I'm sure he meant it to be a kind of pedagogical engagement with the public at large. But think about that: you have to publicly declare your vote and explain it on the request of people who reject the result (and only those who voted for that result were asked to do that, obviously because of what they voted for.) I objected and declined. It made me feel like I was a character in a novel by Milan Kundera in which the setting is the old (pre-Vaclav Havel) Czechoslovakia -- The Joke (La Plaisanterie). That was my closest encounter with MSism ;) but it has been years now and I want to believe things didn't stay that way (so I don't mean the above as a wholesale characterization.) Or at least we can contribute to shaping them in a better direction (though I must say the way you describe what has been happening to the NETmundial draft document is alarming.) Mawaki > >> Now you may say that I am speaking about entirely imaginary models of >> MSism, and creatign strawmen of MSism... >> >> Well, no.. >> >> On the BestBit list an elaborate model has been developed and presented, >> latest in response to the leaked NetMundial draft (did you also support >> this model?) which creates a multistakeholder screening mechanism for >> taking up any public policy issue.. Does this not give big business a veto >> on what matters can be taken for public policy treatment? Is this >> democratic? >> >> Second, the NetMundial draft document seeks public policy making through >> consensus basis alone - which is an multistakeholder consensus on equal >> footing... It says that processes of governance have to be first be agreed >> by all stakeholders (keep reading business when I say stakeholders bec it >> is they for whom these models are fashioned).... >> >> Now, is it democratic to give business (big business, no one asked my >> corner shop guy) such structural vetos over public policy making? What >> could be more democratic... >> >> Since you said devil is in the details, lets talk about the detail and >> the devil... Lets talk specifics, and these above are the specifics of >> MSism... >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pouzin at well.com Wed Apr 16 07:38:55 2014 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 13:38:55 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Agenda for Civil Society pre-NetMundial Coordination Meeting In-Reply-To: <3B978AD6-7A77-4CEF-AA81-6F420D6EAF30@Malcolm.id.au> References: <3B978AD6-7A77-4CEF-AA81-6F420D6EAF30@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: Hi Jeremy, Do we have to register to participate in this meeting ? . Louis. EUROLINC - - - On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Dear all, > > On behalf of civil society groups organising the Civil Society > pre-NetMundial Coordination Meeting (herein "CS pre-NM"), we would like to > share with you the meeting agenda as follows. > > The "CS pre-NM" is a gathering of over 90 civil society groups from around > the world involved in internet governance and broader internet-related > public policy debates regionally and globally. This is an action-oriented > group with the aim to facilitate the expression of civil society views and > feed them into the discussions at NetMundial and beyond. You can find a > preliminary list of civil society representatives attending the meeting > *here* 1<#14565dcc03eddcf4_sdfootnote1sym>. > Example initiatives and statements from members of this group can be found > *here* 2 <#14565dcc03eddcf4_sdfootnote2sym>. > > The agenda is focused on setting points of consensus, discussing strategic > action and distilling key messages for members of civil society that are > able to pursue common goals, based on 1) defending fundamental Human > Rights; 2) ensuring the Open, Decentralized and Interoperable Architecture > of the Web and 3) fostering an Open, Inclusive, Democratic and > Decentralised Multistakeholder model of Internet Governance. > > Based in this three pillars, in order to have a clear mapping of the state > of consensus within Civil Society, we are convening 3 working groups > (Principles, Roadmap and IANA transition) of resource persons that will be > focused until the day of our meeting on analyzing CS contributions and > comments posted at NetMundial platform to deliver: a) a set of bullet > points of possible ground of consensus and b) a set of questions around key > issues that will require us to have agreement on during our meeting. Our > hope is to honor different CS points of view presented so far, and quickly > air disagreements and the arguments for each approach. > > We hope we can count on your collaboration to achieve our goals and, in > the end, have a clear message from civil society that enable those who seek > to refine their tactics and strategies for the Conference to do so. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Wed Apr 16 08:42:01 2014 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 20:42:01 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Agenda for Civil Society pre-NetMundial Coordination Meeting In-Reply-To: References: <3B978AD6-7A77-4CEF-AA81-6F420D6EAF30@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <2E333DCE-0233-439B-8FF3-3970E425D185@Malcolm.id.au> On 16 Apr 2014, at 7:38 pm, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > Hi Jeremy, > > Do we have to register to participate in this meeting ? Yes, by clicking "RSVP" at http://bestbits.net/events/netmundial-coordination. -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Apr 16 10:46:13 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 23:46:13 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Agenda for Civil Society pre-NetMundial Coordination Meeting In-Reply-To: <2E333DCE-0233-439B-8FF3-3970E425D185@Malcolm.id.au> References: <3B978AD6-7A77-4CEF-AA81-6F420D6EAF30@Malcolm.id.au> <2E333DCE-0233-439B-8FF3-3970E425D185@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <76D6148C-F2A8-46A4-B29C-9FC4D8310DE3@glocom.ac.jp> Hi Jeremy, Couple of questions: Why does the agenda link to the leaked document of April 3, not the document to be discussed at the meeting? Governments have a meeting on the afternoon of April 22, 2-5pm, are you sure any will come to a CS session? There is a welcome reception at the Grand Hyatt São Paulo from 6pm. All invited. Adam On Apr 16, 2014, at 9:42 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 16 Apr 2014, at 7:38 pm, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > >> Hi Jeremy, >> >> Do we have to register to participate in this meeting ? > > Yes, by clicking "RSVP" at http://bestbits.net/events/netmundial-coordination. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp. > From anriette at apc.org Wed Apr 16 11:25:38 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 17:25:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: <534E56AE.3020800@itforchange.net> References: <28D7250BBB2E4798BC6C1B7A93337D53@Toshiba> <534CDE5B.2010906@wzb.eu> <534CE344.2050200@apc.org> <534CFFD8.1090100@gold.ac.uk> <7CE12A31-A7B2-4BA9-A1C0-25FD6E6A7F03@gmail.com> <534D1CB0.4030301@cafonso.ca> <534D2C08.7050207@itforchange.net> <534E56AE.3020800@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <534EA0F2.3080500@apc.org> Agree with Parminder. We need to comment on these omissions. Is best strategy for us to just all comment as individuals, or organisations, or to also try and do collaborative submissions? But I would not blame big business Parminder. Texts coming out of intergovernmental processes like the WSIS +10 are also problematic from a public-interest perspective. Anriette On 16/04/2014 12:08, parminder wrote: > > And yes, I forgot to mention, 'public' has disappeared from 'open and > public standards' which was in the initial draft...... > > I think we need to be discussing the draft netmundial outcome document > that has been put for public comments.. > > Can people tell me one good thing about the document... I have not > heard anyone present it. > > This was the event that we invested so much in, looked so much forward > to... Why we have not anything to say about the outcome document. > > parminder > > > On Tuesday 15 April 2014 06:24 PM, parminder wrote: >> Carlos, >> >> Of course you know what net neutrality is - it is there in the Marco >> Civil; it is not here in this document... >> >> And even the half cock term 'neutrality' has been specifically >> removed, by those opposed to net neutrality, and you are trying to >> convince us that net neutrality is still there... >> >> Not only net neutrality has been removed, 'free flow of information' >> which figured twice in the earlier (leaked) draft has been removed >> from both places.. >> >> Plus the mention of 'necessary and proportionate' principle (s) has >> been removed.. >> >> Plus need for agreements on restraining cyber weapons have been >> removed... >> >> The part on access for disabled has been weakened... >> >> The recognition in the previous document of need for mechanisms to >> address emerging issues and those which do not have a existing home >> has been greatly diluted... >> >> So, the big business has done a thorough vetting of the doc to make >> sure that not a wisp of anything that could even potentially >> interfere with their free reign on the global Internet could pass >> through... >> >> And what happened to other suggestions form HLC members who are to >> big business or the US gov... >> >> Argentinian government and Indian government (and in a way also the >> European Commission) had asked for the insertion of the term >> 'democratic' in different places where the characteristics of >> Internet governance were listed.... But, no, that demand was not >> accepted... >> >> There is no place for democracy and democratic in the land of >> multistakeholderism, fronting or big business interests, as the >> changes in the document clearly show. >> >> BTW, India in its comments on the document (as per the leaked >> documents) seem to have also asked for a recognition of the Internet >> as a global commons... but of course no... what are you talking about! >> >> What are you asking the people of the world to do with this >> document... To endorse it and celebrate it just becuase in about 500 >> places it says multi-stakeholder.... >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Tuesday 15 April 2014 05:19 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>> Carol, it was not "taken out" of the document. It is there, in detail, >>> please re-read. >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> On 04/15/2014 08:10 AM, Carolina wrote: >>>> Pls, mention net neutrality which was taken out of the document put out >>>> for comments yesterday. More later. Should we consolidate all in a pad >>>> to help Nnenna? >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> On Apr 15, 2014, at 5:46 AM, Marianne Franklin >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear all >>>>> >>>>> +1 from me re. Nnenna's role, and +1 from me re. Anriette's points below. >>>>> >>>>> best >>>>> MF >>>>> >>>>> On 15/04/2014 19:44, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>>>>> Congrats Nnenna! >>>>>> >>>>>> Put on one of your fabulous outfits, and then remind them, that >>>>>> working inclusively and respectfully with all stakeholder groups, >>>>>> particularly those that lack power and influence - i.e. civil society >>>>>> - is very different from putting on a colourful West African outfit >>>>>> :) It takes hard work, change in behaviour, change in structures and >>>>>> procedures, consultation, respect, trust, debate, and struggle, >>>>>> because do not always agree. It also requires a common framework of >>>>>> principles that defines what the public interest is in internet >>>>>> governance that can be used to promote and protect this public >>>>>> interest across the internet governance ecosystem and it is this >>>>>> framework that we trust the NetMundial can get us closer to. >>>>>> >>>>>> You could also mention surveillance, with particularly - but not only >>>>>> - mass surveillance demonstrating how easy it is to destroy trust, >>>>>> and to deny accountability. And, is there any tougher test for >>>>>> multi-stakeholder internet governance? I think it would be good to >>>>>> get the message accross that the IANA transition is not the only >>>>>> issue that NetMundial should be discussing, but at the same time, it >>>>>> is a key opportunity to come up with solutions and approaches that >>>>>> are not simply cosmetic. >>>>>> >>>>>> Anriette >>>>>> >>>>>> On 15/04/2014 09:23, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>>>>> + 1 >>>>>>> jeanette >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Am 15.04.14 08:38, schrieb Ian Peter: >>>>>>>> Congratulations Nnenna – great choice! >>>>>>>> *From:* Nnenna Nwakanma >>>>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 15, 2014 4:35 PM >>>>>>>> *To:* Governance ; >>>>>>>> mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>>>> *Subject:* [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society >>>>>>>> major issues >>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I got a message this morning from NetMundial Chair, Virgilo, >>>>>>>> inviting me >>>>>>>> to speak at the Opening Ceremony of Netmundial (meaning I have to pack >>>>>>>> one of those African dresses) for some 8 minutes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have replied to say "I will be speaking from the Civil Society >>>>>>>> perspective, which is my Stakeholder Group". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is a Web Foundation media team that will help me put my ideas >>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>> place, but I cannot not request input from here, so that no major >>>>>>>> issues >>>>>>>> will be overlooked. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I travel Thursday evening thru Friday, so the earliest I can share a >>>>>>>> draft/keypoints will be Monday. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hope we can pull this off well. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All for now >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nnenna >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>> -- >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> 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 Marianne Franklin >>>>> Professor of Global Media and Politics >>>>> Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program >>>>> Goldsmiths (University of London) >>>>> Department of Media & Communications >>>>> New Cross, London SE14 6NW >>>>> Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 >>>>> >>>>> @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/ >>>>> Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) >>>>> www.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>>>> @netrights >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Apr 16 11:46:31 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 00:46:31 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: <534EA0F2.3080500@apc.org> References: <28D7250BBB2E4798BC6C1B7A93337D53@Toshiba> <534CDE5B.2010906@wzb.eu> <534CE344.2050200@apc.org> <534CFFD8.1090100@gold.ac.uk> <7CE12A31-A7B2-4BA9-A1C0-25FD6E6A7F03@gmail.com> <534D1CB0.4030301@cafonso.ca> <534D2C08.7050207@itforchange.net> <534E56AE.3020800@itforchange.net> <534EA0F2.3080500@apc.org> Message-ID: what is the value of "public" in "based on open public standards"? Does the word public add clarity? Does it tell us something otherwise missing? Drafts are there for comment and revision, one thing comments on the leaked document made quite clear is the need to shorten the final document (and usually the same group that said the document is too long then added more words of their own...) The relevant paragraph as it stands in the document for comment is: Internet governance should promote open standards, informed by individual and collective expertise and practical experience and decisions made by open consensus, that allow for a unique, interoperable, resilient, stable, decentralized, secure, and interconnected network, available to all. Standards must be consistent with human rights and allow development and innovation. (25, in http://document.netmundial.br/1-internet-governance-principles/) Is this weak? How can it be improved? 6 comments so far, are they helpful? Adam (in my individual capacity) On Apr 17, 2014, at 12:25 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Agree with Parminder. > > We need to comment on these omissions. Is best strategy for us to just all comment as individuals, or organisations, or to also try and do collaborative submissions? > > But I would not blame big business Parminder. > > Texts coming out of intergovernmental processes like the WSIS +10 are also problematic from a public-interest perspective. > > Anriette > > > On 16/04/2014 12:08, parminder wrote: >> >> And yes, I forgot to mention, 'public' has disappeared from 'open and public standards' which was in the initial draft...... >> >> I think we need to be discussing the draft netmundial outcome document that has been put for public comments.. >> >> Can people tell me one good thing about the document... I have not heard anyone present it. >> >> This was the event that we invested so much in, looked so much forward to... Why we have not anything to say about the outcome document. >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Tuesday 15 April 2014 06:24 PM, parminder wrote: >>> Carlos, >>> >>> Of course you know what net neutrality is - it is there in the Marco Civil; it is not here in this document... >>> >>> And even the half cock term 'neutrality' has been specifically removed, by those opposed to net neutrality, and you are trying to convince us that net neutrality is still there... >>> >>> Not only net neutrality has been removed, 'free flow of information' which figured twice in the earlier (leaked) draft has been removed from both places.. >>> >>> Plus the mention of 'necessary and proportionate' principle (s) has been removed.. >>> >>> Plus need for agreements on restraining cyber weapons have been removed... >>> >>> The part on access for disabled has been weakened... >>> >>> The recognition in the previous document of need for mechanisms to address emerging issues and those which do not have a existing home has been greatly diluted... >>> >>> So, the big business has done a thorough vetting of the doc to make sure that not a wisp of anything that could even potentially interfere with their free reign on the global Internet could pass through... >>> >>> And what happened to other suggestions form HLC members who are to big business or the US gov... >>> >>> Argentinian government and Indian government (and in a way also the European Commission) had asked for the insertion of the term 'democratic' in different places where the characteristics of Internet governance were listed.... But, no, that demand was not accepted... >>> >>> There is no place for democracy and democratic in the land of multistakeholderism, fronting or big business interests, as the changes in the document clearly show. >>> >>> BTW, India in its comments on the document (as per the leaked documents) seem to have also asked for a recognition of the Internet as a global commons... but of course no... what are you talking about! >>> >>> What are you asking the people of the world to do with this document... To endorse it and celebrate it just becuase in about 500 places it says multi-stakeholder.... >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday 15 April 2014 05:19 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>>> Carol, it was not "taken out" of the document. It is there, in detail, >>>> please re-read. >>>> >>>> --c.a. >>>> >>>> On 04/15/2014 08:10 AM, Carolina wrote: >>>> >>>>> Pls, mention net neutrality which was taken out of the document put out >>>>> for comments yesterday. More later. Should we consolidate all in a pad >>>>> to help Nnenna? >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>> On Apr 15, 2014, at 5:46 AM, Marianne Franklin < >>>>> m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk >>>>> >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Dear all >>>>>> >>>>>> +1 from me re. Nnenna's role, and +1 from me re. Anriette's points below. >>>>>> >>>>>> best >>>>>> MF >>>>>> >>>>>> On 15/04/2014 19:44, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Congrats Nnenna! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Put on one of your fabulous outfits, and then remind them, that >>>>>>> working inclusively and respectfully with all stakeholder groups, >>>>>>> particularly those that lack power and influence - i.e. civil society >>>>>>> - is very different from putting on a colourful West African outfit >>>>>>> :) It takes hard work, change in behaviour, change in structures and >>>>>>> procedures, consultation, respect, trust, debate, and struggle, >>>>>>> because do not always agree. It also requires a common framework of >>>>>>> principles that defines what the public interest is in internet >>>>>>> governance that can be used to promote and protect this public >>>>>>> interest across the internet governance ecosystem and it is this >>>>>>> framework that we trust the NetMundial can get us closer to. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You could also mention surveillance, with particularly - but not only >>>>>>> - mass surveillance demonstrating how easy it is to destroy trust, >>>>>>> and to deny accountability. And, is there any tougher test for >>>>>>> multi-stakeholder internet governance? I think it would be good to >>>>>>> get the message accross that the IANA transition is not the only >>>>>>> issue that NetMundial should be discussing, but at the same time, it >>>>>>> is a key opportunity to come up with solutions and approaches that >>>>>>> are not simply cosmetic. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anriette >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 15/04/2014 09:23, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> + 1 >>>>>>>> jeanette >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Am 15.04.14 08:38, schrieb Ian Peter: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Congratulations Nnenna – great choice! >>>>>>>>> *From:* Nnenna Nwakanma >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 15, 2014 4:35 PM >>>>>>>>> *To:* Governance >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ; >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Subject:* [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society >>>>>>>>> major issues >>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I got a message this morning from NetMundial Chair, Virgilo, >>>>>>>>> inviting me >>>>>>>>> to speak at the Opening Ceremony of Netmundial (meaning I have to pack >>>>>>>>> one of those African dresses) for some 8 minutes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have replied to say "I will be speaking from the Civil Society >>>>>>>>> perspective, which is my Stakeholder Group". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There is a Web Foundation media team that will help me put my ideas >>>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>>> place, but I cannot not request input from here, so that no major >>>>>>>>> issues >>>>>>>>> will be overlooked. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I travel Thursday evening thru Friday, so the earliest I can share a >>>>>>>>> draft/keypoints will be Monday. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hope we can pull this off well. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All for now >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nnenna >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> 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 Marianne Franklin >>>>>> Professor of Global Media and Politics >>>>>> Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program >>>>>> Goldsmiths (University of London) >>>>>> Department of Media & Communications >>>>>> New Cross, London SE14 6NW >>>>>> Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> @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/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) >>>>>> >>>>>> www.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>>>>> >>>>>> @netrights >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> >>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>> . >>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen > anriette at apc.org > > executive director, association for progressive communications > > www.apc.org > > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Apr 16 12:02:10 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 21:32:10 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: <534EA0F2.3080500@apc.org> References: <28D7250BBB2E4798BC6C1B7A93337D53@Toshiba> <534CDE5B.2010906@wzb.eu> <534CE344.2050200@apc.org> <534CFFD8.1090100@gold.ac.uk> <7CE12A31-A7B2-4BA9-A1C0-25FD6E6A7F03@gmail.com> <534D1CB0.4030301@cafonso.ca> <534D2C08.7050207@itforchange.net> <534E56AE.3020800@itforchange.net> <534EA0F2.3080500@apc.org> Message-ID: <534EA982.1020109@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 16 April 2014 08:55 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Agree with Parminder. > > We need to comment on these omissions. Is best strategy for us to just > all comment as individuals, or organisations, or to also try and do > collaborative submissions? Anriette I am happy to join any credible strategy others come up with. Right now ITfC and partners are thinking about our response. > > But I would not blame big business Parminder. > > Texts coming out of intergovernmental processes like the WSIS +10 are > also problematic from a public-interest perspective. > In case of such inter-gov processes, civil society openly names and criticizes those who are responsible for non-inclusion or exclusion of public -interest text. we never shy away from it... Whether it is Saudi Arabia and China, or the US or EU - I have seen this everywhere, in WIPO discussions on access to knowledge for the disabled, in human right resolutions, in WTO negotiations on food grain subsidies, in climate talks about concrete targets and so on.. Civil society uses naming and shaming as a regular tactic. Why should we be shy to name 'bad actors' in the present case, What is the basis of cultivating any special relationship with big business based on non-criticism or anything. Here, most exclusions, net neutrality, pulbicness of standards, free flow of information (as per my understanding), weakening of provision on access for disabled, not accepting HLM members suggestion to include 'democratic' have happened on big business' behest, largely, although there are other key omissions caused by the one country most opposed to global measures against surveillance and cyber weapon control.. So, I dont understand why should I not blame big business when they re to be blamed? I find no reason. Well, I know they can play a big role in top civil society selections - like they did with the CS co chair of NetMundial - but thanks, I am not interested. parminder > Anriette > > > On 16/04/2014 12:08, parminder wrote: >> >> And yes, I forgot to mention, 'public' has disappeared from 'open and >> public standards' which was in the initial draft...... >> >> I think we need to be discussing the draft netmundial outcome >> document that has been put for public comments.. >> >> Can people tell me one good thing about the document... I have not >> heard anyone present it. >> >> This was the event that we invested so much in, looked so much >> forward to... Why we have not anything to say about the outcome >> document. >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Tuesday 15 April 2014 06:24 PM, parminder wrote: >>> Carlos, >>> >>> Of course you know what net neutrality is - it is there in the Marco >>> Civil; it is not here in this document... >>> >>> And even the half cock term 'neutrality' has been specifically >>> removed, by those opposed to net neutrality, and you are trying to >>> convince us that net neutrality is still there... >>> >>> Not only net neutrality has been removed, 'free flow of information' >>> which figured twice in the earlier (leaked) draft has been removed >>> from both places.. >>> >>> Plus the mention of 'necessary and proportionate' principle (s) has >>> been removed.. >>> >>> Plus need for agreements on restraining cyber weapons have been >>> removed... >>> >>> The part on access for disabled has been weakened... >>> >>> The recognition in the previous document of need for mechanisms to >>> address emerging issues and those which do not have a existing home >>> has been greatly diluted... >>> >>> So, the big business has done a thorough vetting of the doc to make >>> sure that not a wisp of anything that could even potentially >>> interfere with their free reign on the global Internet could pass >>> through... >>> >>> And what happened to other suggestions form HLC members who are to >>> big business or the US gov... >>> >>> Argentinian government and Indian government (and in a way also the >>> European Commission) had asked for the insertion of the term >>> 'democratic' in different places where the characteristics of >>> Internet governance were listed.... But, no, that demand was not >>> accepted... >>> >>> There is no place for democracy and democratic in the land of >>> multistakeholderism, fronting or big business interests, as the >>> changes in the document clearly show. >>> >>> BTW, India in its comments on the document (as per the leaked >>> documents) seem to have also asked for a recognition of the Internet >>> as a global commons... but of course no... what are you talking about! >>> >>> What are you asking the people of the world to do with this >>> document... To endorse it and celebrate it just becuase in about 500 >>> places it says multi-stakeholder.... >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday 15 April 2014 05:19 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>>> Carol, it was not "taken out" of the document. It is there, in detail, >>>> please re-read. >>>> >>>> --c.a. >>>> >>>> On 04/15/2014 08:10 AM, Carolina wrote: >>>>> Pls, mention net neutrality which was taken out of the document put out >>>>> for comments yesterday. More later. Should we consolidate all in a pad >>>>> to help Nnenna? >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>> On Apr 15, 2014, at 5:46 AM, Marianne Franklin >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear all >>>>>> >>>>>> +1 from me re. Nnenna's role, and +1 from me re. Anriette's points below. >>>>>> >>>>>> best >>>>>> MF >>>>>> >>>>>> On 15/04/2014 19:44, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>>>>>> Congrats Nnenna! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Put on one of your fabulous outfits, and then remind them, that >>>>>>> working inclusively and respectfully with all stakeholder groups, >>>>>>> particularly those that lack power and influence - i.e. civil society >>>>>>> - is very different from putting on a colourful West African outfit >>>>>>> :) It takes hard work, change in behaviour, change in structures and >>>>>>> procedures, consultation, respect, trust, debate, and struggle, >>>>>>> because do not always agree. It also requires a common framework of >>>>>>> principles that defines what the public interest is in internet >>>>>>> governance that can be used to promote and protect this public >>>>>>> interest across the internet governance ecosystem and it is this >>>>>>> framework that we trust the NetMundial can get us closer to. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You could also mention surveillance, with particularly - but not only >>>>>>> - mass surveillance demonstrating how easy it is to destroy trust, >>>>>>> and to deny accountability. And, is there any tougher test for >>>>>>> multi-stakeholder internet governance? I think it would be good to >>>>>>> get the message accross that the IANA transition is not the only >>>>>>> issue that NetMundial should be discussing, but at the same time, it >>>>>>> is a key opportunity to come up with solutions and approaches that >>>>>>> are not simply cosmetic. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anriette >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 15/04/2014 09:23, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>>>>>> + 1 >>>>>>>> jeanette >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Am 15.04.14 08:38, schrieb Ian Peter: >>>>>>>>> Congratulations Nnenna – great choice! >>>>>>>>> *From:* Nnenna Nwakanma >>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 15, 2014 4:35 PM >>>>>>>>> *To:* Governance ; >>>>>>>>> mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>>>>> *Subject:* [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society >>>>>>>>> major issues >>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I got a message this morning from NetMundial Chair, Virgilo, >>>>>>>>> inviting me >>>>>>>>> to speak at the Opening Ceremony of Netmundial (meaning I have to pack >>>>>>>>> one of those African dresses) for some 8 minutes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have replied to say "I will be speaking from the Civil Society >>>>>>>>> perspective, which is my Stakeholder Group". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There is a Web Foundation media team that will help me put my ideas >>>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>>> place, but I cannot not request input from here, so that no major >>>>>>>>> issues >>>>>>>>> will be overlooked. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I travel Thursday evening thru Friday, so the earliest I can share a >>>>>>>>> draft/keypoints will be Monday. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hope we can pull this off well. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All for now >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nnenna >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Dr Marianne Franklin >>>>>> Professor of Global Media and Politics >>>>>> Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program >>>>>> Goldsmiths (University of London) >>>>>> Department of Media & Communications >>>>>> New Cross, London SE14 6NW >>>>>> Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 >>>>>> >>>>>> @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/ >>>>>> Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) >>>>>> www.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>>>>> @netrights >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > 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: From ca at cafonso.ca Wed Apr 16 12:07:46 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 13:07:46 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: <534EA0F2.3080500@apc.org> References: <28D7250BBB2E4798BC6C1B7A93337D53@Toshiba> <534CDE5B.2010906@wzb.eu> <534CE344.2050200@apc.org> <534CFFD8.1090100@gold.ac.uk> <7CE12A31-A7B2-4BA9-A1C0-25FD6E6A7F03@gmail.com> <534D1CB0.4030301@cafonso.ca> <534D2C08.7050207@itforchange.net> <534E56AE.3020800@itforchange.net> <534EA0F2.3080500@apc.org> Message-ID: <534EAAD2.5040508@cafonso.ca> Dear Anri, "collaborative submissions" not inserted in the comments space will not work at this point. Use the comments, and please recall the deadline for them is April 21st. fraternal regards --c.a. On 04/16/2014 12:25 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Agree with Parminder. > > We need to comment on these omissions. Is best strategy for us to just > all comment as individuals, or organisations, or to also try and do > collaborative submissions? > > But I would not blame big business Parminder. > > Texts coming out of intergovernmental processes like the WSIS +10 are > also problematic from a public-interest perspective. > > Anriette > > > On 16/04/2014 12:08, parminder wrote: >> >> And yes, I forgot to mention, 'public' has disappeared from 'open and >> public standards' which was in the initial draft...... >> >> I think we need to be discussing the draft netmundial outcome document >> that has been put for public comments.. >> >> Can people tell me one good thing about the document... I have not >> heard anyone present it. >> >> This was the event that we invested so much in, looked so much forward >> to... Why we have not anything to say about the outcome document. >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Tuesday 15 April 2014 06:24 PM, parminder wrote: >>> Carlos, >>> >>> Of course you know what net neutrality is - it is there in the Marco >>> Civil; it is not here in this document... >>> >>> And even the half cock term 'neutrality' has been specifically >>> removed, by those opposed to net neutrality, and you are trying to >>> convince us that net neutrality is still there... >>> >>> Not only net neutrality has been removed, 'free flow of information' >>> which figured twice in the earlier (leaked) draft has been removed >>> from both places.. >>> >>> Plus the mention of 'necessary and proportionate' principle (s) has >>> been removed.. >>> >>> Plus need for agreements on restraining cyber weapons have been >>> removed... >>> >>> The part on access for disabled has been weakened... >>> >>> The recognition in the previous document of need for mechanisms to >>> address emerging issues and those which do not have a existing home >>> has been greatly diluted... >>> >>> So, the big business has done a thorough vetting of the doc to make >>> sure that not a wisp of anything that could even potentially >>> interfere with their free reign on the global Internet could pass >>> through... >>> >>> And what happened to other suggestions form HLC members who are to >>> big business or the US gov... >>> >>> Argentinian government and Indian government (and in a way also the >>> European Commission) had asked for the insertion of the term >>> 'democratic' in different places where the characteristics of >>> Internet governance were listed.... But, no, that demand was not >>> accepted... >>> >>> There is no place for democracy and democratic in the land of >>> multistakeholderism, fronting or big business interests, as the >>> changes in the document clearly show. >>> >>> BTW, India in its comments on the document (as per the leaked >>> documents) seem to have also asked for a recognition of the Internet >>> as a global commons... but of course no... what are you talking about! >>> >>> What are you asking the people of the world to do with this >>> document... To endorse it and celebrate it just becuase in about 500 >>> places it says multi-stakeholder.... >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday 15 April 2014 05:19 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>>> Carol, it was not "taken out" of the document. It is there, in detail, >>>> please re-read. >>>> >>>> --c.a. >>>> >>>> On 04/15/2014 08:10 AM, Carolina wrote: >>>>> Pls, mention net neutrality which was taken out of the document put out >>>>> for comments yesterday. More later. Should we consolidate all in a pad >>>>> to help Nnenna? >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>> On Apr 15, 2014, at 5:46 AM, Marianne Franklin >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear all >>>>>> >>>>>> +1 from me re. Nnenna's role, and +1 from me re. Anriette's points below. >>>>>> >>>>>> best >>>>>> MF >>>>>> >>>>>> On 15/04/2014 19:44, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>>>>>> Congrats Nnenna! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Put on one of your fabulous outfits, and then remind them, that >>>>>>> working inclusively and respectfully with all stakeholder groups, >>>>>>> particularly those that lack power and influence - i.e. civil society >>>>>>> - is very different from putting on a colourful West African outfit >>>>>>> :) It takes hard work, change in behaviour, change in structures and >>>>>>> procedures, consultation, respect, trust, debate, and struggle, >>>>>>> because do not always agree. It also requires a common framework of >>>>>>> principles that defines what the public interest is in internet >>>>>>> governance that can be used to promote and protect this public >>>>>>> interest across the internet governance ecosystem and it is this >>>>>>> framework that we trust the NetMundial can get us closer to. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You could also mention surveillance, with particularly - but not only >>>>>>> - mass surveillance demonstrating how easy it is to destroy trust, >>>>>>> and to deny accountability. And, is there any tougher test for >>>>>>> multi-stakeholder internet governance? I think it would be good to >>>>>>> get the message accross that the IANA transition is not the only >>>>>>> issue that NetMundial should be discussing, but at the same time, it >>>>>>> is a key opportunity to come up with solutions and approaches that >>>>>>> are not simply cosmetic. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anriette >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 15/04/2014 09:23, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>>>>>> + 1 >>>>>>>> jeanette >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Am 15.04.14 08:38, schrieb Ian Peter: >>>>>>>>> Congratulations Nnenna – great choice! >>>>>>>>> *From:* Nnenna Nwakanma >>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 15, 2014 4:35 PM >>>>>>>>> *To:* Governance ; >>>>>>>>> mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>>>>> *Subject:* [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society >>>>>>>>> major issues >>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I got a message this morning from NetMundial Chair, Virgilo, >>>>>>>>> inviting me >>>>>>>>> to speak at the Opening Ceremony of Netmundial (meaning I have to pack >>>>>>>>> one of those African dresses) for some 8 minutes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have replied to say "I will be speaking from the Civil Society >>>>>>>>> perspective, which is my Stakeholder Group". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There is a Web Foundation media team that will help me put my ideas >>>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>>> place, but I cannot not request input from here, so that no major >>>>>>>>> issues >>>>>>>>> will be overlooked. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I travel Thursday evening thru Friday, so the earliest I can share a >>>>>>>>> draft/keypoints will be Monday. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hope we can pull this off well. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All for now >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nnenna >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> 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 Marianne Franklin >>>>>> Professor of Global Media and Politics >>>>>> Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program >>>>>> Goldsmiths (University of London) >>>>>> Department of Media & Communications >>>>>> New Cross, London SE14 6NW >>>>>> Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 >>>>>> >>>>>> @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/ >>>>>> Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) >>>>>> www.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>>>>> @netrights >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > 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 ca at cafonso.ca Wed Apr 16 12:10:44 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 13:10:44 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: References: <28D7250BBB2E4798BC6C1B7A93337D53@Toshiba> <534CDE5B.2010906@wzb.eu> <534CE344.2050200@apc.org> <534CFFD8.1090100@gold.ac.uk> <7CE12A31-A7B2-4BA9-A1C0-25FD6E6A7F03@gmail.com> <534D1CB0.4030301@cafonso.ca> <534D2C08.7050207@itforchange.net> <534E56AE.3020800@itforchange.net> <534EA0F2.3080500@apc.org> Message-ID: <534EAB84.9090309@cafonso.ca> Excellent, objective comments, Adam. --c.a. On 04/16/2014 12:46 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > what is the value of "public" in "based on open public standards"? Does the word public add clarity? Does it tell us something otherwise missing? > > Drafts are there for comment and revision, one thing comments on the leaked document made quite clear is the need to shorten the final document (and usually the same group that said the document is too long then added more words of their own...) > > The relevant paragraph as it stands in the document for comment is: > > Internet governance should promote open standards, informed by individual and collective expertise and practical experience and decisions made by open consensus, that allow for a unique, interoperable, resilient, stable, decentralized, secure, and interconnected network, available to all. Standards must be consistent with human rights and allow development and innovation. > > (25, in http://document.netmundial.br/1-internet-governance-principles/) > > Is this weak? How can it be improved? 6 comments so far, are they helpful? > > Adam (in my individual capacity) > > > On Apr 17, 2014, at 12:25 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > >> Agree with Parminder. >> >> We need to comment on these omissions. Is best strategy for us to just all comment as individuals, or organisations, or to also try and do collaborative submissions? >> >> But I would not blame big business Parminder. >> >> Texts coming out of intergovernmental processes like the WSIS +10 are also problematic from a public-interest perspective. >> >> Anriette >> >> >> On 16/04/2014 12:08, parminder wrote: >>> >>> And yes, I forgot to mention, 'public' has disappeared from 'open and public standards' which was in the initial draft...... >>> >>> I think we need to be discussing the draft netmundial outcome document that has been put for public comments.. >>> >>> Can people tell me one good thing about the document... I have not heard anyone present it. >>> >>> This was the event that we invested so much in, looked so much forward to... Why we have not anything to say about the outcome document. >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday 15 April 2014 06:24 PM, parminder wrote: >>>> Carlos, >>>> >>>> Of course you know what net neutrality is - it is there in the Marco Civil; it is not here in this document... >>>> >>>> And even the half cock term 'neutrality' has been specifically removed, by those opposed to net neutrality, and you are trying to convince us that net neutrality is still there... >>>> >>>> Not only net neutrality has been removed, 'free flow of information' which figured twice in the earlier (leaked) draft has been removed from both places.. >>>> >>>> Plus the mention of 'necessary and proportionate' principle (s) has been removed.. >>>> >>>> Plus need for agreements on restraining cyber weapons have been removed... >>>> >>>> The part on access for disabled has been weakened... >>>> >>>> The recognition in the previous document of need for mechanisms to address emerging issues and those which do not have a existing home has been greatly diluted... >>>> >>>> So, the big business has done a thorough vetting of the doc to make sure that not a wisp of anything that could even potentially interfere with their free reign on the global Internet could pass through... >>>> >>>> And what happened to other suggestions form HLC members who are to big business or the US gov... >>>> >>>> Argentinian government and Indian government (and in a way also the European Commission) had asked for the insertion of the term 'democratic' in different places where the characteristics of Internet governance were listed.... But, no, that demand was not accepted... >>>> >>>> There is no place for democracy and democratic in the land of multistakeholderism, fronting or big business interests, as the changes in the document clearly show. >>>> >>>> BTW, India in its comments on the document (as per the leaked documents) seem to have also asked for a recognition of the Internet as a global commons... but of course no... what are you talking about! >>>> >>>> What are you asking the people of the world to do with this document... To endorse it and celebrate it just becuase in about 500 places it says multi-stakeholder.... >>>> >>>> parminder >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tuesday 15 April 2014 05:19 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>>>> Carol, it was not "taken out" of the document. It is there, in detail, >>>>> please re-read. >>>>> >>>>> --c.a. >>>>> >>>>> On 04/15/2014 08:10 AM, Carolina wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Pls, mention net neutrality which was taken out of the document put out >>>>>> for comments yesterday. More later. Should we consolidate all in a pad >>>>>> to help Nnenna? >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>> >>>>>> On Apr 15, 2014, at 5:46 AM, Marianne Franklin < >>>>>> m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk >>>>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear all >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 from me re. Nnenna's role, and +1 from me re. Anriette's points below. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> best >>>>>>> MF >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 15/04/2014 19:44, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Congrats Nnenna! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Put on one of your fabulous outfits, and then remind them, that >>>>>>>> working inclusively and respectfully with all stakeholder groups, >>>>>>>> particularly those that lack power and influence - i.e. civil society >>>>>>>> - is very different from putting on a colourful West African outfit >>>>>>>> :) It takes hard work, change in behaviour, change in structures and >>>>>>>> procedures, consultation, respect, trust, debate, and struggle, >>>>>>>> because do not always agree. It also requires a common framework of >>>>>>>> principles that defines what the public interest is in internet >>>>>>>> governance that can be used to promote and protect this public >>>>>>>> interest across the internet governance ecosystem and it is this >>>>>>>> framework that we trust the NetMundial can get us closer to. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You could also mention surveillance, with particularly - but not only >>>>>>>> - mass surveillance demonstrating how easy it is to destroy trust, >>>>>>>> and to deny accountability. And, is there any tougher test for >>>>>>>> multi-stakeholder internet governance? I think it would be good to >>>>>>>> get the message accross that the IANA transition is not the only >>>>>>>> issue that NetMundial should be discussing, but at the same time, it >>>>>>>> is a key opportunity to come up with solutions and approaches that >>>>>>>> are not simply cosmetic. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Anriette >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 15/04/2014 09:23, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> + 1 >>>>>>>>> jeanette >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Am 15.04.14 08:38, schrieb Ian Peter: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Congratulations Nnenna – great choice! >>>>>>>>>> *From:* Nnenna Nwakanma >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 15, 2014 4:35 PM >>>>>>>>>> *To:* Governance >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ; >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *Subject:* [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society >>>>>>>>>> major issues >>>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I got a message this morning from NetMundial Chair, Virgilo, >>>>>>>>>> inviting me >>>>>>>>>> to speak at the Opening Ceremony of Netmundial (meaning I have to pack >>>>>>>>>> one of those African dresses) for some 8 minutes. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I have replied to say "I will be speaking from the Civil Society >>>>>>>>>> perspective, which is my Stakeholder Group". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There is a Web Foundation media team that will help me put my ideas >>>>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>>>> place, but I cannot not request input from here, so that no major >>>>>>>>>> issues >>>>>>>>>> will be overlooked. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I travel Thursday evening thru Friday, so the earliest I can share a >>>>>>>>>> draft/keypoints will be Monday. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hope we can pull this off well. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> All for now >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Nnenna >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>> 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 Marianne Franklin >>>>>>> Professor of Global Media and Politics >>>>>>> Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program >>>>>>> Goldsmiths (University of London) >>>>>>> Department of Media & Communications >>>>>>> New Cross, London SE14 6NW >>>>>>> Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> @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/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> www.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> @netrights >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen >> anriette at apc.org >> >> executive director, association for progressive communications >> >> www.apc.org >> >> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> south africa >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Apr 16 12:10:21 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 21:40:21 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: References: <28D7250BBB2E4798BC6C1B7A93337D53@Toshiba> <534CDE5B.2010906@wzb.eu> <534CE344.2050200@apc.org> <534CFFD8.1090100@gold.ac.uk> <7CE12A31-A7B2-4BA9-A1C0-25FD6E6A7F03@gmail.com> <534D1CB0.4030301@cafonso.ca> <534D2C08.7050207@itforchange.net> <534E56AE.3020800@itforchange.net> <534EA0F2.3080500@apc.org> Message-ID: <534EAB6D.70901@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 16 April 2014 09:16 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > what is the value of "public" in "based on open public standards"? Does the word public add clarity? Does it tell us something otherwise missing? If it had no value, trust me, it wont have been removed... But to answer your question, I quote principle 10 of the 'Delhi Declaration for a Just and Equitable Internet' (enclosed) "An open and decentralized Internet requires strict enforcement of open and public standards. Open standards allow fully interoperable implementation by anyone in any type of software, including Free and Open Source Software (FOSS). The trend towards privatisation of digital standards must be stemmed and measures must be introduced to ensure that standards are publicly owned, freely accessible and implementable. " I hope this answers your question.. I can of course elaborate further. No we did not write principle just to spite those who removed the 'public standard' part from the draft :). This principle was of course written much earlier. parminder > > Drafts are there for comment and revision, one thing comments on the leaked document made quite clear is the need to shorten the final document (and usually the same group that said the document is too long then added more words of their own...) > > The relevant paragraph as it stands in the document for comment is: > > Internet governance should promote open standards, informed by individual and collective expertise and practical experience and decisions made by open consensus, that allow for a unique, interoperable, resilient, stable, decentralized, secure, and interconnected network, available to all. Standards must be consistent with human rights and allow development and innovation. > > (25, in http://document.netmundial.br/1-internet-governance-principles/) > > Is this weak? How can it be improved? 6 comments so far, are they helpful? > > Adam (in my individual capacity) > > > On Apr 17, 2014, at 12:25 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > >> Agree with Parminder. >> >> We need to comment on these omissions. Is best strategy for us to just all comment as individuals, or organisations, or to also try and do collaborative submissions? >> >> But I would not blame big business Parminder. >> >> Texts coming out of intergovernmental processes like the WSIS +10 are also problematic from a public-interest perspective. >> >> Anriette >> >> >> On 16/04/2014 12:08, parminder wrote: >>> And yes, I forgot to mention, 'public' has disappeared from 'open and public standards' which was in the initial draft...... >>> >>> I think we need to be discussing the draft netmundial outcome document that has been put for public comments.. >>> >>> Can people tell me one good thing about the document... I have not heard anyone present it. >>> >>> This was the event that we invested so much in, looked so much forward to... Why we have not anything to say about the outcome document. >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday 15 April 2014 06:24 PM, parminder wrote: >>>> Carlos, >>>> >>>> Of course you know what net neutrality is - it is there in the Marco Civil; it is not here in this document... >>>> >>>> And even the half cock term 'neutrality' has been specifically removed, by those opposed to net neutrality, and you are trying to convince us that net neutrality is still there... >>>> >>>> Not only net neutrality has been removed, 'free flow of information' which figured twice in the earlier (leaked) draft has been removed from both places.. >>>> >>>> Plus the mention of 'necessary and proportionate' principle (s) has been removed.. >>>> >>>> Plus need for agreements on restraining cyber weapons have been removed... >>>> >>>> The part on access for disabled has been weakened... >>>> >>>> The recognition in the previous document of need for mechanisms to address emerging issues and those which do not have a existing home has been greatly diluted... >>>> >>>> So, the big business has done a thorough vetting of the doc to make sure that not a wisp of anything that could even potentially interfere with their free reign on the global Internet could pass through... >>>> >>>> And what happened to other suggestions form HLC members who are to big business or the US gov... >>>> >>>> Argentinian government and Indian government (and in a way also the European Commission) had asked for the insertion of the term 'democratic' in different places where the characteristics of Internet governance were listed.... But, no, that demand was not accepted... >>>> >>>> There is no place for democracy and democratic in the land of multistakeholderism, fronting or big business interests, as the changes in the document clearly show. >>>> >>>> BTW, India in its comments on the document (as per the leaked documents) seem to have also asked for a recognition of the Internet as a global commons... but of course no... what are you talking about! >>>> >>>> What are you asking the people of the world to do with this document... To endorse it and celebrate it just becuase in about 500 places it says multi-stakeholder.... >>>> >>>> parminder >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tuesday 15 April 2014 05:19 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>>>> Carol, it was not "taken out" of the document. It is there, in detail, >>>>> please re-read. >>>>> >>>>> --c.a. >>>>> >>>>> On 04/15/2014 08:10 AM, Carolina wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Pls, mention net neutrality which was taken out of the document put out >>>>>> for comments yesterday. More later. Should we consolidate all in a pad >>>>>> to help Nnenna? >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>> >>>>>> On Apr 15, 2014, at 5:46 AM, Marianne Franklin < >>>>>> m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk >>>>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear all >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 from me re. Nnenna's role, and +1 from me re. Anriette's points below. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> best >>>>>>> MF >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 15/04/2014 19:44, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Congrats Nnenna! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Put on one of your fabulous outfits, and then remind them, that >>>>>>>> working inclusively and respectfully with all stakeholder groups, >>>>>>>> particularly those that lack power and influence - i.e. civil society >>>>>>>> - is very different from putting on a colourful West African outfit >>>>>>>> :) It takes hard work, change in behaviour, change in structures and >>>>>>>> procedures, consultation, respect, trust, debate, and struggle, >>>>>>>> because do not always agree. It also requires a common framework of >>>>>>>> principles that defines what the public interest is in internet >>>>>>>> governance that can be used to promote and protect this public >>>>>>>> interest across the internet governance ecosystem and it is this >>>>>>>> framework that we trust the NetMundial can get us closer to. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You could also mention surveillance, with particularly - but not only >>>>>>>> - mass surveillance demonstrating how easy it is to destroy trust, >>>>>>>> and to deny accountability. And, is there any tougher test for >>>>>>>> multi-stakeholder internet governance? I think it would be good to >>>>>>>> get the message accross that the IANA transition is not the only >>>>>>>> issue that NetMundial should be discussing, but at the same time, it >>>>>>>> is a key opportunity to come up with solutions and approaches that >>>>>>>> are not simply cosmetic. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Anriette >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 15/04/2014 09:23, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> + 1 >>>>>>>>> jeanette >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Am 15.04.14 08:38, schrieb Ian Peter: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Congratulations Nnenna – great choice! >>>>>>>>>> *From:* Nnenna Nwakanma >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 15, 2014 4:35 PM >>>>>>>>>> *To:* Governance >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ; >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *Subject:* [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society >>>>>>>>>> major issues >>>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I got a message this morning from NetMundial Chair, Virgilo, >>>>>>>>>> inviting me >>>>>>>>>> to speak at the Opening Ceremony of Netmundial (meaning I have to pack >>>>>>>>>> one of those African dresses) for some 8 minutes. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I have replied to say "I will be speaking from the Civil Society >>>>>>>>>> perspective, which is my Stakeholder Group". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There is a Web Foundation media team that will help me put my ideas >>>>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>>>> place, but I cannot not request input from here, so that no major >>>>>>>>>> issues >>>>>>>>>> will be overlooked. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I travel Thursday evening thru Friday, so the earliest I can share a >>>>>>>>>> draft/keypoints will be Monday. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hope we can pull this off well. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> All for now >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Nnenna >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>> 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 Marianne Franklin >>>>>>> Professor of Global Media and Politics >>>>>>> Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program >>>>>>> Goldsmiths (University of London) >>>>>>> Department of Media & Communications >>>>>>> New Cross, London SE14 6NW >>>>>>> Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> @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/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> www.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> @netrights >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen >> anriette at apc.org >> >> executive director, association for progressive communications >> >> www.apc.org >> >> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> south africa >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Delhi Declaration.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 186287 bytes Desc: not available URL: From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Wed Apr 16 13:37:49 2014 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 19:37:49 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] NETmundial / Neelie Kroes: let's get to work Message-ID: [ Apologies if you receive this message multiple times ] Dear all, Concerning the forthcoming Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (NETmundial) which will take place in Sao Paulo (Brazil) on 23-24 April 2014, you might be interested to read the latest blog post of Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the European Commission and member of the High-Level Multistakeholder Committee of NETmundial, available at https://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/kroes/en/content/netmundial-lets-get-workand reproduced below. +++ NETmundial: let's get to work Published by Neelie KROESon Wednesday, 16/04/2014 I will soon be travelling to Sao Paulo to attend NETmundial, the Multi-stakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance. The purpose of NETmundial is to develop principles of Internet governance and a roadmap for the future development of this ecosystem. I have already sharedwith all of you my thoughts on the draft "outcome document" that I and other members of the High-Level Multi-stakeholder Committee of NETmundialreceived on 3 April 2014. In the meantime, the organisers of the conference have published a new version of the outcome documentand are inviting everyone to send their views and comments – I warmly invite all of you to do so. I did so, too; I have sent an email to the membersof the High Level Multi-stakeholder Committee, to the Chair of the Meeting (Prof. Virgilio Almeida) and to the two co-chairs of the Executive Meeting Committee, Raul Echeberria and Demi Getschko. Again, in a spirit of transparency, I would like to share the contents of this message with the broader Internet community.... so please read my letter below. *From: KROES Neelie (CAB-KROES)* *Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 7:26 PM* *To: 'hlmc at netmundial.br '* *Subject: Proposals for the NETmundial outcome document* Dear colleagues, I am pleased to see that the draft outcome document for NETmundial has been published and that the broader public has now the possibility to intervene in the discussion, before we all meet in Sao Paulo next week. Again, I would like to thank all the members of the Executive Multistakeholder Committee, as well as the Chair and the Co-Chairs of the meeting, for their tireless work. As a follow-up to the commentswhich I have already shared with you, I would like to make some further observations. In the same spirit of transparency as my previous communication, I am also posting a copy of this e-mail on my blog . I continue to strongly believe that the outcomes of NETmundial must be concrete and actionable, with clear milestones and with a realistic but ambitious timeline. Several reactions to my comments show that I am not alone in thinking that concreteness is paramount to the success of this important gathering; and even though positions on substance may well differ, I believe that my assessment on the necessity of a "change of pace" in these discussions is shared by a broad range of stakeholders. Read in this light, it is clear me that more work is needed on the latest draft; especially if we consider that a number of public contributions submitted to NETmundial did include concrete and actionable suggestions. Luckily, several passages of the draft outcome document do lend themselves quite well to being turned into more concrete actions – and we should make full use of this opportunity. I will focus on six specific examples: 1. Improvements to the multi-stakeholder model 2. Strengthening the Internet Governance Forum 3. Tools and mechanisms for better information sharing and capacity building 4. Globalisation of IANA 5. Globalisation of ICANN 6. Jurisdictional issues on the Internet *(1) Improvements to the multi-stakeholder model* The draft outcome document refers several times to the need to *further improve and strengthen the multi-stakeholder model*, to enable the full and balanced participation of all stakeholders from around the globe, to have clear and transparent processes and procedures (including mechanisms for checks and balances and for review). I completely agree – in fact, I have said so for a long time. The keywords here are inclusiveness and openness, which must both be real and meaningful, not just theoretical. NETmundial should be the moment to properly connect the debates on Internet governance with the discussions and concrete activities on citizens' engagement and participatory democracy. Europe has been quite active in this field, ranging from EU-funded projects in the ICT field, such as DEMO-NET , Cross Overand D-CENT ; to legal innovations such as the European Citizens Initiative; to national initiatives such as the use of Liquid Democracy in the Germany and the People's Assembly Rahvakoguin Estonia, to name just a few. Brazil, with the inclusive and participatory conception and discussions on the "Marco Civil", is also an inspiration for all of us. And it is purely for reasons of space that I cannot mention all the efforts by many organisations and individuals across the world. In its Communication on Internet Policy and Governanceof 12 February 2014, the European Commission suggested that the *further development of multistakeholder guidelines and the sharing of best practices* would be a good manner to move forward. Accordingly, *I suggest that the outcomes of NETmundial should include*: - a clear commitment to the *bottom-up and cooperative* development of a "concept paper" to be discussed at the 9th Internet Governance Forum (Istanbul, Turkey, *2-5 September 2014*); - this concept paper should identify initial recommendations on how the above mentioned engagement and participatory tools and initiatives could be used in Internet governance debates; it should also propose an initial outline of principles-based guidelines to safeguard accountability, transparency, inclusiveness and independence for multi-stakeholder processes; - the discussions in Istanbul and all other appropriate fora should lead, by the *beginning of 2015*, to a proposal for two "case studies", to examine how we could turn the high-level principles into concrete, operational practices of existing Internet governance organisations and processes; - further discussions and practical experimentation on these cases studies could then result in a *concrete reference paper* to be presented and discussed at the 10th Internet Governance Forum, towards the *end of 2015* – and of course, to be further refined as need be. *(2) Strengthening the Internet Governance Forum* I referred multiple times to the *Internet Governance Forum* or IGF. The draft outcome document of NETmundial clearly mentions the need for strengthening and improving this most important and unique example of global and multi-stakeholder engagement and dialogue. I agree that such improvements should include an extension of the IGF mandate beyond its usual 5-years cycle, without prejudice to any possible adaptation of such mandate as the global community will see fit; I also agree that ensuring stable and predictable funding for the IGF is absolutely essential. I reiterate my invitation for everyone, but especially those organisations which have greatly benefited from the Internet, to become a donor to the IGF – like the EU, some of its Member States and others from the public and private sector. I believe that NETmundial should also make a clear reference, and if possible provide some practical examples, on how innovative forms of crowd-funding could contribute to this joint effort. The other improvements mentioned in the draft outcome document, namely the need to implement creative ways of providing outcomes / recommendations and the analysis of policy options, and to promote inter-sessional dialogues between the yearly gatherings of the IGF, are also essential and, in my view, closely linked to the need to better connect to existing experiences, expertise and practical tools for inclusive engagement, that I highlighted above. On this basis, *I propose that the NETmundial outcome document should ask the Multistakeholder Advisory Group to present to the global community a clear and realistic assessment of how and when, in their view, these recommendations could be concretely implemented*, at the 9th Internet Governance Forum in *September 2014*. Members of the MAG serve in their personal capacity, but are expected to have extensive linkages with their respective stakeholder groups; I am therefore certain that such assessment would be well informed and inclusive of all opinions. But to be even more concrete: let us not forget that, as the draft outcome document mentions, we already have a very clear set of recommendations to refer to, i.e. the *Report of the Working Group on Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum*(WGIGF) of 2012. Some of these recommendations have been acted upon; some are still lingering; but more in general, I sense that we are missing a sense of the "global picture". Therefore, I would strongly *recommend that one of the concrete outputs of NETmundial should be an assessment – even if an initial one – of where we stand in terms of implementation for each recommendation of the WGIGF*, or at the very least a clear commitment that such assessment will be presented at the latest at 9th Internet Governance Forum in *September 2014*; and that this "state of play" will be duly updated and be open to public input, possibly using participatory tools as I highlighted above. *(3) Tools and mechanisms for better information sharing and capacity building* As you can certainly see, I strongly believe in the *use of appropriate ICT tools* for better and more inclusive dialogues. The NETmundial draft outcome document clearly mentions the need for communication and coordination within the Internet governance ecosystem, including via tools to perform on-going monitoring, analysis, and information-sharing function. I have already highlighted in my previous comments how the European Commission is investing in the *Global Internet Policy Observatory initiative*(GIPO) as a way to experiment with the automated collection, analysis, organisation and visualisation of information on Internet governance discussions and decisions. The European Commission is currently finalising a feasibility assessment of the technological and organisational options for the GIPO, and we will share our conclusions by *mid-2014*, with a view to launch the technological development of GIPO by the *end of 2014*. In the meantime many other organisations, public and private, are either already working or are planning to invest in Internet policy observatories and similar initiatives. We should strive to avoid duplication of efforts. Let me be crystal clear: I do not see any need for a winner-takes-all beauty contest between observatories. Quite the contrary. But we should strive to learn from each other's understanding of the problems and proposed solutions. Ideally, we should also move towards a federation of Internet policy observatories. I therefore suggest that the draft outcome document of NETmundial should *include a clear commitment to have a broad, inclusive and operational roundtable among all "observatory initiatives"* during the 9th Internet Governance Forum in *September 2014*; ideally, this roundtable should lead to the development of an initial "*collaboration roadmap*" by *mid-2015* and identify mechanisms, including via existing meetings and dialogues, to foster cooperation and communication among these various initiatives. *(4) Globalisation of IANA* You already know how important I believe it is to keep the momentum towards a real and effective globalisation of core Internet functions and decisions, including IANA. ICANN has recently shared a draft "scoping paper" and a roadmap that will certainly be helpful in the discussions on the globalisation of IANA. *I believe that the NETmundial outcome document should explicitly recognise this draft proposal by ICANN as an important contribution and explicitly call all stakeholders to express their views on it*. *I also believe that in order for this discussion to be truly meaningful, the NETmundial outcome document should clearly flag that*: - the engagement of the broader public should make full use of *all** existing meetings and fora*, including the global Internet Governance Forum and the regional ones, as appropriate; ICANN should also reach out to organisations across the world which are willing and capable to foster dialogue among citizens, besides and beyond those who are able to attend the meetings of ICANN or other Internet technical organisations; - with due consideration to the criteria which the US Government has presented in its announcement of 14 March 2014, *there should be no artificial limitation in the scope of the discussion*. For example, a consideration of *various organisational options*, as well as of the *opportunity* and the *most appropriate ways to separate policy, operational and oversight activities* should not be "off-limits", if we want the debate on the future of IANA to be seen as truly legitimate at the global level. *(5) Globalisation of ICANN* The CEO of ICANN has recently declaredthat a public dialogue on how to strengthen ICANN’s accountability will soon be launched. In my view, this dialogue cannot be separated from the broader issue of how to make ICANN a truly global organization serving the public interest, as the draft outcome document mentions. I understand that this dialogue will look at strengthening existing accountability mechanisms like the Affirmation of Commitments, and ICANN’s redress mechanisms, as well as exploring new accountability mechanisms where necessary. I am looking forward to further information and details and I expect that ICANN will also provide a clear timeline on the concrete implementation of its globalisation efforts. Accordingly, I *recommend that the NETmundial outcome document clearly invites ICANN to share its concrete proposals* at the 50th ICANN meeting (London, UK, *22-26 June 2014*). *(6) Jurisdictional issues on the Internet* It is natural, when talking about globalisation, to reflect not only on the amazing opportunities brought about by the Internet, but also on the challenges which this inherently cross-border medium raises with respect to the application of laws. The European Commission committedto launching an in-depth review of the risks, at international level, of conflicts of laws and jurisdictions arising on the Internet and to assess all mechanisms, processes and tools available and necessary to solve such conflicts. The NETmundial draft outcome document clearly identifies jurisdictional issues and how they relate to Internet governance as "material for further discussion". While I understand and agree that a full debate on this broad topic during NETmundial would be neither desirable nor productive, *we should have a stronger commitment to a phase-by-phase examination of this issue*, with a view to produce "good practice" guidelines as appropriate. Accordingly, *I suggest that the outcomes of NETmundial should include *an invitation to interested parties to: - develop a "scoping paper" by *July 2014*; - facilitate on-line and off-line engagement opportunities, as appropriate, in the run-up to the 9th Internet Governance Forum (Istanbul, Turkey, *2-5 September 2014*); - following these discussions, aim to produce a first draft of "problem statements" and possible recommendations by the *first half of 2015*. Dear colleagues, I thank you for your patience in reading my observations and proposals, which I trust will be useful in further refining the outcome document of NETmundial. Kind regards, Neelie Kroes +++ Best, -- Andrea Glorioso (Mr) European Commission - DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology Unit D1 (International relations) + Task Force on Internet Policy Development Avenue de Beaulieu 25 (4/64) / B-1049 / Brussels / Belgium T: +32-2-29-97682 M: +32-460-797-682 E: Andrea.Glorioso at ec.europa.eu Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro The views expressed above are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission. Les opinions exprimées ci-dessus n'engagent que leur auteur et ne sauraient en aucun cas être assimilées à une position officielle de la Commission européenne. Be transparent - Sign up to the European Commission's Register of Interest Representatives http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regrin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Apr 16 16:59:07 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 16:59:07 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] QUESTION TO ADAM - NETmundial documents online for comment Message-ID: Adam, Will the organizers consolidate the comments into a new document?! If no....why should we be commenting on it? (this second is just a rhetoric question to understand the process) On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 10:36 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Please see Use the Navigate button. > > Comments will close April 21th, 12:00 UTC. > > Adam > > > > WELCOME TO NETMUNDIAL PUBLIC COMMENTS PAGE > > After an open call for content contribution, NETmundial – the Global > Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance – received > 188 documents from 46 different countries. These documents were sent by > representatives of Civil Society, Private Sector, Academy, Governments and > Technical Community. > > Based on these broad set of inputs, NETmundial’s Executive > Multistakeholder Committee (EMC) prepared a Draft Outcome Document and > submitted it for consultation with NETmundial’s High-level Multistakeholder > Committee (HLMC) on April 3rd, 2014. After incorporating the inputs from > the HLMC, under the guidance of NETmundial’s Chair and Co-Chairs, a final > version of the document is released here for public comments. The public > consultation will be open for comments on NETmundial’s Executive Committee > Output Document from April 14th until April 21th, 12:00 UTC. > > For this public consultation a commenting tool is available online at > http://document.netmundial.br/ with the purpose of receiving public > comments on specific points of the document. It is not necessary to create > an account in order to post your comment to the document. You’ll be able to > immediately start reading the document and whenever you have something to > say, you’ll just have to provide a full name and contact email address > alongside your comment. > > By clicking on any paragraph of the document, you’ll be able to see all > the comments other people have already made pertaining to that portion of > the text; as referred above, you are also granted the possibility to > register your own observations. Maybe your concern was already addressed in > someone else’s comment, so please be sure to take a look at the previous > comments before making yours. > > This public consultation closes the loop that started by collecting public > content contributions. Such contributions were compiled and merged into the > Outcome Document by the NETmundial EMC and HLMC committees in the spirit of > trying to represent the overall context of the current Internet Governance > debate. It is very important to receive further public input in this final > stage, so that the outcome is true to the issues and concerns presented by > all stakeholders. > > END > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- *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: From rishab.bailey at gmail.com Wed Apr 16 17:21:42 2014 From: rishab.bailey at gmail.com (Rishab Bailey) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 02:51:42 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Society for Knowledge Commons statement on High Level Committee iteration of the NetMundial Outcome Document Message-ID: Hi All, Please find appended below a statement from Knowledge Commons on the High Level Committee iteration of the NetMundial Outcome Document. The statement can also be accessed on the Knowledge Commons website at www.kcbrasil.org Regards Rishab Bailey (for the Society for Knowledge Commons) **** *Knowledge Commons Statement on the latest iteration of the NetMundial Outcome Document* On 14 April 2014, the High Level Committee (HLC) of NetMundial published the latest version of the draft outcome document at *http://document.netmundial.br/ * This document has numerous changes to the draft document prepared by the Executive Stakeholder Committee, which Knowledge Commons has previously commented on. Having read and analysedall 187 submissions made to the meeting, it is our considered view that the latest draft of the outcome document significantly waters down many of the progressive positions mentioned in the first iteration prepared by the Executive Stakeholder Committee. *First,* The document does not adequately respond to and prohibit mass surveillance – which was one of the issues that prompted the call for this meeting in the first place. The document has dropped reference to “necessary and proportionate” principles and does not prohibit the practices of targeting innocent civilians around the world of which Snowden has made us all aware *Second, *the deletion of references to an international agreement to protect against cyber warfare is a serious concern. As more and more critical infrastructure resources around the world are maintained and operated through digital mechanisms, ensuring the security of these installations from targeted attacks is critical. Such an agreement is the core business of governments. *Third, *the document departs from accepted notions of multistakeholderism as notably enshrined in the Tunis Agenda by recommending that all stakeholders be placed on an equal footing, irrespective of their roles and responsibilities. This turns the concept of representative democracy on its head by permitting those with financial interests to frustrate the will of legitimate and representative organisations. *Fourth, *the document attempts to ensure accountability and transparency of multistakeholder organizations including by putting in place periodic reporting requirements. We continue to believe that there would be greater utility in clearly defining the roles and responsibilities of various stakeholders and specifying the elements of a minimum standard set of guidelines, operating procedures, or the identification of an entity to elaborate these modalities for multistakeholder fora. *Fifth, *the document fails to recognize the need for a separation between policy processes and operational aspects of ICANN. We believe there is a need to ensure structures are put in place that can ensure public policy is framed in a legitimate, representative fashion. It is essential that the role of governments within ICANN be spelt out and re-affirmed. By watering down the language on transition on IANA functions and the restructured role of ICANN, we believe that the High Level Committee has missed an opportunity to ensure global pressure on the USA to relinquish control over a resource that is a global commons. **** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Apr 16 17:59:13 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 22:59:13 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Internet, power and democracy Message-ID: <00d201cf59bf$1b3d9500$51b8bf00$@gmail.com> This may be of interest. M From: Members [mailto:members-bounces at justnetcoalition.org] On Behalf Of Sally Burch - ALAI Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 4:39 PM To: cone-elist at net-equality.org; members at justnetcoalition.org Subject: [Members] Fwd: [alai-amlat-en] Internet, power and democracy Friends: the English edition of our publication on Internet, power and democracy is also now online: http://www.alainet.org/publica/494-en.phtml Please feel free to redisseminate. We'll also be posting individual articles from the magazine on the site over the coming days. The following ones are already up: Power and democracy on the Net Sally Burch Information Flow and Power Julian Assange Sally ------------- -- English language information service on Latin America -- Internet, power and democracy "América Latina en Movimiento" No. 494, April 2014 Special English language digital edition The loss of privacy and security of our communications is deeply worrying, but even more dangerous is how power is becoming concentrated in the hands of those who control technology, data and knowledge. A week before the start of the NetMundial meeting on Internet governance principles, convened by Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, the latest edition (No. 494) of ALAI's magazine “América Latina en Movimiento” (now available online in English) examines different aspects of this necessary debate. Power and Democracy on the Net Sally Burch Information Flow and Power Julian Assange The Multistakeholder Model and Neo-liberalism: “Post-democratic” Internet Governance Michael Gurstein Interview with Robert McChesney: How can Internet be De-monopolized? Sally Burch Towards a Just and Equitable Internet Prabir Purkayastha Interview with Kenyan Alex Gakuru Cloud Computing and Legal Labyrinths ALAI Root Causes of Internet Social Justice or Injustice Norbert Bollow Brazil Approves One of the Most Advanced Internet Laws in the World The Civil Framework for the Internet Bia Barbosa and Pedro Ekman WSIS+10: The Search for Consensus Richard Hill Glossary of Acronyms Appendix: Delhi Declaration for a Just and Equitable Internet Just Net Coalition You can download the publication here: http://www.alainet.org/publica/494-en.phtml Spanish edition: http://www.alainet.org/publica/494.phtml More information on ALAI's publications: http://www.alainet.org/revista_en.phtml More information: http://alainet.org/index.phtml.en RSS: http://alainet.org/rss.phtml Twitter: http://twitter.com/ALAIinfo We invite you to sustain ALAI's work. Contributions: http://alainet.org/donaciones.php ______________________________________ Agencia Latinoamericana de Informacion email: info at alainet.org Subscriptions: http://listas.alainet.org/listas/subscribe/alai-amlat-en Unsubscribe: mailto:sympa at listas.alainet.org?subject=UNS%20alai-amlat-en -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Apr 16 18:38:02 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 08:38:02 +1000 Subject: [bestbits] Surveillance paragraph of netmundial document Message-ID: Hi everyone, To me one of the weakest sections of the document is the paragraph dealing with surveillance issues (para 35 of the Roadmap) which reads “ Internet surveillance – Mass and arbitrary surveillance undermines trust in the Internet and trust in the Internet governance ecosystem. Surveillance of communications, their interception, and the collection of personal data, including mass surveillance, interception and collection should be conducted in accordance with states’ obligations under international human rights law. More dialogue is needed on this topic at the international level using forums like IGF and the Human Rights Council aiming to develop a common understanding on all the related aspects”. This fairly weak language and action line (more dialogue) is not surprising given the governmental input (including US Government) into the drafting. So far the only comment on this is from me, where I suggest reference to the necessaryandproportionate.org principles. I think it would be useful if others commented as individuals. Perhaps what we need is some better wording (which perhaps governments would be embarrassed not to include), and which would strengthen the response here. In any case, some wording and indication of level of concern to ensure that this is discussed on the floor of the meeting rather than simply passed by as an adequate wording would be useful! Ian Peter The site for entering responses is http://document.netmundial.br/2-roadmap-for-the-future-evolution-of-the-internet-governance/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joao.caribe at me.com Wed Apr 16 19:41:54 2014 From: joao.caribe at me.com (=?utf-8?Q? Jo=C3=A3o_Carlos_R._Carib=C3=A9 ?=) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 20:41:54 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Wrong analysis reduce the importance of Net Neutrality Message-ID: Dears, The Brazilian press issued one article where Net Neutrality appears as a topic of little interest, the number was obtained based on the number of proposals submitted. Like most proposals submitted by civil society were collective, the correct analysis would take into account the proposals submitted and the number of signatories. Agree? Read the text bellow using Google translator http://convergenciadigital.uol.com.br/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?infoid=36507&sid=4 _ João Carlos Caribé (021) 8761 1967 (021) 4042 7727 Skype joaocaribe Enviado via i From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Apr 16 21:04:42 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 21:04:42 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Wrong analysis reduce the importance of Net Neutrality In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Terrible analysis ... And yes, the numbers should have been "normalized' based on signatories This was done based on http://www.ip-watch.org/2014/03/20/quantitative-analysis-of-contributions-to-netmundial-meeting/ Which also do not take into consideration the signatories On Wednesday, April 16, 2014, João Carlos R. Caribé wrote: > Dears, > > The Brazilian press issued one article where Net Neutrality appears as a > topic of little interest, the number was obtained based on the number of > proposals submitted. Like most proposals submitted by civil society were > collective, the correct analysis would take into account the proposals > submitted and the number of signatories. Agree? > > Read the text bellow using Google translator > > > http://convergenciadigital.uol.com.br/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?infoid=36507&sid=4 > > > _ > João Carlos Caribé > (021) 8761 1967 > (021) 4042 7727 > Skype joaocaribe > Enviado via i -- *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: From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Wed Apr 16 21:08:25 2014 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:08:25 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Agenda for Civil Society pre-NetMundial Coordination Meeting In-Reply-To: <76D6148C-F2A8-46A4-B29C-9FC4D8310DE3@glocom.ac.jp> References: <3B978AD6-7A77-4CEF-AA81-6F420D6EAF30@Malcolm.id.au> <2E333DCE-0233-439B-8FF3-3970E425D185@Malcolm.id.au> <76D6148C-F2A8-46A4-B29C-9FC4D8310DE3@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <71D57EB9-2D08-4AC6-9674-01DE5DBB7AF3@Malcolm.id.au> On 16 Apr 2014, at 10:46 pm, Adam Peake wrote: > Why does the agenda link to the leaked document of April 3, not the document to be discussed at the meeting? The website is a work in progress, and at the time the final document had not been available so I had added a link to the leaked document as a stopgap. I have updated it now with the link to the final document. In some other respects the website is still less than 100% current (notably the agenda). > Governments have a meeting on the afternoon of April 22, 2-5pm, are you sure any will come to a CS session? We knew about that, but... > There is a welcome reception at the Grand Hyatt São Paulo from 6pm. All invited. We didn't know about this. In light of which, there are discussions going on about moving our government event. More news soon. -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Apr 16 21:10:22 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 21:10:22 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Agenda for Civil Society pre-NetMundial Coordination Meeting In-Reply-To: <71D57EB9-2D08-4AC6-9674-01DE5DBB7AF3@Malcolm.id.au> References: <3B978AD6-7A77-4CEF-AA81-6F420D6EAF30@Malcolm.id.au> <2E333DCE-0233-439B-8FF3-3970E425D185@Malcolm.id.au> <76D6148C-F2A8-46A4-B29C-9FC4D8310DE3@glocom.ac.jp> <71D57EB9-2D08-4AC6-9674-01DE5DBB7AF3@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: Adam Any other news on events or agenda so we all have a better picture and organize accordantly? On Wednesday, April 16, 2014, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 16 Apr 2014, at 10:46 pm, Adam Peake > > wrote: > > > Why does the agenda link to the leaked document of April 3, not the > document to be discussed at the meeting? > > The website is a work in progress, and at the time the final document had > not been available so I had added a link to the leaked document as a > stopgap. I have updated it now with the link to the final document. In > some other respects the website is still less than 100% current (notably > the agenda). > > > Governments have a meeting on the afternoon of April 22, 2-5pm, are you > sure any will come to a CS session? > > We knew about that, but... > > > There is a welcome reception at the Grand Hyatt São Paulo from 6pm. All > invited. > > We didn't know about this. In light of which, there are discussions going > on about moving our government event. More news soon. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see > http://jere.my/l/pgp. > > -- *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: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Apr 16 21:58:48 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 07:28:48 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Surveillance paragraph of netmundial document In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <534F3558.4080906@itforchange.net> On Thursday 17 April 2014 04:08 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Hi everyone, > To me one of the weakest sections of the document is the paragraph > dealing with surveillance issues (para 35 of the Roadmap) which reads > “Internet surveillance – Mass and arbitrary surveillance undermines > trust in the Internet and trust in the Internet governance ecosystem. > Surveillance of communications, their interception, and the collection > of personal data, including mass surveillance, interception and > collection should be conducted in accordance with states’ obligations > under international human rights law. More dialogue is needed on this > topic at the international level using forums like IGF and the Human > Rights Council aiming to develop a common understanding on all the > related aspects”. > This fairly weak language and action line (more dialogue) is not > surprising given the governmental input (including US Government) into > the drafting. So far the only comment on this is from me, where I > suggest reference to the necessaryandproportionate.org principles. You of course know that reference to 'necessary and proportionate' was there in the original draft and it got removed... What are the chances then it will be reinstated at your request? parminder > I think it would be useful if others commented as individuals. Perhaps > what we need is some better wording (which perhaps governments would > be embarrassed not to include), and which would strengthen the > response here. In any case, some wording and indication of level of > concern to ensure that this is discussed on the floor of the meeting > rather than simply passed by as an adequate wording would be useful! > Ian Peter > The site for entering responses is > http://document.netmundial.br/2-roadmap-for-the-future-evolution-of-the-internet-governance/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Apr 16 21:59:04 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 07:29:04 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Surveillance paragraph of netmundial document In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <534F3568.6050605@itforchange.net> On Thursday 17 April 2014 04:08 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Hi everyone, > To me one of the weakest sections of the document is the paragraph > dealing with surveillance issues (para 35 of the Roadmap) which reads > “Internet surveillance – Mass and arbitrary surveillance undermines > trust in the Internet and trust in the Internet governance ecosystem. > Surveillance of communications, their interception, and the collection > of personal data, including mass surveillance, interception and > collection should be conducted in accordance with states’ obligations > under international human rights law. More dialogue is needed on this > topic at the international level using forums like IGF and the Human > Rights Council aiming to develop a common understanding on all the > related aspects”. > This fairly weak language and action line (more dialogue) is not > surprising given the governmental input (including US Government) into > the drafting. So far the only comment on this is from me, where I > suggest reference to the necessaryandproportionate.org principles. You of course know that reference to 'necessary and proportionate' was there in the original draft and it got removed... What are the chances then it will be reinstated at your request? parminder > I think it would be useful if others commented as individuals. Perhaps > what we need is some better wording (which perhaps governments would > be embarrassed not to include), and which would strengthen the > response here. In any case, some wording and indication of level of > concern to ensure that this is discussed on the floor of the meeting > rather than simply passed by as an adequate wording would be useful! > Ian Peter > The site for entering responses is > http://document.netmundial.br/2-roadmap-for-the-future-evolution-of-the-internet-governance/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Apr 16 22:19:18 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 07:49:18 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: <69FF6247-8681-4343-A922-5ED3458CD40E@glocom.ac.jp> References: <28D7250BBB2E4798BC6C1B7A93337D53@Toshiba> <534CDE5B.2010906@wzb.eu> <534CE344.2050200@apc.org> <534CFFD8.1090100@gold.ac.uk> <7CE12A31-A7B2-4BA9-A1C0-25FD6E6A7F03@gmail.com> <534D1CB0.4030301@cafonso.ca> <534D2C08.7050207@itforchange.net> <534D3226.3030703@itforchange.net> <69FF6247-8681-4343-A922-5ED3458CD40E@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <534F3A26.2010507@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 16 April 2014 12:47 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > snip >> And it is not just these two governments. President Rousseff in her famed UN speech has directly linked the privacy issue to democracy... To quote >> >> "In the absence of the right to privacy, there can be no true freedom of expression and opinion, and therefore no effective democracy. " >> > looks to me you have picked up something very important in that quote. How about making a comment on paragraph 2, or perhaps add a preamble to paragraph 14 of principles, or paragraph 4 of roadmap? Adam When the EMC or whoever did not find it fit to include the term 'democratic' even after specific and repeated recommendation of more than one government HLC member, do you really think I should bother recommending that (although you know we did send a document to you all before your last EMC meeting where you finalised this draft where we requested you to include 'democratic') ? This apart from the fact that there is a whole contribution by IT for Change to the open process on the issue which you were supposed to have read and prepared you draft having taken it into account. Please see the contribution "Is certain kind of multistakeholderism a post-democratic ideology? - Need to save NetMundial outcome documents from crossing some sacred democratic lines ". You will perhaps appreciate our crystal-gazing skills. Why is the NetMundial behaving exactly as per our worst fears? The answer; it is, was always, structural to how this event was systematically captured by status-quo-ist, and its Brazilian leadership, which is where most people initially posed their trust, has been long displaced. Maybe, you can explain the compulsions of not putting 'democratic' in the description of Internet governance mechanisms, when multistakeholder is mentioned about 500 times.... And please dont behave as if it simply did not occur to you/EMC, which while being surprising on its own, is unsustainable as per the above. BTW, for the sake of transparency, can we please be informed who prepared the final draft - the EMC or the meeting board (with its civil society co-chair who is really not civil society ) parminder > > Thanks, > > Adam (in my individual capacity) > > >> But strangely, Brazilians seem to have handed over this meeting to the staus quoists... and democracy is simply not a favoured word with them.. >> >> Welcome to the brave new post-democratic world... the NetMundial doc as it stands is positioned to become a key milestone, even a trail blazer, towards a post-democratic global governance, from where it will trickle down to national levels. The neoliberal ideology is making really big strides and rapid gains.... >> >> parminder >> >> >> >>> BTW, India in its comments on the document (as per the leaked documents) seem to have also asked for a recognition of the Internet as a global commons... but of course no... what are you talking about! >>> >>> What are you asking the people of the world to do with this document... To endorse it and celebrate it just becuase in about 500 places it says multi-stakeholder.... >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday 15 April 2014 05:19 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>>> Carol, it was not "taken out" of the document. It is there, in detail, >>>> please re-read. >>>> >>>> --c.a. >>>> >>>> On 04/15/2014 08:10 AM, Carolina wrote: >>>> >>>>> Pls, mention net neutrality which was taken out of the document put out >>>>> for comments yesterday. More later. Should we consolidate all in a pad >>>>> to help Nnenna? >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>> On Apr 15, 2014, at 5:46 AM, Marianne Franklin < >>>>> m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk >>>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear all >>>>>> >>>>>> +1 from me re. Nnenna's role, and +1 from me re. Anriette's points below. >>>>>> >>>>>> best >>>>>> MF >>>>>> >>>>>> On 15/04/2014 19:44, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Congrats Nnenna! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Put on one of your fabulous outfits, and then remind them, that >>>>>>> working inclusively and respectfully with all stakeholder groups, >>>>>>> particularly those that lack power and influence - i.e. civil society >>>>>>> - is very different from putting on a colourful West African outfit >>>>>>> :) It takes hard work, change in behaviour, change in structures and >>>>>>> procedures, consultation, respect, trust, debate, and struggle, >>>>>>> because do not always agree. It also requires a common framework of >>>>>>> principles that defines what the public interest is in internet >>>>>>> governance that can be used to promote and protect this public >>>>>>> interest across the internet governance ecosystem and it is this >>>>>>> framework that we trust the NetMundial can get us closer to. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You could also mention surveillance, with particularly - but not only >>>>>>> - mass surveillance demonstrating how easy it is to destroy trust, >>>>>>> and to deny accountability. And, is there any tougher test for >>>>>>> multi-stakeholder internet governance? I think it would be good to >>>>>>> get the message accross that the IANA transition is not the only >>>>>>> issue that NetMundial should be discussing, but at the same time, it >>>>>>> is a key opportunity to come up with solutions and approaches that >>>>>>> are not simply cosmetic. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anriette >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 15/04/2014 09:23, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> + 1 >>>>>>>> jeanette >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Am 15.04.14 08:38, schrieb Ian Peter: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Congratulations Nnenna – great choice! >>>>>>>>> *From:* Nnenna Nwakanma >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 15, 2014 4:35 PM >>>>>>>>> *To:* Governance >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ; >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Subject:* [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society >>>>>>>>> major issues >>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I got a message this morning from NetMundial Chair, Virgilo, >>>>>>>>> inviting me >>>>>>>>> to speak at the Opening Ceremony of Netmundial (meaning I have to pack >>>>>>>>> one of those African dresses) for some 8 minutes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have replied to say "I will be speaking from the Civil Society >>>>>>>>> perspective, which is my Stakeholder Group". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There is a Web Foundation media team that will help me put my ideas >>>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>>> place, but I cannot not request input from here, so that no major >>>>>>>>> issues >>>>>>>>> will be overlooked. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I travel Thursday evening thru Friday, so the earliest I can share a >>>>>>>>> draft/keypoints will be Monday. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hope we can pull this off well. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All for now >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nnenna >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> 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 Marianne Franklin >>>>>> Professor of Global Media and Politics >>>>>> Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program >>>>>> Goldsmiths (University of London) >>>>>> Department of Media & Communications >>>>>> New Cross, London SE14 6NW >>>>>> Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> @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/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) >>>>>> >>>>>> www.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>>>>> >>>>>> @netrights >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> >>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>> . >>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Apr 16 22:25:22 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 12:25:22 +1000 Subject: [bestbits] Surveillance paragraph of netmundial document In-Reply-To: <534F3568.6050605@itforchange.net> References: <534F3568.6050605@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <638ABDFBC806453391950C3827E5778A@Toshiba> I don’t know Parminder (and I wasnt aware of that). What I would like to see is sufficient comments and some suggestions that might provoke a discussion during the meeting rather than the words quietly being accepted. I suggested elsewhere perhaps we could call for an immediate cessation of all surveillance that did not accord with human rights provisions and privacy norms. I would just like to see which governments put up their hand to oppose an inclusion along those lines. Ian Peter From: parminder Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 11:59 AM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] Surveillance paragraph of netmundial document On Thursday 17 April 2014 04:08 AM, Ian Peter wrote: Hi everyone, To me one of the weakest sections of the document is the paragraph dealing with surveillance issues (para 35 of the Roadmap) which reads “ Internet surveillance – Mass and arbitrary surveillance undermines trust in the Internet and trust in the Internet governance ecosystem. Surveillance of communications, their interception, and the collection of personal data, including mass surveillance, interception and collection should be conducted in accordance with states’ obligations under international human rights law. More dialogue is needed on this topic at the international level using forums like IGF and the Human Rights Council aiming to develop a common understanding on all the related aspects”. This fairly weak language and action line (more dialogue) is not surprising given the governmental input (including US Government) into the drafting. So far the only comment on this is from me, where I suggest reference to the necessaryandproportionate.org principles. You of course know that reference to 'necessary and proportionate' was there in the original draft and it got removed... What are the chances then it will be reinstated at your request? parminder I think it would be useful if others commented as individuals. Perhaps what we need is some better wording (which perhaps governments would be embarrassed not to include), and which would strengthen the response here. In any case, some wording and indication of level of concern to ensure that this is discussed on the floor of the meeting rather than simply passed by as an adequate wording would be useful! Ian Peter The site for entering responses is http://document.netmundial.br/2-roadmap-for-the-future-evolution-of-the-internet-governance/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lillian at cipesa.org Thu Apr 17 02:32:29 2014 From: lillian at cipesa.org (Lillian Nalwoga) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:32:29 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: <534EAB6D.70901@itforchange.net> References: <28D7250BBB2E4798BC6C1B7A93337D53@Toshiba> <534CDE5B.2010906@wzb.eu> <534CE344.2050200@apc.org> <534CFFD8.1090100@gold.ac.uk> <7CE12A31-A7B2-4BA9-A1C0-25FD6E6A7F03@gmail.com> <534D1CB0.4030301@cafonso.ca> <534D2C08.7050207@itforchange.net> <534E56AE.3020800@itforchange.net> <534EA0F2.3080500@apc.org> <534EAB6D.70901@itforchange.net> Message-ID: This is great news Nnenna. I am sure you will present our views so well. Adding to what has been suggested by other, the issue of massive surveillance by governments considering the mushrooming laws coming up in many of "our' countries all authorising surveillance and reinforcing the need for capacity building especially for developing countries governments' understanding of IG issues. But I am positive you are the right person to deliver our message. Good luck. Lillian On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 7:10 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Wednesday 16 April 2014 09:16 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > > what is the value of "public" in "based on open public standards"? Does the word public add clarity? Does it tell us something otherwise missing? > > > If it had no value, trust me, it wont have been removed... But to answer > your question, I quote principle 10 of the 'Delhi Declaration for a Just > and Equitable Internet' (enclosed) > > "An open and decentralized Internet requires strict enforcement of open > and public standards. Open standards allow fully interoperable > implementation by anyone in any type of software, including Free and Open > Source Software (FOSS). The trend towards privatisation of digital > standards must be stemmed and measures must be introduced to ensure that > standards are publicly owned, freely accessible and implementable. " > > I hope this answers your question.. I can of course elaborate further. > > No we did not write principle just to spite those who removed the 'public > standard' part from the draft :). This principle was of course written much > earlier. > > parminder > > > > Drafts are there for comment and revision, one thing comments on the leaked document made quite clear is the need to shorten the final document (and usually the same group that said the document is too long then added more words of their own...) > > The relevant paragraph as it stands in the document for comment is: > > Internet governance should promote open standards, informed by individual and collective expertise and practical experience and decisions made by open consensus, that allow for a unique, interoperable, resilient, stable, decentralized, secure, and interconnected network, available to all. Standards must be consistent with human rights and allow development and innovation. > > (25, in http://document.netmundial.br/1-internet-governance-principles/) > > Is this weak? How can it be improved? 6 comments so far, are they helpful? > > Adam (in my individual capacity) > > > On Apr 17, 2014, at 12:25 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > > Agree with Parminder. > > We need to comment on these omissions. Is best strategy for us to just all comment as individuals, or organisations, or to also try and do collaborative submissions? > > But I would not blame big business Parminder. > > Texts coming out of intergovernmental processes like the WSIS +10 are also problematic from a public-interest perspective. > > Anriette > > > On 16/04/2014 12:08, parminder wrote: > > And yes, I forgot to mention, 'public' has disappeared from 'open and public standards' which was in the initial draft...... > > I think we need to be discussing the draft netmundial outcome document that has been put for public comments.. > > Can people tell me one good thing about the document... I have not heard anyone present it. > > This was the event that we invested so much in, looked so much forward to... Why we have not anything to say about the outcome document. > > parminder > > > On Tuesday 15 April 2014 06:24 PM, parminder wrote: > > Carlos, > > Of course you know what net neutrality is - it is there in the Marco Civil; it is not here in this document... > > And even the half cock term 'neutrality' has been specifically removed, by those opposed to net neutrality, and you are trying to convince us that net neutrality is still there... > > Not only net neutrality has been removed, 'free flow of information' which figured twice in the earlier (leaked) draft has been removed from both places.. > > Plus the mention of 'necessary and proportionate' principle (s) has been removed.. > > Plus need for agreements on restraining cyber weapons have been removed... > > The part on access for disabled has been weakened... > > The recognition in the previous document of need for mechanisms to address emerging issues and those which do not have a existing home has been greatly diluted... > > So, the big business has done a thorough vetting of the doc to make sure that not a wisp of anything that could even potentially interfere with their free reign on the global Internet could pass through... > > And what happened to other suggestions form HLC members who are to big business or the US gov... > > Argentinian government and Indian government (and in a way also the European Commission) had asked for the insertion of the term 'democratic' in different places where the characteristics of Internet governance were listed.... But, no, that demand was not accepted... > > There is no place for democracy and democratic in the land of multistakeholderism, fronting or big business interests, as the changes in the document clearly show. > > BTW, India in its comments on the document (as per the leaked documents) seem to have also asked for a recognition of the Internet as a global commons... but of course no... what are you talking about! > > What are you asking the people of the world to do with this document... To endorse it and celebrate it just becuase in about 500 places it says multi-stakeholder.... > > parminder > > > On Tuesday 15 April 2014 05:19 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > Carol, it was not "taken out" of the document. It is there, in detail, > please re-read. > > --c.a. > > On 04/15/2014 08:10 AM, Carolina wrote: > > > Pls, mention net neutrality which was taken out of the document put out > for comments yesterday. More later. Should we consolidate all in a pad > to help Nnenna? > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Apr 15, 2014, at 5:46 AM, Marianne Franklin > > wrote: > > Dear all > > +1 from me re. Nnenna's role, and +1 from me re. Anriette's points below. > > best > MF > > On 15/04/2014 19:44, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > > Congrats Nnenna! > > Put on one of your fabulous outfits, and then remind them, that > working inclusively and respectfully with all stakeholder groups, > particularly those that lack power and influence - i.e. civil society > - is very different from putting on a colourful West African outfit > :) It takes hard work, change in behaviour, change in structures and > procedures, consultation, respect, trust, debate, and struggle, > because do not always agree. It also requires a common framework of > principles that defines what the public interest is in internet > governance that can be used to promote and protect this public > interest across the internet governance ecosystem and it is this > framework that we trust the NetMundial can get us closer to. > > You could also mention surveillance, with particularly - but not only > - mass surveillance demonstrating how easy it is to destroy trust, > and to deny accountability. And, is there any tougher test for > multi-stakeholder internet governance? I think it would be good to > get the message accross that the IANA transition is not the only > issue that NetMundial should be discussing, but at the same time, it > is a key opportunity to come up with solutions and approaches that > are not simply cosmetic. > > Anriette > > On 15/04/2014 09:23, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > + 1 > jeanette > > Am 15.04.14 08:38, schrieb Ian Peter: > > > Congratulations Nnenna - great choice! > *From:* Nnenna Nwakanma > > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 15, 2014 4:35 PM > *To:* Governance > ; > mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > *Subject:* [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society > major issues > Dear all, > > I got a message this morning from NetMundial Chair, Virgilo, > inviting me > to speak at the Opening Ceremony of Netmundial (meaning I have to pack > one of those African dresses) for some 8 minutes. > > I have replied to say "I will be speaking from the Civil Society > perspective, which is my Stakeholder Group". > > There is a Web Foundation media team that will help me put my ideas > into > place, but I cannot not request input from here, so that no major > issues > will be overlooked. > > > I travel Thursday evening thru Friday, so the earliest I can share a > draft/keypoints will be Monday. > > Hope we can pull this off well. > > All for now > > Nnenna > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > 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 Marianne Franklin > Professor of Global Media and Politics > Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program > Goldsmiths (University of London) > Department of Media & Communications > New Cross, London SE14 6NW > Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 > > > @GloComm > https://twitter.com/GloCommhttp://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/ > > Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) > www.internetrightsandprinciples.org > > @netrights > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Lillian Nalwoga CIPESA www.cipesa.org +256 712 204335 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeanette at wzb.eu Thu Apr 17 03:41:44 2014 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:41:44 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Surveillance paragraph of netmundial document In-Reply-To: <534F3568.6050605@itforchange.net> References: <534F3568.6050605@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <534F85B8.5020205@wzb.eu> I think that particularly because necessary and proportionate has been in the document before and refers to principles that have broad political support, chances are good to get this language back in. It is definitely worth fighting for! jeanette Am 17.04.14 03:59, schrieb parminder: > > On Thursday 17 April 2014 04:08 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> To me one of the weakest sections of the document is the paragraph >> dealing with surveillance issues (para 35 of the Roadmap) which reads >> “Internet surveillance – Mass and arbitrary surveillance undermines >> trust in the Internet and trust in the Internet governance ecosystem. >> Surveillance of communications, their interception, and the collection >> of personal data, including mass surveillance, interception and >> collection should be conducted in accordance with states’ obligations >> under international human rights law. More dialogue is needed on this >> topic at the international level using forums like IGF and the Human >> Rights Council aiming to develop a common understanding on all the >> related aspects”. >> This fairly weak language and action line (more dialogue) is not >> surprising given the governmental input (including US Government) into >> the drafting. So far the only comment on this is from me, where I >> suggest reference to the necessaryandproportionate.org principles. > > > You of course know that reference to 'necessary and proportionate' was > there in the original draft and it got removed... What are the chances > then it will be reinstated at your request? > > parminder > >> I think it would be useful if others commented as individuals. Perhaps >> what we need is some better wording (which perhaps governments would >> be embarrassed not to include), and which would strengthen the >> response here. In any case, some wording and indication of level of >> concern to ensure that this is discussed on the floor of the meeting >> rather than simply passed by as an adequate wording would be useful! >> Ian Peter >> The site for entering responses is >> http://document.netmundial.br/2-roadmap-for-the-future-evolution-of-the-internet-governance/ > From anriette at apc.org Thu Apr 17 04:07:36 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 10:07:36 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Surveillance paragraph of netmundial document In-Reply-To: <534F85B8.5020205@wzb.eu> References: <534F3568.6050605@itforchange.net> <534F85B8.5020205@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <534F8BC8.9030202@apc.org> Agree. And I would like to understand why it was removed. I propose that everyone who submits input focuses on this. I have yet to work on the doc with colleagues in APC and will share insights as we go. But this is particularly important as it covers ALL surveillance, not just mass surveillance. It addresses ALL governments and not just the US government. It is important for the long term. Anriette On 17/04/2014 09:41, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > I think that particularly because necessary and proportionate has been > in the document before and refers to principles that have broad > political support, chances are good to get this language back in. It > is definitely worth fighting for! > > jeanette > > Am 17.04.14 03:59, schrieb parminder: >> >> On Thursday 17 April 2014 04:08 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>> Hi everyone, >>> To me one of the weakest sections of the document is the paragraph >>> dealing with surveillance issues (para 35 of the Roadmap) which reads >>> “Internet surveillance – Mass and arbitrary surveillance undermines >>> trust in the Internet and trust in the Internet governance ecosystem. >>> Surveillance of communications, their interception, and the collection >>> of personal data, including mass surveillance, interception and >>> collection should be conducted in accordance with states’ obligations >>> under international human rights law. More dialogue is needed on this >>> topic at the international level using forums like IGF and the Human >>> Rights Council aiming to develop a common understanding on all the >>> related aspects”. >>> This fairly weak language and action line (more dialogue) is not >>> surprising given the governmental input (including US Government) into >>> the drafting. So far the only comment on this is from me, where I >>> suggest reference to the necessaryandproportionate.org principles. >> >> >> You of course know that reference to 'necessary and proportionate' was >> there in the original draft and it got removed... What are the chances >> then it will be reinstated at your request? >> >> parminder >> >>> I think it would be useful if others commented as individuals. Perhaps >>> what we need is some better wording (which perhaps governments would >>> be embarrassed not to include), and which would strengthen the >>> response here. In any case, some wording and indication of level of >>> concern to ensure that this is discussed on the floor of the meeting >>> rather than simply passed by as an adequate wording would be useful! >>> Ian Peter >>> The site for entering responses is >>> http://document.netmundial.br/2-roadmap-for-the-future-evolution-of-the-internet-governance/ >>> >> -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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: From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Apr 17 04:13:33 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 13:43:33 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] NetMundial outcomes - public draft Message-ID: <534F8D2D.7070709@itforchange.net> I have mentioned in different postings how I see the now public NetMundial outcome draft being even worse than the earlier leaked one, on which we had submitted critical comments as enclosed. But I thought I should put all those point together, for clarity. In short, they are as follows: 1. 'Net neutrality' which was mentioned just as 'neutrality' in the previous draft disappeared completely 2. Mention of 'free flow of information' in two places in the original draft disappeared 3. 'Public' in 'open and public standards' no more there 4. Text on access for disabled weakened 5. Demand for international agreements for restraining cyber weapons is out 5. Mention of 'necessary and proportionate' principle in relation to surveillance practices is no more there 6. The recognition in the earlier draft of need for mechanisms for emerging and issues not being currently addressed is considerably weakened 7. Multiple references to a 'equal footing' (never clarified, and thus being introduced through a backdoor) multistakeholder model, even for public policy making, further strengthened while demands by some HLC members, and other civil society groups, to include 'democratic' in representing global IG mechanisms rejected. This is from a quick reading. So what was a rather poor outcome draft to start with is now considerably worse. I think the public draft should be discussed in the spirit of deliberative democracy. It is not enough to individualise and 'privatise' comments and inputting through a web platform. I am yet to hear a positive assessment of the public draft, but I am sure it must exist in some people's minds. Pl do share. Thanks, parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: JustNet initial response.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 68034 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Apr 17 05:04:54 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 19:04:54 +1000 Subject: [bestbits] Surveillance paragraph of netmundial document In-Reply-To: <534F8BC8.9030202@apc.org> References: <534F3568.6050605@itforchange.net> <534F85B8.5020205@wzb.eu> <534F8BC8.9030202@apc.org> Message-ID: IN respect of this, just reposting something Patrik Falstrom posted in another place, suggesting that nations who have signed Human Rights Treaty cannot sign in to necessary and proportionate? Anyway they can accept the principles, so I guess this is just maybe about how we word interventions. Ian Peter QUOTE FROM PATRIK Although I can understand the interest for more detailed language, and support us trying to get that, it is already known that States that have signed up to the Human Rights Treaty can not sign up to the necessaryandproportionate.org principles, so such negotiations will fail. A counter proposal has been released by the Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt that reads: To this objective, let me propose seven principles I believe should be observed. 1. First, legality. Surveillance needs to be based on laws. These laws must be adopted in a transparent manner through a democratic process. The implementation of these laws should be reviewed periodically to ensure that the expansion of surveillance capabilities due to, for instance, technological advances is properly debated. 2. Second, legitimate aim. Surveillance must be conducted on the basis of a legitimate and well-defined aim. Surveillance measures may never be carried out in a discriminatory or discretionary manner and only by specified state authorities. 3. Third, necessity and adequacy. The law should justify that surveillance is necessary and adequate to achieve the legitimate aim. 4. Fourth, proportionality. A sound proportionality judgment must be made, to carefully assess whether the benefits of surveillance outweigh its negative consequences. 5. Fifth, judicial authority. Decisions on the use of communications surveillance should be taken by a competent authority. As a general rule, an independent court should take such decisions. 6. Sixth, transparency. States should be as transparent as possible about how they carry out surveillance. They should provide information on how the surveillance legislation works in practice. 7. Seventh, public oversight of parliamentary or other credible institutions. We need to scrutinise how the laws work, to create transparency and build trust and legitimacy. Our obligation as governments is to provide security and to respect human rights - not either or. Patrik END QUOTE From: Anriette Esterhuysen Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 6:07 PM To: Jeanette Hofmann ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [bestbits] Surveillance paragraph of netmundial document Agree. And I would like to understand why it was removed. I propose that everyone who submits input focuses on this. I have yet to work on the doc with colleagues in APC and will share insights as we go. But this is particularly important as it covers ALL surveillance, not just mass surveillance. It addresses ALL governments and not just the US government. It is important for the long term. Anriette On 17/04/2014 09:41, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: I think that particularly because necessary and proportionate has been in the document before and refers to principles that have broad political support, chances are good to get this language back in. It is definitely worth fighting for! jeanette Am 17.04.14 03:59, schrieb parminder: On Thursday 17 April 2014 04:08 AM, Ian Peter wrote: Hi everyone, To me one of the weakest sections of the document is the paragraph dealing with surveillance issues (para 35 of the Roadmap) which reads “Internet surveillance – Mass and arbitrary surveillance undermines trust in the Internet and trust in the Internet governance ecosystem. Surveillance of communications, their interception, and the collection of personal data, including mass surveillance, interception and collection should be conducted in accordance with states’ obligations under international human rights law. More dialogue is needed on this topic at the international level using forums like IGF and the Human Rights Council aiming to develop a common understanding on all the related aspects”. This fairly weak language and action line (more dialogue) is not surprising given the governmental input (including US Government) into the drafting. So far the only comment on this is from me, where I suggest reference to the necessaryandproportionate.org principles. You of course know that reference to 'necessary and proportionate' was there in the original draft and it got removed... What are the chances then it will be reinstated at your request? parminder I think it would be useful if others commented as individuals. Perhaps what we need is some better wording (which perhaps governments would be embarrassed not to include), and which would strengthen the response here. In any case, some wording and indication of level of concern to ensure that this is discussed on the floor of the meeting rather than simply passed by as an adequate wording would be useful! Ian Peter The site for entering responses is http://document.netmundial.br/2-roadmap-for-the-future-evolution-of-the-internet-governance/ -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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: From kichango at gmail.com Thu Apr 17 05:17:25 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:17:25 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Surveillance paragraph of netmundial document In-Reply-To: References: <534F3568.6050605@itforchange.net> <534F85B8.5020205@wzb.eu> <534F8BC8.9030202@apc.org> Message-ID: Hi Ian, On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > IN respect of this, just reposting something Patrik Falstrom posted in > another place, suggesting that nations who have signed Human Rights Treaty > cannot sign in to necessary and proportionate? > Did he explain why, in short? Thanks. Mawaki > Anyway they can accept the principles, so I guess this is just maybe about > how we word interventions. > > Ian Peter > > QUOTE FROM PATRIK > > Although I can understand the interest for more detailed language, and > support us trying to get that, it is already known that States that have > signed up to the Human Rights Treaty can not sign up to the > necessaryandproportionate.org principles, so such negotiations will fail. > A counter proposal has been released by the Swedish Foreign Minister Carl > Bildt that reads: > > > > To this objective, let me propose seven principles I believe should be > observed. > > 1. First, legality. > > Surveillance needs to be based on laws. > > These laws must be adopted in a transparent manner through a democratic > process. > > The implementation of these laws should be reviewed periodically to ensure > that the expansion of surveillance capabilities due to, for instance, > technological advances is properly debated. > > 2. Second, legitimate aim. > > Surveillance must be conducted on the basis of a legitimate and > well-defined aim. > > Surveillance measures may never be carried out in a discriminatory or > discretionary manner and only by specified state authorities. > > 3. Third, necessity and adequacy. > > The law should justify that surveillance is necessary and adequate to > achieve the legitimate aim. > > 4. Fourth, proportionality. > > A sound proportionality judgment must be made, to carefully assess whether > the benefits of surveillance outweigh its negative consequences. > > 5. Fifth, judicial authority. > > Decisions on the use of communications surveillance should be taken by a > competent authority. > > As a general rule, an independent court should take such decisions. > > 6. Sixth, transparency. > > States should be as transparent as possible about how they carry out > surveillance. > > They should provide information on how the surveillance legislation works > in practice. > > 7. Seventh, public oversight of parliamentary or other credible > institutions. > > We need to scrutinise how the laws work, to create transparency and build > trust and legitimacy. > > Our obligation as governments is to provide security and to respect human > rights - not either or. > > Patrik > > END QUOTE > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Apr 17 05:25:57 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 19:25:57 +1000 Subject: [bestbits] Surveillance paragraph of netmundial document In-Reply-To: References: <534F3568.6050605@itforchange.net> <534F85B8.5020205@wzb.eu> <534F8BC8.9030202@apc.org> Message-ID: <93F18D6396A6456C94941FC544F6CAD8@Toshiba> no idea why Mawaki. Perhaps others know... From: Mawaki Chango Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 7:17 PM To: Ian Peter Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen ; Jeanette Hofmann ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Surveillance paragraph of netmundial document Hi Ian, On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Ian Peter wrote: IN respect of this, just reposting something Patrik Falstrom posted in another place, suggesting that nations who have signed Human Rights Treaty cannot sign in to necessary and proportionate? Did he explain why, in short? Thanks. Mawaki Anyway they can accept the principles, so I guess this is just maybe about how we word interventions. Ian Peter QUOTE FROM PATRIK Although I can understand the interest for more detailed language, and support us trying to get that, it is already known that States that have signed up to the Human Rights Treaty can not sign up to the necessaryandproportionate.org principles, so such negotiations will fail. A counter proposal has been released by the Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt that reads: To this objective, let me propose seven principles I believe should be observed. 1. First, legality. Surveillance needs to be based on laws. These laws must be adopted in a transparent manner through a democratic process. The implementation of these laws should be reviewed periodically to ensure that the expansion of surveillance capabilities due to, for instance, technological advances is properly debated. 2. Second, legitimate aim. Surveillance must be conducted on the basis of a legitimate and well-defined aim. Surveillance measures may never be carried out in a discriminatory or discretionary manner and only by specified state authorities. 3. Third, necessity and adequacy. The law should justify that surveillance is necessary and adequate to achieve the legitimate aim. 4. Fourth, proportionality. A sound proportionality judgment must be made, to carefully assess whether the benefits of surveillance outweigh its negative consequences. 5. Fifth, judicial authority. Decisions on the use of communications surveillance should be taken by a competent authority. As a general rule, an independent court should take such decisions. 6. Sixth, transparency. States should be as transparent as possible about how they carry out surveillance. They should provide information on how the surveillance legislation works in practice. 7. Seventh, public oversight of parliamentary or other credible institutions. We need to scrutinise how the laws work, to create transparency and build trust and legitimacy. Our obligation as governments is to provide security and to respect human rights - not either or. Patrik END QUOTE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Apr 17 05:34:22 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 18:34:22 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] QUESTION TO ADAM - NETmundial documents online for comment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <78AEE754-8756-472A-9A06-58A78DF4A248@glocom.ac.jp> Hi Carolina, On Apr 17, 2014, at 5:59 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > Adam, > > Will the organizers consolidate the comments into a new document?! No, my understanding is the secretariat will produce a compilation of comments received. This is the hope, and I hope there'll be time. > If no.... Comments close on April 21, the meeting starts on April 23. 1 day might be enough to produce a compilation. Given the time available, attempting to produced a new consolidated document might be unwise. > why should we be commenting on it? (this second is just a rhetoric question to understand the process) > > I don't really understand your question. But perhaps following helps -- this just my personal opinion, not EMC etc. Anyone can make comments online. All comments are visible to everyone and allow all participants (including remote) to see where changes are being suggested, what direction has some agreement and what less so. We can comment on other's comments, agree/disagree etc. We can rate each paragraph (not sure if that will be a useful tool?) All this should guide discussion during the meeting. I hope by the morning of April 23, Sao Paulo, all of us will have made the comments we want to make (and please do it sooner not later: the intention is to share and inform each other), will have seen what our colleagues have to say, and have a general sense of what parts of the documents are supported, less supported, which are polarizing, perhaps even where we can see need/opportunity for further work (after NETmundial, not extending NETmundial). Carolina, does this sound reasonable? BTW, if you print the page to PDF all comments made at the time will be included on the resulting file. Adam > On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 10:36 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Please see Use the Navigate button. > > Comments will close April 21th, 12:00 UTC. > > Adam > > > > WELCOME TO NETMUNDIAL PUBLIC COMMENTS PAGE > > After an open call for content contribution, NETmundial – the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance – received 188 documents from 46 different countries. These documents were sent by representatives of Civil Society, Private Sector, Academy, Governments and Technical Community. > > Based on these broad set of inputs, NETmundial’s Executive Multistakeholder Committee (EMC) prepared a Draft Outcome Document and submitted it for consultation with NETmundial’s High-level Multistakeholder Committee (HLMC) on April 3rd, 2014. After incorporating the inputs from the HLMC, under the guidance of NETmundial’s Chair and Co-Chairs, a final version of the document is released here for public comments. The public consultation will be open for comments on NETmundial’s Executive Committee Output Document from April 14th until April 21th, 12:00 UTC. > > For this public consultation a commenting tool is available online at http://document.netmundial.br/ with the purpose of receiving public comments on specific points of the document. It is not necessary to create an account in order to post your comment to the document. You’ll be able to immediately start reading the document and whenever you have something to say, you’ll just have to provide a full name and contact email address alongside your comment. > > By clicking on any paragraph of the document, you’ll be able to see all the comments other people have already made pertaining to that portion of the text; as referred above, you are also granted the possibility to register your own observations. Maybe your concern was already addressed in someone else’s comment, so please be sure to take a look at the previous comments before making yours. > > This public consultation closes the loop that started by collecting public content contributions. Such contributions were compiled and merged into the Outcome Document by the NETmundial EMC and HLMC committees in the spirit of trying to represent the overall context of the current Internet Governance debate. It is very important to receive further public input in this final stage, so that the outcome is true to the issues and concerns presented by all stakeholders. > > END > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From steve at openmedia.ca Thu Apr 17 05:40:13 2014 From: steve at openmedia.ca (Steve Anderson) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 02:40:13 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] A new campaign around secret trade agreements threatening digital rights Message-ID: Groups from several countries are about to come together on a spring campaign around the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and other secretive trade agreements. As many of you know, these agreements threaten our democratic and digital rights. You can learn more about some of those threats here and here . You can learn more about the Stop The Secrecy spring campaign starting next week and sign up to take part here: https://openmedia.org/stop-secrecy-collaboration If you represent an organization that would like to endorse the campaign you can write back to me and include your logo if you want it added to website. If you want to participate beyond that please fill out this form . I hope you all can sign on at this critical moment. *Apologies for cross posting. best, -- *Steve Anderson* Executive Director, OpenMedia.ca 604-837-5730 http://openmedia.ca steve at openmedia.ca Follow me on Twitter Friend me on Facebook * *Let's have access to affordable phone and Internet rates. * **Do you think we deserve a fair deal in our digital future? -->> OurFairDeal.org * *Confidentiality Warning:* * This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s), are confidential, and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, conversion to hard copy, copying, circulation or other use of this message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message and any attachments from your system. Thank you. Information confidentielle:** Le présent message, ainsi que tout fichier qui y est joint, est envoyé à l'intention exclusive de son ou de ses destinataires; il est de nature confidentielle et peut constituer une information privilégiée. Nous avertissons toute personne autre que le destinataire prévu que tout examen, réacheminement, impression, copie, distribution ou autre utilisation de ce message et de tout fichier qui y est joint est strictement interdit. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire prévu, veuillez en aviser immédiatement l'expéditeur par retour de courriel et supprimer ce message et tout document joint de votre système. Merci.* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lorena at collaboratory.de Thu Apr 17 06:09:59 2014 From: lorena at collaboratory.de (=?UTF-8?B?TG9yZW5hIEphdW1lLVBhbGFzw60=?=) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 12:09:59 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Surveillance paragraph of netmundial document In-Reply-To: References: <534F3568.6050605@itforchange.net> <534F85B8.5020205@wzb.eu> <534F8BC8.9030202@apc.org> Message-ID: <534FA877.6040607@collaboratory.de> Hmm, no word on extraterritoriality there... and since the nation states have to apply the principles towards their own citizens, within their own national borders and since national intelligence agencies goals and infractions affect third parties, the legal hole remains... From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Apr 17 06:22:29 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 19:22:29 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: <534EAB6D.70901@itforchange.net> References: <28D7250BBB2E4798BC6C1B7A93337D53@Toshiba> <534CDE5B.2010906@wzb.eu> <534CE344.2050200@apc.org> <534CFFD8.1090100@gold.ac.uk> <7CE12A31-A7B2-4BA9-A1C0-25FD6E6A7F03@gmail.com> <534D1CB0.4030301@cafonso.ca> <534D2C08.7050207@itforchange.net> <534E56AE.3020800@itforchange.net> <534EA0F2.3080500@apc.org> <534EAB6D.70901@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <083AE0E8-19A8-4014-8B57-DCAA68673F1D@glocom.ac.jp> On Apr 17, 2014, at 1:10 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Wednesday 16 April 2014 09:16 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> what is the value of "public" in "based on open public standards"? Does the word public add clarity? Does it tell us something otherwise missing? > > If it had no value, trust me, it wont have been removed... Really :-) > But to answer your question, I quote principle 10 of the 'Delhi Declaration for a Just and Equitable Internet' (enclosed) > > "An open and decentralized Internet requires strict enforcement of open and public standards. Open standards allow fully interoperable implementation by anyone in any type of software, including Free and Open Source Software (FOSS). The trend towards privatisation of digital standards must be stemmed and measures must be introduced to ensure that standards are publicly owned, freely accessible and implementable. " > > I hope this answers your question.. I can of course elaborate further. > Are FOSS standards public? I am not an expert, but I thought they were licensed and those licenses often had conditions. This is not public in the way I understand you are using the word. And apologies if I misunderstand. IETF asserts ownership of their intellectual property in their standards -- i.e. to my mind not "public", they are owned. However, they are open in that anyone can use them (use, and other characteristics of "open" that the paragraph refers to). So I am trying to understand what you mean by "publicly owned". As I said, I am not expert, but I felt that "public" in "based on open public standards" was either superfluous (i.e. open is the key and conveyed what was essential) or caused confusion. If I am wrong, then please make a comment on the document to say that public should be added and give the reason. Elaboration not really necessary, everyone will read your comment on the document. Adam > No we did not write principle just to spite those who removed the 'public standard' part from the draft :). This principle was of course written much earlier. > > parminder > > >> >> Drafts are there for comment and revision, one thing comments on the leaked document made quite clear is the need to shorten the final document (and usually the same group that said the document is too long then added more words of their own...) >> >> The relevant paragraph as it stands in the document for comment is: >> >> Internet governance should promote open standards, informed by individual and collective expertise and practical experience and decisions made by open consensus, that allow for a unique, interoperable, resilient, stable, decentralized, secure, and interconnected network, available to all. Standards must be consistent with human rights and allow development and innovation. >> >> (25, in >> http://document.netmundial.br/1-internet-governance-principles/ >> ) >> >> Is this weak? How can it be improved? 6 comments so far, are they helpful? >> >> Adam (in my individual capacity) >> >> >> On Apr 17, 2014, at 12:25 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> >> >>> Agree with Parminder. >>> >>> We need to comment on these omissions. Is best strategy for us to just all comment as individuals, or organisations, or to also try and do collaborative submissions? >>> >>> But I would not blame big business Parminder. >>> >>> Texts coming out of intergovernmental processes like the WSIS +10 are also problematic from a public-interest perspective. >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> On 16/04/2014 12:08, parminder wrote: >>> >>>> And yes, I forgot to mention, 'public' has disappeared from 'open and public standards' which was in the initial draft...... >>>> >>>> I think we need to be discussing the draft netmundial outcome document that has been put for public comments.. >>>> >>>> Can people tell me one good thing about the document... I have not heard anyone present it. >>>> >>>> This was the event that we invested so much in, looked so much forward to... Why we have not anything to say about the outcome document. >>>> >>>> parminder >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tuesday 15 April 2014 06:24 PM, parminder wrote: >>>> >>>>> Carlos, >>>>> >>>>> Of course you know what net neutrality is - it is there in the Marco Civil; it is not here in this document... >>>>> >>>>> And even the half cock term 'neutrality' has been specifically removed, by those opposed to net neutrality, and you are trying to convince us that net neutrality is still there... >>>>> >>>>> Not only net neutrality has been removed, 'free flow of information' which figured twice in the earlier (leaked) draft has been removed from both places.. >>>>> >>>>> Plus the mention of 'necessary and proportionate' principle (s) has been removed.. >>>>> >>>>> Plus need for agreements on restraining cyber weapons have been removed... >>>>> >>>>> The part on access for disabled has been weakened... >>>>> >>>>> The recognition in the previous document of need for mechanisms to address emerging issues and those which do not have a existing home has been greatly diluted... >>>>> >>>>> So, the big business has done a thorough vetting of the doc to make sure that not a wisp of anything that could even potentially interfere with their free reign on the global Internet could pass through... >>>>> >>>>> And what happened to other suggestions form HLC members who are to big business or the US gov... >>>>> >>>>> Argentinian government and Indian government (and in a way also the European Commission) had asked for the insertion of the term 'democratic' in different places where the characteristics of Internet governance were listed.... But, no, that demand was not accepted... >>>>> >>>>> There is no place for democracy and democratic in the land of multistakeholderism, fronting or big business interests, as the changes in the document clearly show. >>>>> >>>>> BTW, India in its comments on the document (as per the leaked documents) seem to have also asked for a recognition of the Internet as a global commons... but of course no... what are you talking about! >>>>> >>>>> What are you asking the people of the world to do with this document... To endorse it and celebrate it just becuase in about 500 places it says multi-stakeholder.... >>>>> >>>>> parminder >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tuesday 15 April 2014 05:19 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Carol, it was not "taken out" of the document. It is there, in detail, >>>>>> please re-read. >>>>>> >>>>>> --c.a. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 04/15/2014 08:10 AM, Carolina wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Pls, mention net neutrality which was taken out of the document put out >>>>>>> for comments yesterday. More later. Should we consolidate all in a pad >>>>>>> to help Nnenna? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Apr 15, 2014, at 5:46 AM, Marianne Franklin < >>>>>>> >>>>>>> m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dear all >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> +1 from me re. Nnenna's role, and +1 from me re. Anriette's points below. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> best >>>>>>>> MF >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 15/04/2014 19:44, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Congrats Nnenna! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Put on one of your fabulous outfits, and then remind them, that >>>>>>>>> working inclusively and respectfully with all stakeholder groups, >>>>>>>>> particularly those that lack power and influence - i.e. civil society >>>>>>>>> - is very different from putting on a colourful West African outfit >>>>>>>>> :) It takes hard work, change in behaviour, change in structures and >>>>>>>>> procedures, consultation, respect, trust, debate, and struggle, >>>>>>>>> because do not always agree. It also requires a common framework of >>>>>>>>> principles that defines what the public interest is in internet >>>>>>>>> governance that can be used to promote and protect this public >>>>>>>>> interest across the internet governance ecosystem and it is this >>>>>>>>> framework that we trust the NetMundial can get us closer to. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You could also mention surveillance, with particularly - but not only >>>>>>>>> - mass surveillance demonstrating how easy it is to destroy trust, >>>>>>>>> and to deny accountability. And, is there any tougher test for >>>>>>>>> multi-stakeholder internet governance? I think it would be good to >>>>>>>>> get the message accross that the IANA transition is not the only >>>>>>>>> issue that NetMundial should be discussing, but at the same time, it >>>>>>>>> is a key opportunity to come up with solutions and approaches that >>>>>>>>> are not simply cosmetic. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Anriette >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 15/04/2014 09:23, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> + 1 >>>>>>>>>> jeanette >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Am 15.04.14 08:38, schrieb Ian Peter: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Congratulations Nnenna – great choice! >>>>>>>>>>> *From:* Nnenna Nwakanma >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 15, 2014 4:35 PM >>>>>>>>>>> *To:* Governance >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ; >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:* [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society >>>>>>>>>>> major issues >>>>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I got a message this morning from NetMundial Chair, Virgilo, >>>>>>>>>>> inviting me >>>>>>>>>>> to speak at the Opening Ceremony of Netmundial (meaning I have to pack >>>>>>>>>>> one of those African dresses) for some 8 minutes. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I have replied to say "I will be speaking from the Civil Society >>>>>>>>>>> perspective, which is my Stakeholder Group". >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> There is a Web Foundation media team that will help me put my ideas >>>>>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>>>>> place, but I cannot not request input from here, so that no major >>>>>>>>>>> issues >>>>>>>>>>> will be overlooked. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I travel Thursday evening thru Friday, so the earliest I can share a >>>>>>>>>>> draft/keypoints will be Monday. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hope we can pull this off well. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> All for now >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Nnenna >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> 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 Marianne Franklin >>>>>>>> Professor of Global Media and Politics >>>>>>>> Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program >>>>>>>> Goldsmiths (University of London) >>>>>>>> Department of Media & Communications >>>>>>>> New Cross, London SE14 6NW >>>>>>>> Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> @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/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> www.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> @netrights >>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> anriette esterhuysen >>> >>> anriette at apc.org >>> >>> >>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>> >>> >>> www.apc.org >>> >>> >>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>> south africa >>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> . >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at Thu Apr 17 04:57:34 2014 From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at)) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 10:57:34 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: Council of Europe Guide on Human Rights of Internet Users adopted Message-ID: Dear all, glad to inform that the Council of Europe Guide on Human Rights of Internet Users has been adopted this week by the Committee of Ministers and is now generally available. It should be disseminated as widely as possible and may well be of relevance beyond Europe. You can find it under this link: https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=2184807&Site=CM&BackColorInternet=C3C3C3&BackColorIntranet=EDB021&BackColorLogged=F5D383 Kind regards Wolfgang Benedek Univ.-Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Benedek Institute for International Law and International Relations University of Graz, Austria Von: parminder > Antworten an: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >, parminder > Datum: Donnerstag, 17. April 2014 10:13 An: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >, "<,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>," >, 1Net List > Betreff: [governance] NetMundial outcomes - public draft I have mentioned in different postings how I see the now public NetMundial outcome draft being even worse than the earlier leaked one, on which we had submitted critical comments as enclosed. But I thought I should put all those point together, for clarity. In short, they are as follows: 1. 'Net neutrality' which was mentioned just as 'neutrality' in the previous draft disappeared completely 2. Mention of 'free flow of information' in two places in the original draft disappeared 3. 'Public' in 'open and public standards' no more there 4. Text on access for disabled weakened 5. Demand for international agreements for restraining cyber weapons is out 5. Mention of 'necessary and proportionate' principle in relation to surveillance practices is no more there 6. The recognition in the earlier draft of need for mechanisms for emerging and issues not being currently addressed is considerably weakened 7. Multiple references to a 'equal footing' (never clarified, and thus being introduced through a backdoor) multistakeholder model, even for public policy making, further strengthened while demands by some HLC members, and other civil society groups, to include 'democratic' in representing global IG mechanisms rejected. This is from a quick reading. So what was a rather poor outcome draft to start with is now considerably worse. I think the public draft should be discussed in the spirit of deliberative democracy. It is not enough to individualise and 'privatise' comments and inputting through a web platform. I am yet to hear a positive assessment of the public draft, but I am sure it must exist in some people's minds. Pl do share. Thanks, parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Apr 17 06:28:41 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 19:28:41 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society major issues In-Reply-To: <534F3A26.2010507@itforchange.net> References: <28D7250BBB2E4798BC6C1B7A93337D53@Toshiba> <534CDE5B.2010906@wzb.eu> <534CE344.2050200@apc.org> <534CFFD8.1090100@gold.ac.uk> <7CE12A31-A7B2-4BA9-A1C0-25FD6E6A7F03@gmail.com> <534D1CB0.4030301@cafonso.ca> <534D2C08.7050207@itforchange.net> <534D3226.3030703@itforchange.net> <69FF6247-8681-4343-A922-5ED3458CD40E@glocom.ac.jp> <534F3A26.2010507@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <7DF6F45E-4065-4536-8EAB-599C8E8A295D@glocom.ac.jp> On Apr 17, 2014, at 11:19 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Wednesday 16 April 2014 12:47 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> snip >>> And it is not just these two governments. President Rousseff in her famed UN speech has directly linked the privacy issue to democracy... To quote >>> >>> "In the absence of the right to privacy, there can be no true freedom of expression and opinion, and therefore no effective democracy. " >>> >>> >> looks to me you have picked up something very important in that quote. How about making a comment on paragraph 2, or perhaps add a preamble to paragraph 14 of principles, or paragraph 4 of roadmap? > > Adam > > When the EMC or whoever did not find it fit to include the term 'democratic' even after specific and repeated recommendation of more than one government HLC member, do you really think I should bother recommending that Yes I do. And I wouldn't waste my time writing if I didn't. Adam > (although you know we did send a document to you all before your last EMC meeting where you finalised this draft where we requested you to include 'democratic') ? This apart from the fact that there is a whole contribution by IT for Change to the open process on the issue which you were supposed to have read and prepared you draft having taken it into account. Please see the contribution "Is certain kind of multistakeholderism a post-democratic ideology? - Need to save NetMundial outcome documents from crossing some sacred democratic lines ". > > You will perhaps appreciate our crystal-gazing skills. Why is the NetMundial behaving exactly as per our worst fears? The answer; it is, was always, structural to how this event was systematically captured by status-quo-ist, and its Brazilian leadership, which is where most people initially posed their trust, has been long displaced. > > Maybe, you can explain the compulsions of not putting 'democratic' in the description of Internet governance mechanisms, when multistakeholder is mentioned about 500 times.... And please dont behave as if it simply did not occur to you/EMC, which while being surprising on its own, is unsustainable as per the above. > > BTW, for the sake of transparency, can we please be informed who prepared the final draft - the EMC or the meeting board (with its civil society co-chair who is really not civil society) > > > parminder > >> >> Thanks, >> >> Adam (in my individual capacity) >> >> >> >>> But strangely, Brazilians seem to have handed over this meeting to the staus quoists... and democracy is simply not a favoured word with them.. >>> >>> Welcome to the brave new post-democratic world... the NetMundial doc as it stands is positioned to become a key milestone, even a trail blazer, towards a post-democratic global governance, from where it will trickle down to national levels. The neoliberal ideology is making really big strides and rapid gains.... >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> BTW, India in its comments on the document (as per the leaked documents) seem to have also asked for a recognition of the Internet as a global commons... but of course no... what are you talking about! >>>> >>>> What are you asking the people of the world to do with this document... To endorse it and celebrate it just becuase in about 500 places it says multi-stakeholder.... >>>> >>>> parminder >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tuesday 15 April 2014 05:19 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>>> >>>>> Carol, it was not "taken out" of the document. It is there, in detail, >>>>> please re-read. >>>>> >>>>> --c.a. >>>>> >>>>> On 04/15/2014 08:10 AM, Carolina wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Pls, mention net neutrality which was taken out of the document put out >>>>>> for comments yesterday. More later. Should we consolidate all in a pad >>>>>> to help Nnenna? >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>> >>>>>> On Apr 15, 2014, at 5:46 AM, Marianne Franklin < >>>>>> >>>>>> m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk >>>>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear all >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 from me re. Nnenna's role, and +1 from me re. Anriette's points below. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> best >>>>>>> MF >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 15/04/2014 19:44, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Congrats Nnenna! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Put on one of your fabulous outfits, and then remind them, that >>>>>>>> working inclusively and respectfully with all stakeholder groups, >>>>>>>> particularly those that lack power and influence - i.e. civil society >>>>>>>> - is very different from putting on a colourful West African outfit >>>>>>>> :) It takes hard work, change in behaviour, change in structures and >>>>>>>> procedures, consultation, respect, trust, debate, and struggle, >>>>>>>> because do not always agree. It also requires a common framework of >>>>>>>> principles that defines what the public interest is in internet >>>>>>>> governance that can be used to promote and protect this public >>>>>>>> interest across the internet governance ecosystem and it is this >>>>>>>> framework that we trust the NetMundial can get us closer to. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You could also mention surveillance, with particularly - but not only >>>>>>>> - mass surveillance demonstrating how easy it is to destroy trust, >>>>>>>> and to deny accountability. And, is there any tougher test for >>>>>>>> multi-stakeholder internet governance? I think it would be good to >>>>>>>> get the message accross that the IANA transition is not the only >>>>>>>> issue that NetMundial should be discussing, but at the same time, it >>>>>>>> is a key opportunity to come up with solutions and approaches that >>>>>>>> are not simply cosmetic. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Anriette >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 15/04/2014 09:23, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> + 1 >>>>>>>>> jeanette >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Am 15.04.14 08:38, schrieb Ian Peter: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Congratulations Nnenna – great choice! >>>>>>>>>> *From:* Nnenna Nwakanma >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 15, 2014 4:35 PM >>>>>>>>>> *To:* Governance >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ; >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *Subject:* [bestbits] Nnenna to Keynote at Netmundial - Civil Society >>>>>>>>>> major issues >>>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I got a message this morning from NetMundial Chair, Virgilo, >>>>>>>>>> inviting me >>>>>>>>>> to speak at the Opening Ceremony of Netmundial (meaning I have to pack >>>>>>>>>> one of those African dresses) for some 8 minutes. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I have replied to say "I will be speaking from the Civil Society >>>>>>>>>> perspective, which is my Stakeholder Group". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There is a Web Foundation media team that will help me put my ideas >>>>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>>>> place, but I cannot not request input from here, so that no major >>>>>>>>>> issues >>>>>>>>>> will be overlooked. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I travel Thursday evening thru Friday, so the earliest I can share a >>>>>>>>>> draft/keypoints will be Monday. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hope we can pull this off well. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> All for now >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Nnenna >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>> 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 Marianne Franklin >>>>>>> Professor of Global Media and Politics >>>>>>> Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program >>>>>>> Goldsmiths (University of London) >>>>>>> Department of Media & Communications >>>>>>> New Cross, London SE14 6NW >>>>>>> Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> @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/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> www.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> @netrights >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>>>> >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> . >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > From nashton at consensus.pro Thu Apr 17 06:31:58 2014 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 12:31:58 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Surveillance paragraph of netmundial document In-Reply-To: <534FA877.6040607@collaboratory.de> References: <534F3568.6050605@itforchange.net> <534F85B8.5020205@wzb.eu> <534F8BC8.9030202@apc.org> <534FA877.6040607@collaboratory.de> Message-ID: <306C72C9-AAC1-4A27-930D-403414085D76@consensus.pro> I think the key issue here is: how do countries treat non-nationals in pursuit of their national security and law enforcement activities. This is not actually an ‘Internet problem’ or an Internet governance issue to my mind, it is a surveillance problem that affects the Internet because the Internet is the tool being used. On 17 Apr 2014, at 12:09, Lorena Jaume-Palasí wrote: > Hmm, no word on extraterritoriality there... and since the nation states have to apply the principles towards their own citizens, within their own national borders and since national intelligence agencies goals and infractions affect third parties, the legal hole remains... > From the enforcement point of view, this is going to be a tough cookie. It makes more sense (but would take longer) to think about international standards and limits on cyber-spionage. > Kind regards, > Lorena > > QUOTE FROM PATRIK >> >> >> Although I can understand the interest for more detailed language, and support us trying to get that, it is already known that States that have signed up to the Human Rights Treaty can not sign up to the >> necessaryandproportionate.org principles, so such negotiations will fail. A counter proposal has been released by the Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt that reads: >> >> >> >> To this objective, let me propose seven principles I believe should be observed. >> >> 1. First, legality. >> >> Surveillance needs to be based on laws. >> >> These laws must be adopted in a transparent manner through a democratic process. >> >> The implementation of these laws should be reviewed periodically to ensure that the expansion of surveillance capabilities due to, for instance, technological advances is properly debated. >> >> 2. Second, legitimate aim. >> >> Surveillance must be conducted on the basis of a legitimate and well-defined aim. >> >> Surveillance measures may never be carried out in a discriminatory or discretionary manner and only by specified state authorities. >> >> 3. Third, necessity and adequacy. >> >> The law should justify that surveillance is necessary and adequate to achieve the legitimate aim. >> >> 4. Fourth, proportionality. >> >> A sound proportionality judgment must be made, to carefully assess whether the benefits of surveillance outweigh its negative consequences. >> >> 5. Fifth, judicial authority. >> >> Decisions on the use of communications surveillance should be taken by a competent authority. >> >> As a general rule, an independent court should take such decisions. >> >> 6. Sixth, transparency. >> >> States should be as transparent as possible about how they carry out surveillance. >> >> They should provide information on how the surveillance legislation works in practice. >> >> 7. Seventh, public oversight of parliamentary or other credible institutions. >> >> We need to scrutinise how the laws work, to create transparency and build trust and legitimacy. >> >> Our obligation as governments is to provide security and to respect human rights - not either or. >> >> Patrik >> >> END QUOTE >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 670 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From lorena at collaboratory.de Thu Apr 17 06:42:14 2014 From: lorena at collaboratory.de (=?windows-1252?Q?Lorena_Jaume-Palas=ED?=) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 12:42:14 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Surveillance paragraph of netmundial document In-Reply-To: <306C72C9-AAC1-4A27-930D-403414085D76@consensus.pro> References: <534F3568.6050605@itforchange.net> <534F85B8.5020205@wzb.eu> <534F8BC8.9030202@apc.org> <534FA877.6040607@collaboratory.de> <306C72C9-AAC1-4A27-930D-403414085D76@consensus.pro> Message-ID: <534FB006.1050909@collaboratory.de> indeed, it is a national security-law problem and as you stated, Nick, it has a digital dimension. Issues with a digital dimension and about regulation are not in the focus of internet governance? I do think that this is an internet governance issue -however not exclusively since it affects other political dimensions too. Kind regards, Lorena Am 17.04.2014 12:31, schrieb Nick Ashton-Hart: > I think the key issue here is: how do countries treat non-nationals in pursuit of their national security and law enforcement activities. > > This is not actually an ‘Internet problem’ or an Internet governance issue to my mind, it is a surveillance problem that affects the Internet because the Internet is the tool being used. > > On 17 Apr 2014, at 12:09, Lorena Jaume-Palasí > wrote: > >> Hmm, no word on extraterritoriality there... and since the nation states have to apply the principles towards their own citizens, within their own national borders and since national intelligence agencies goals and infractions affect third parties, the legal hole remains... >> From the enforcement point of view, this is going to be a tough cookie. It makes more sense (but would take longer) to think about international standards and limits on cyber-spionage. >> Kind regards, >> Lorena >> >> QUOTE FROM PATRIK >>> >>> >>> Although I can understand the interest for more detailed language, and support us trying to get that, it is already known that States that have signed up to the Human Rights Treaty can not sign up to the >>> necessaryandproportionate.org principles, so such negotiations will fail. A counter proposal has been released by the Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt that reads: >>> >>> >>> >>> To this objective, let me propose seven principles I believe should be observed. >>> >>> 1. First, legality. >>> >>> Surveillance needs to be based on laws. >>> >>> These laws must be adopted in a transparent manner through a democratic process. >>> >>> The implementation of these laws should be reviewed periodically to ensure that the expansion of surveillance capabilities due to, for instance, technological advances is properly debated. >>> >>> 2. Second, legitimate aim. >>> >>> Surveillance must be conducted on the basis of a legitimate and well-defined aim. >>> >>> Surveillance measures may never be carried out in a discriminatory or discretionary manner and only by specified state authorities. >>> >>> 3. Third, necessity and adequacy. >>> >>> The law should justify that surveillance is necessary and adequate to achieve the legitimate aim. >>> >>> 4. Fourth, proportionality. >>> >>> A sound proportionality judgment must be made, to carefully assess whether the benefits of surveillance outweigh its negative consequences. >>> >>> 5. Fifth, judicial authority. >>> >>> Decisions on the use of communications surveillance should be taken by a competent authority. >>> >>> As a general rule, an independent court should take such decisions. >>> >>> 6. Sixth, transparency. >>> >>> States should be as transparent as possible about how they carry out surveillance. >>> >>> They should provide information on how the surveillance legislation works in practice. >>> >>> 7. Seventh, public oversight of parliamentary or other credible institutions. >>> >>> We need to scrutinise how the laws work, to create transparency and build trust and legitimacy. >>> >>> Our obligation as governments is to provide security and to respect human rights - not either or. >>> >>> Patrik >>> >>> END QUOTE >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Apr 17 06:48:39 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 07:48:39 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [discuss] [Marcocivil] RES: NetMundial Draft Outcome document Online for comments at the platform In-Reply-To: <381CDAA0-DDCB-4833-9FD9-5AB1CA85FCEA@cisco.com> References: <7C9F27BE10361942966E4835F365891A77DAFC7C@A19MAIL.aricle19.org> <534C867D.9030203@cafonso.ca> <381CDAA0-DDCB-4833-9FD9-5AB1CA85FCEA@cisco.com> Message-ID: <534FB187.7040702@cafonso.ca> Hi Chip, thanks for your comments. It is very important that your comments be inserted in the comment area of the NETmundial portal (deadline April 21st) so we can try and improve the language to clarify. Please recall that the doc represents an effort to build consensus from more than 187 contributions and on some topics this was quite complex, as you can imagine. fraternal regards --c.a. On 04/16/2014 11:22 PM, Chip Sharp (chsharp) wrote: > Dear Carlos, > > I appreciate your clarification as a member of the EMC that these two paragraphs are about Network Neutrality. The second sentence is especially difficult to parse (at least in English). > > Thanks, > Chip > > > On Apr 14, 2014, at 9:08 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> Laura, I think you did not read the docs in detail: >> >> "Internet should continue to be a globally coherent, interconnected, >> stable, unfragmented, scalable and accessible network-of-networks, based >> on a common set of unique identifiers and that allows the free flow of >> data packets/information." >> >> and: >> >> "The Internet should be preserved as a fertile and innovative >> environment based on an open system architecture, with voluntary >> collaboration, collective stewardship and participation, recognizing >> technical management principles for efficient and improved network >> operation and preserving the end-to-end nature of the network, equal >> technical treatment of all protocols and data, delivered by the >> underlying communications and seeking to resolve technical issues at a >> level closest to their origin." >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 04/14/2014 09:59 PM, Laura Tresca wrote: >>> Wow, net neutrality is NOT pointed out as a principle! >>> >>> ARTICLE 19 >>> Oficina para Sudamerica/ South America Office >>> Rua João Adolfo, 118 - 8ºandar >>> Anhangabaú, São Paulo, Brasil >>> tel. +55 11 30570042/0071 >>> www.artigo19.org/ www.article19.org >>> ________________________________ >>> De: marcocivil-bounces at listas.ensol.org.br [marcocivil-bounces at listas.ensol.org.br] em nome de Joana Varon [joana at varonferraz.com] >>> Enviado: segunda-feira, 14 de abril de 2014 20:58 >>> Para: <, bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, ; 1Net List; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; marcocivil at listas.ensol.org.br; webwewant at googlegroups.com >>> Assunto: [Marcocivil] NetMundial Draft Outcome document Online for comments at the platform >>> >>> FYI: http://document.netmundial.br/introduction/ >>> >>> Please, engage with your comments or rating the paragraphs you support. >>> >>> Sorry for cross-posting. It would be good if we channel short and concise comments in that platform. >>> >>> Enjoy! >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Joana >>> -- >>> -- >>> >>> Joana Varon Ferraz >>> @joana_varon >>> PGP 0x016B8E73 >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Lista de email Marcocivil >>> Marcocivil at listas.ensol.org.br >>> http://listas.ensol.org.br/listinfo.cgi/marcocivil-ensol.org.br >>> Descadastrar: envie email a Marcocivil-unsubscribe at listas.ensol.org.br >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> discuss mailing list >> discuss at 1net.org >> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > From nashton at consensus.pro Thu Apr 17 06:52:35 2014 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 12:52:35 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Surveillance paragraph of netmundial document In-Reply-To: <534FB006.1050909@collaboratory.de> References: <534F3568.6050605@itforchange.net> <534F85B8.5020205@wzb.eu> <534F8BC8.9030202@apc.org> <534FA877.6040607@collaboratory.de> <306C72C9-AAC1-4A27-930D-403414085D76@consensus.pro> <534FB006.1050909@collaboratory.de> Message-ID: <1874A357-2244-407D-A0D2-85AA0C08FCA4@consensus.pro> I would say that if we try and make everything an Internet Governance issue, we will be unable to agree on anything. There are better fora to discuss many subjects than IG - aside from anything else, in other fora the results are binding, where in IG they are not. I would suggest that anything that relates to the data that the network carries is not IG, and anything that relates to the network and not the data IS IG as a rough-and-ready rule. Just because something has a digital dimension doesn’t mean it is in scope for IG. On 17 Apr 2014, at 12:42, Lorena Jaume-Palasí wrote: > indeed, it is a national security-law problem and as you stated, Nick, it has a digital dimension. Issues with a digital dimension and about regulation are not in the focus of internet governance? I do think that this is an internet governance issue -however not exclusively since it affects other political dimensions too. > Kind regards, > Lorena > > Am 17.04.2014 12:31, schrieb Nick Ashton-Hart: > > I think the key issue here is: > how do countries treat non-nationals in pursuit of their national > security and law enforcement activities. > > > > > > This is not actually an ‘Internet problem’ or an Internet > governance issue to my mind, it is a surveillance problem that > affects the Internet because the Internet is the tool being used. > > > > > > On 17 Apr 2014, at 12:09, Lorena Jaume-Palasí > > wrote: > > > > > >> Hmm, no word on extraterritoriality there... and since > the nation states have to apply the principles towards their own > citizens, within their own national borders and since national > intelligence agencies goals and infractions affect third parties, > the legal hole remains... > > >> From the enforcement point of view, this is going to be a > tough cookie. It makes more sense (but would take longer) to think > about international standards and limits on cyber-spionage. > > >> Kind regards, > > >> Lorena > > >> > > >> QUOTE FROM PATRIK > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Although I can understand the interest for more > detailed language, and support us trying to get that, it is > already known that States that have signed up to the Human Rights > Treaty can not sign up to the > > >>> necessaryandproportionate.org > principles, so such > negotiations will fail. A counter proposal has been released by > the Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt that reads: > > >>> > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> To this objective, let me propose seven > principles I believe should be observed. > > >>> > > >>> 1. First, legality. > > >>> > > >>> Surveillance needs to be based on laws. > > >>> > > >>> These laws must be adopted in a transparent > manner through a democratic process. > > >>> > > >>> The implementation of these laws should be > reviewed periodically to ensure that the expansion of surveillance > capabilities due to, for instance, technological advances is > properly debated. > > >>> > > >>> 2. Second, legitimate aim. > > >>> > > >>> Surveillance must be conducted on the basis of a > legitimate and well-defined aim. > > >>> > > >>> Surveillance measures may never be carried out in > a discriminatory or discretionary manner and only by specified > state authorities. > > >>> > > >>> 3. Third, necessity and adequacy. > > >>> > > >>> The law should justify that surveillance is > necessary and adequate to achieve the legitimate aim. > > >>> > > >>> 4. Fourth, proportionality. > > >>> > > >>> A sound proportionality judgment must be made, to > carefully assess whether the benefits of surveillance outweigh its > negative consequences. > > >>> > > >>> 5. Fifth, judicial authority. > > >>> > > >>> Decisions on the use of communications > surveillance should be taken by a competent authority. > > >>> > > >>> As a general rule, an independent court should > take such decisions. > > >>> > > >>> 6. Sixth, transparency. > > >>> > > >>> States should be as transparent as possible about > how they carry out surveillance. > > >>> > > >>> They should provide information on how the > surveillance legislation works in practice. > > >>> > > >>> 7. Seventh, public oversight of parliamentary or > other credible institutions. > > >>> > > >>> We need to scrutinise how the laws work, to > create transparency and build trust and legitimacy. > > >>> > > >>> Our obligation as governments is to provide > security and to respect human rights - not either or. > > >>> > > >>> Patrik > > >>> > > >>> END QUOTE > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > ____________________________________________________________ > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > . > > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 670 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Apr 17 07:02:41 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 20:02:41 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Agenda for Civil Society pre-NetMundial Coordination Meeting In-Reply-To: References: <3B978AD6-7A77-4CEF-AA81-6F420D6EAF30@Malcolm.id.au> <2E333DCE-0233-439B-8FF3-3970E425D185@Malcolm.id.au> <76D6148C-F2A8-46A4-B29C-9FC4D8310DE3@glocom.ac.jp> <71D57EB9-2D08-4AC6-9674-01DE5DBB7AF3@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: On Apr 17, 2014, at 10:10 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > Adam > Any other news on events or agenda so we all have a better picture and organize accordantly? > Carolina, the EMC often hears after others... example, latest information in the attached PDF. Agenda as follows. Session "Public consultation session with stakeholders about the transition of stewardship role of USG over the IANA functions" being held while the meeting documents will be finalized, so an otherwise open time and seen as an opportunity to hear from the meeting on this issue. Adam -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: APAC NETmundial webinar slides.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 835511 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- April 22nd 14:00~20:00: Pre-registration (please register here if possible!) 18:30~20:00: Welcome Reception April 23rd 7:30~20:00: Registration 8:30~10:00: Opening Ceremony 10:15~12:00: Welcoming Remarks 12:00~13:00: Panel -- Setting NETmundial Goals 13:00~14:00: Lunch 14:00~16:00 Working Session 1: Principles - Topic 1: Human rights - Topic 2: Culture and linguistic diversity - Topic 3: Unified and unfragmented space - Topic 4: Security, stability and resilience of the Internet 16:30~18:30 Working Session 2: Roadmap - Topic 1: Issues that deserve attention of all stakeholders in the Internet governance future evolution. - Topic 2: Issues dealing with institutional improvements. April 24th 8:30~10:30 Working Session 3 Principles: - Topic 5: Open and distributed architecture - Topic 6: Enabling environment for innovation and creativity - Topic 7: Internet governance process principles - Topic 8: Open standards 11:00~13:00 Working Session 4 Roadmap: - Topic 3: Issues dealing with specific Internet Governance topics. - Topic 4: Points to be further discussed beyond NETmundial - Topic 5: Way forward 13:00~14:00: Lunch 14:00~15:30: Panel: Beyond NETmundial - Public consultation session with stakeholders about the transition of stewardship role of USG over the IANA functions 16:00~18:00: Closing session END > On Wednesday, April 16, 2014, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 16 Apr 2014, at 10:46 pm, Adam Peake wrote: > > > Why does the agenda link to the leaked document of April 3, not the document to be discussed at the meeting? > > The website is a work in progress, and at the time the final document had not been available so I had added a link to the leaked document as a stopgap. I have updated it now with the link to the final document. In some other respects the website is still less than 100% current (notably the agenda). > > > Governments have a meeting on the afternoon of April 22, 2-5pm, are you sure any will come to a CS session? > > We knew about that, but... > > > There is a welcome reception at the Grand Hyatt São Paulo from 6pm. All invited. > > We didn't know about this. In light of which, there are discussions going on about moving our government event. More news soon. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp. > > > > -- > 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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Thu Apr 17 07:08:29 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 13:08:29 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Surveillance paragraph of netmundial document In-Reply-To: <534FA877.6040607@collaboratory.de> References: <534F3568.6050605@itforchange.net> <534F85B8.5020205@wzb.eu> <534F8BC8.9030202@apc.org> <534FA877.6040607@collaboratory.de> Message-ID: Very critical point Lorena. I think the brand new Marco civil felt short to localize data from the big digital corps in Brazil - basically to put them under potential Brazilian jurisdiction - but didn't Rousseff said that she wanted Brazil to be able to bring to justice Google, a US company, if Google would infringe the rights of Brazilian citizens, in particular regarding their right to privacy, even though the servers would not be located in Brazil? Extraterritoriality is a critical point. JC Le 17 avr. 2014 à 12:09, Lorena Jaume-Palasí a écrit : > Hmm, no word on extraterritoriality there... and since the nation states have to apply the principles towards their own citizens, within their own national borders and since national intelligence agencies goals and infractions affect third parties, the legal hole remains... > From the enforcement point of view, this is going to be a tough cookie. It makes more sense (but would take longer) to think about international standards and limits on cyber-spionage. > Kind regards, > Lorena > > QUOTE FROM PATRIK >> >> >> Although I can understand the interest for more detailed language, and support us trying to get that, it is already known that States that have signed up to the Human Rights Treaty can not sign up to the >> necessaryandproportionate.org principles, so such negotiations will fail. A counter proposal has been released by the Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt that reads: >> >> >> >> To this objective, let me propose seven principles I believe should be observed. >> >> 1. First, legality. >> >> Surveillance needs to be based on laws. >> >> These laws must be adopted in a transparent manner through a democratic process. >> >> The implementation of these laws should be reviewed periodically to ensure that the expansion of surveillance capabilities due to, for instance, technological advances is properly debated. >> >> 2. Second, legitimate aim. >> >> Surveillance must be conducted on the basis of a legitimate and well-defined aim. >> >> Surveillance measures may never be carried out in a discriminatory or discretionary manner and only by specified state authorities. >> >> 3. Third, necessity and adequacy. >> >> The law should justify that surveillance is necessary and adequate to achieve the legitimate aim. >> >> 4. Fourth, proportionality. >> >> A sound proportionality judgment must be made, to carefully assess whether the benefits of surveillance outweigh its negative consequences. >> >> 5. Fifth, judicial authority. >> >> Decisions on the use of communications surveillance should be taken by a competent authority. >> >> As a general rule, an independent court should take such decisions. >> >> 6. Sixth, transparency. >> >> States should be as transparent as possible about how they carry out surveillance. >> >> They should provide information on how the surveillance legislation works in practice. >> >> 7. Seventh, public oversight of parliamentary or other credible institutions. >> >> We need to scrutinise how the laws work, to create transparency and build trust and legitimacy. >> >> Our obligation as governments is to provide security and to respect human rights - not either or. >> >> Patrik >> >> END QUOTE >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Apr 17 07:35:42 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 20:35:42 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Surveillance paragraph of netmundial document In-Reply-To: References: <534F3568.6050605@itforchange.net> <534F85B8.5020205@wzb.eu> <534F8BC8.9030202@apc.org> Message-ID: <37AF2C34-8453-4ED4-B1AB-8283351E4F86@glocom.ac.jp> I think the 7 points Patrik mentions below were introduced during the session on Internet surveillance at the Bali IGF, and received strong support there as the "swedish model". Adam On Apr 17, 2014, at 6:04 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > IN respect of this, just reposting something Patrik Falstrom posted in another place, suggesting that nations who have signed Human Rights Treaty cannot sign in to necessary and proportionate? Anyway they can accept the principles, so I guess this is just maybe about how we word interventions. > > Ian Peter > > QUOTE FROM PATRIK > > Although I can understand the interest for more detailed language, and support us trying to get that, it is already known that States that have signed up to the Human Rights Treaty can not sign up to the > necessaryandproportionate.org principles, so such negotiations will fail. A counter proposal has been released by the Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt that reads: > > > > To this objective, let me propose seven principles I believe should be observed. > > 1. First, legality. > > Surveillance needs to be based on laws. > > These laws must be adopted in a transparent manner through a democratic process. > > The implementation of these laws should be reviewed periodically to ensure that the expansion of surveillance capabilities due to, for instance, technological advances is properly debated. > > 2. Second, legitimate aim. > > Surveillance must be conducted on the basis of a legitimate and well-defined aim. > > Surveillance measures may never be carried out in a discriminatory or discretionary manner and only by specified state authorities. > > 3. Third, necessity and adequacy. > > The law should justify that surveillance is necessary and adequate to achieve the legitimate aim. > > 4. Fourth, proportionality. > > A sound proportionality judgment must be made, to carefully assess whether the benefits of surveillance outweigh its negative consequences. > > 5. Fifth, judicial authority. > > Decisions on the use of communications surveillance should be taken by a competent authority. > > As a general rule, an independent court should take such decisions. > > 6. Sixth, transparency. > > States should be as transparent as possible about how they carry out surveillance. > > They should provide information on how the surveillance legislation works in practice. > > 7. Seventh, public oversight of parliamentary or other credible institutions. > > We need to scrutinise how the laws work, to create transparency and build trust and legitimacy. > > Our obligation as governments is to provide security and to respect human rights - not either or. > > Patrik > > END QUOTE > > From: Anriette Esterhuysen > Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 6:07 PM > To: Jeanette Hofmann ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; Ian Peter > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Surveillance paragraph of netmundial document > > Agree. And I would like to understand why it was removed. > > I propose that everyone who submits input focuses on this. I have yet to work on the doc with colleagues in APC and will share insights as we go. > > But this is particularly important as it covers ALL surveillance, not just mass surveillance. It addresses ALL governments and not just the US government. It is important for the long term. > > Anriette > > > > On 17/04/2014 09:41, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> I think that particularly because necessary and proportionate has been in the document before and refers to principles that have broad political support, chances are good to get this language back in. It is definitely worth fighting for! >> >> jeanette >> >> Am 17.04.14 03:59, schrieb parminder: >>> >>> On Thursday 17 April 2014 04:08 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> To me one of the weakest sections of the document is the paragraph >>>> dealing with surveillance issues (para 35 of the Roadmap) which reads >>>> “Internet surveillance – Mass and arbitrary surveillance undermines >>>> trust in the Internet and trust in the Internet governance ecosystem. >>>> Surveillance of communications, their interception, and the collection >>>> of personal data, including mass surveillance, interception and >>>> collection should be conducted in accordance with states’ obligations >>>> under international human rights law. More dialogue is needed on this >>>> topic at the international level using forums like IGF and the Human >>>> Rights Council aiming to develop a common understanding on all the >>>> related aspects”. >>>> This fairly weak language and action line (more dialogue) is not >>>> surprising given the governmental input (including US Government) into >>>> the drafting. So far the only comment on this is from me, where I >>>> suggest reference to the necessaryandproportionate.org principles. >>> >>> >>> You of course know that reference to 'necessary and proportionate' was >>> there in the original draft and it got removed... What are the chances >>> then it will be reinstated at your request? >>> >>> parminder >>> >>>> I think it would be useful if others commented as individuals. Perhaps >>>> what we need is some better wording (which perhaps governments would >>>> be embarrassed not to include), and which would strengthen the >>>> response here. In any case, some wording and indication of level of >>>> concern to ensure that this is discussed on the floor of the meeting >>>> rather than simply passed by as an adequate wording would be useful! >>>> Ian Peter >>>> The site for entering responses is >>>> http://document.netmundial.br/2-roadmap-for-the-future-evolution-of-the-internet-governance/ >>> > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen > anriette at apc.org > > executive director, association for progressive communications > > www.apc.org > > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From kichango at gmail.com Thu Apr 17 08:02:09 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 12:02:09 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Surveillance paragraph of netmundial document In-Reply-To: <1874A357-2244-407D-A0D2-85AA0C08FCA4@consensus.pro> References: <534F3568.6050605@itforchange.net> <534F85B8.5020205@wzb.eu> <534F8BC8.9030202@apc.org> <534FA877.6040607@collaboratory.de> <306C72C9-AAC1-4A27-930D-403414085D76@consensus.pro> <534FB006.1050909@collaboratory.de> <1874A357-2244-407D-A0D2-85AA0C08FCA4@consensus.pro> Message-ID: I don't know whether that would make it an IG issue or not, but I think it still is legitimate and even maybe strategically necessary for civil society engaged in IG, to the extent they are concerned with a policy problem that is enabled by the internet and can be constrained by internet policy, to discuss and develop proposals in IG space in order to help address that problem in its proper space. Unless the problem space (here national security law) offers the same opportunity for CS to prepare and provide inputs. It's just a practical and opportunity problem. Of course everybody in the IG space does not have to be involved in that discussion. Thanks On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > I would say that if we try and make everything an Internet Governance > issue, we will be unable to agree on anything. There are better fora to > discuss many subjects than IG - aside from anything else, in other fora the > results are binding, where in IG they are not. > > I would suggest that anything that relates to the data that the network > carries is not IG, and anything that relates to the network and not the > data IS IG as a rough-and-ready rule. > > Just because something has a digital dimension doesn't mean it is in scope > for IG. > > On 17 Apr 2014, at 12:42, Lorena Jaume-Palasí > wrote: > > indeed, it is a national security-law problem and as you stated, Nick, it > has a digital dimension. Issues with a digital dimension and about > regulation are not in the focus of internet governance? I do think that > this is an internet governance issue -however not exclusively since it > affects other political dimensions too. > Kind regards, > Lorena > > Am 17.04.2014 12:31, schrieb Nick Ashton-Hart: > > I think the key issue here is: how do countries treat non-nationals in > pursuit of their national security and law enforcement activities. > > > > This is not actually an 'Internet problem' or an Internet governance > issue to my mind, it is a surveillance problem that affects the Internet > because the Internet is the tool being used. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anne at webfoundation.org Thu Apr 17 08:56:16 2014 From: anne at webfoundation.org (Anne Jellema) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 14:56:16 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Surveillance paragraph of netmundial document In-Reply-To: References: <534F3568.6050605@itforchange.net> <534F85B8.5020205@wzb.eu> <534F8BC8.9030202@apc.org> <534FA877.6040607@collaboratory.de> <306C72C9-AAC1-4A27-930D-403414085D76@consensus.pro> <534FB006.1050909@collaboratory.de> <1874A357-2244-407D-A0D2-85AA0C08FCA4@consensus.pro> Message-ID: I think we should get back to Ian's good suggestion of developing some alternative text, which we can submit via the comment box, but also use in lobbying. Here is a rough stab - would be great if the human rights experts among us could develop further. (By the way, Carl Bildt's 7 principles closely mirror 8 of the 13 'necessary and proportionate' principles developed by civil society, and he explicitly mentions 'necessity' and 'proportionality'.) best Anne Surveillance of communications, their interception, and the collection of personal data, including mass surveillance, interception and collection should be conducted only when necessary and proportionate, and in accordance with states' territorial and extraterritorial obligations to respect, fulfil and protect the right to privacy under international human rights law. The private sector bears equal responsibility for respecting internet users' right to privacy. On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > I don't know whether that would make it an IG issue or not, but I think it > still is legitimate and even maybe strategically necessary for civil > society engaged in IG, to the extent they are concerned with a policy > problem that is enabled by the internet and can be constrained by internet > policy, to discuss and develop proposals in IG space in order to help > address that problem in its proper space. Unless the problem space (here > national security law) offers the same opportunity for CS to prepare and > provide inputs. > > It's just a practical and opportunity problem. Of course everybody in the > IG space does not have to be involved in that discussion. > Thanks > > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > >> I would say that if we try and make everything an Internet Governance >> issue, we will be unable to agree on anything. There are better fora to >> discuss many subjects than IG - aside from anything else, in other fora the >> results are binding, where in IG they are not. >> >> I would suggest that anything that relates to the data that the network >> carries is not IG, and anything that relates to the network and not the >> data IS IG as a rough-and-ready rule. >> >> Just because something has a digital dimension doesn't mean it is in >> scope for IG. >> >> On 17 Apr 2014, at 12:42, Lorena Jaume-Palasí >> wrote: >> >> indeed, it is a national security-law problem and as you stated, Nick, >> it has a digital dimension. Issues with a digital dimension and about >> regulation are not in the focus of internet governance? I do think that >> this is an internet governance issue -however not exclusively since it >> affects other political dimensions too. >> Kind regards, >> Lorena >> >> Am 17.04.2014 12:31, schrieb Nick Ashton-Hart: >> > I think the key issue here is: how do countries treat non-nationals in >> pursuit of their national security and law enforcement activities. >> > >> > This is not actually an 'Internet problem' or an Internet governance >> issue to my mind, it is a surveillance problem that affects the Internet >> because the Internet is the tool being used. >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Anne Jellema CEO +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) +1 202 684 6885 (US) @afjellema *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From katitza at eff.org Thu Apr 17 11:05:46 2014 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 11:05:46 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Surveillance paragraph of netmundial document In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <534FEDCA.8030302@eff.org> Thank you, Ian. We must keep pushing for the principles. They are a guiding principles that explain to States how to implement their international human rights obligations in the context of communication surveillance. The Principles are firmly rooted in international law and jurisprudence. EFF and Article 19 will be releasing next week the Legal Background and Analysis of where the language of the Principles are coming from. We need a country that take the lead in implementing the Principles into national law, and that needs to come from the Parliament There is a lack of trust in the Executive Power within the mass surveillance debate. I don't think we will get much from a multi-stakeholder dialogue where even the Executive Power has no real knowledge of the scope and scale of mass surveillance. WE also hope the litigation advance, and we hope to see more judges applying those principles in the jurisprudence or more concluding observations from the Human rights Committee applying them (whether they cited or they barrow the language, which is also good to my eyes). Brazil and Germany are two States that are our last hope to get them to do something useful and meaningful. NetMundial as minimum need a firm rejection that mass surveillance is inherently a disproportionate measure. Mass surveillance, is the indiscriminate collection and retention of communications and metadata without any form of targeting or reasonable suspicion. By its very nature, mass surveillance does not involve any form of targeting or selection, let alone any requirement on the authorities to show reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Accordingly, mass surveillance is inevitably disproportionate as a matter of simple definition. The Principles reflect the above international standards under the headings “necessity,” “adequacy,” "legitimate aim" and “proportionality.” People have begun to realise that the current laws of their own country provide only ineffective protection against mass surveillance and the laws of other countries provide them with no protection at all. The world is waking up to the reality that most governments treat the private communications of non-residents and foreign nationals as fair game. The UN Human Rights Committee has for the first time remonstrated the US government for failing to provide extra-territorial protection for the privacy of non-citizens and legal challenges are being brought against bulk surveillance of foreign communications around the world. And definitely, the extraterritorial application of human rights law in the context of national security is an internet governance issue. Given the extraordinary capabilities and programs of States (and a few states more than others) to monitor global communications, the right to privacy must apply to the communication the NSA scans or collect. To accept otherwise, it defeat the purpose and objective of the ICCPR. You can read in EFF and Human rights Watch Submission to the Human Rights Committee, https://www.eff.org/document/eff-and-human-rights-watch-joint-submission-human-rights-committee and our joint submission with Privacy International, APC, Human rights Watch and others ot hte Office of the High commissioner on Human Rights https://www.eff.org/document/ohchr-consultation-connection-general-assembly-resolution-68167-right-privacy-digital-age While this is an internet governance issue too, I don't think we will solve this problem via a multi-stakeholder dialogue, though we should keep open the channel of communications with States and try to get some States to actually take the lead taking strong steps against the mass collection of data of innocent individuals, while we keep litigating in courts at national level or internationally on this issue. Katitza You can barrow some languages from the submissions we have made in both Human Rights Committee and the next report of the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights. But this issue is not only a matter of domestic law. As we seen, On 04/16/2014 06:38 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Hi everyone, > > To me one of the weakest sections of the document is the paragraph > dealing with surveillance issues (para 35 of the Roadmap) which reads > “ Internet surveillance – Mass and arbitrary surveillance undermines > trust in the Internet and trust in the Internet governance ecosystem. > Surveillance of communications, their interception, and the collection > of personal data, including mass surveillance, interception and > collection should be conducted in accordance with states’ obligations > under international human rights law. More dialogue is needed on this > topic at the international level using forums like IGF and the Human > Rights Council aiming to develop a common understanding on all the > related aspects”. > > This fairly weak language and action line (more dialogue) is not > surprising given the governmental input (including US Government) into > the drafting. So far the only comment on this is from me, where I > suggest reference to the necessaryandproportionate.org principles. > > I think it would be useful if others commented as individuals. Perhaps > what we need is some better wording (which perhaps governments would be > embarrassed not to include), and which would strengthen the response > here. In any case, some wording and indication of level of concern to > ensure that this is discussed on the floor of the meeting rather than > simply passed by as an adequate wording would be useful! > > > Ian Peter > > The site for entering responses is > http://document.netmundial.br/2-roadmap-for-the-future-evolution-of-the-internet-governance/ -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 901 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From katitza at eff.org Thu Apr 17 11:22:59 2014 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 11:22:59 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Surveillance paragraph of netmundial document In-Reply-To: References: <534F3568.6050605@itforchange.net> <534F85B8.5020205@wzb.eu> <534F8BC8.9030202@apc.org> <534FA877.6040607@collaboratory.de> <306C72C9-AAC1-4A27-930D-403414085D76@consensus.pro> <534FB006.1050909@collaboratory.de> <1874A357-2244-407D-A0D2-85AA0C08FCA4@consensus.pro> Message-ID: <534FF1D3.4070201@eff.org> Hi Anne, I'm not aware of who are members of the drafting committee (apologize for not being able to follow the process closely) but those going to Brbzil can work with some States probably from developing countries (lead by Brazil) to get a strong statement condemning mass surveillance. I'm not sure if that is feasible but that would contribute to this global debate. Below are some talking points from our joint submission with Privacy International, APC, Human Rights Watch, Article 19, Web We Want Foundation and others on this topic that might also be relevant if we want to get some states on board condemning mass surveillance: https://www.eff.org/document/ohchr-consultation-connection-general-assembly-resolution-68167-right-privacy-digital-age a. Mass surveillance is inherently disproportionate – Mass surveillance operations enable the scooping up of communications pertaining to individuals on the basis of location, nationality, or communications services used, rather than on the basis of individualised suspicion or the detection or prevention of a particular offence. The fundamental premise of this communications (signals) intelligence gathering is the collation of excessive amounts of information from which patterns or correlations might be drawn, rather than the pursuit or investigation of particular activities. Such a scope is necessarily so broad as to obliterate any precision or targeted calculation of the individual impacts of measures. b. Mass surveillance is also inherently disproportionate regardless of technical or procedural safeguards – It is difficult to imagine what safeguards would need to be put in place to prevent against abuse of a system that enables the mass collection and storage of intimate and sensitive information on whole populations. The very quantity and nature of the information being collected renders such a system inherently unsafe. Even if judicial authorization were to be required for each act of mass surveillance – which, in most countries, it is not – and such surveillance could be independently audited, the very collection of such valuable information in itself raises huge issues of safety and security that would be extremely difficult to overcome with legal safeguards. In addition, the “minimisation” procedures used by States such as the US, which they claim safeguard the communications of certain categories of persons, are shrouded in secrecy. c. Mass surveillance interferes with virtually all aspects of our everyday lives – Given that almost all activities – communication between individuals, financial transactions, accessing health care services, to name just a few – are now conducted online, via computers or on mobile phones, and thus subject to mass collection techniques such as tapping into the undersea cables or at Internet switches, mass surveillance interferes with any and all activities, even those of an extremely sensitive nature. d. No compelling evidence has ever been put forward to justify the need for mass surveillance – While the protection of national security and the prevention of crime and disorder are undoubtedly pressing social needs, it is difficult to assess the severity of those needs – particularly under the umbrella of national security – given the aura of secrecy accorded to surveillance in the context of national security and terrorism-related measures. It is impossible for the public to know or assess the pressing nature of the need without greater transparency and accountability by governments about the usefulness of surveillance measures in actually addressing national security and terrorism concerns. e. Mass surveillance has a correlative chilling effect on freedom of expression and freedom of association – The destructive impact of mass surveillance on general well-being cannot be underestimated. These impacts include not only the violation of privacy rights, but extend to broader societal impacts on the ability to freely form and express ideas and opinions, to associate and organise, and to disagree with dominant political ideologies and demand change to the status quo. It is well-accepted that people are much less likely to express themselves and share information if they know or suspect that the government is monitoring their interactions with others. By undermining people’s confidence in the privacy and security of their online communications, mass surveillance seriously impedes the free flow of information and ideas online. Mass surveillance chills not only free speech, but innovation, creation and imagination. As the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression concluded in his report of 17 April 2013, States cannot ensure that individuals are able to freely seek and receive information or express themselves without respecting, protecting and promoting their right to privacy. 1 The UN Special Rapporteur also warned that without strong legal protections in place, journalists, human rights defenders, political activists and whistleblowers risk being subjected to arbitrary surveillance activities. 2 The European Court of Human Rights recognized as much in Segerstedt-Wiberg and Others v Sweden (no. 62332/00, 6 June 2006, paras. 107), where it found that the Swedish government’s collection and storage of personal data related to political opinion, affiliations and activities was an unjustified interference with the rights to freedom of expression and association. On 04/17/2014 08:56 AM, Anne Jellema wrote: > I think we should get back to Ian's good suggestion of developing some > alternative text, which we can submit via the comment box, but also use > in lobbying. > Here is a rough stab - would be great if the human rights experts among > us could develop further. > (By the way, Carl Bildt's 7 principles closely mirror 8 of the 13 > 'necessary and proportionate' principles developed by civil society, and > he explicitly mentions 'necessity' and 'proportionality'.) > best > Anne > Surveillance of communications, their interception, and the collection > of personal data, including mass surveillance, interception and > collection should be conducted only when necessary and proportionate, > and in accordance with states’ territorial and extraterritorial > obligations to respect, fulfil and protect the right to privacy under > international human rights law. The private sector bears equal > responsibility for respecting internet users' right to privacy. > > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Mawaki Chango > wrote: > > I don't know whether that would make it an IG issue or not, but I > think it still is legitimate and even maybe strategically necessary > for civil society engaged in IG, to the extent they are concerned > with a policy problem that is enabled by the internet and can be > constrained by internet policy, to discuss and develop proposals in > IG space in order to help address that problem in its proper space. > Unless the problem space (here national security law) offers the > same opportunity for CS to prepare and provide inputs. > > It's just a practical and opportunity problem. Of course everybody > in the IG space does not have to be involved in that discussion. > Thanks > > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart > > wrote: > > I would say that if we try and make everything an Internet > Governance issue, we will be unable to agree on anything. There > are better fora to discuss many subjects than IG - aside from > anything else, in other fora the results are binding, where in > IG they are not. > > I would suggest that anything that relates to the data that the > network carries is not IG, and anything that relates to the > network and not the data IS IG as a rough-and-ready rule. > > Just because something has a digital dimension doesn’t mean it > is in scope for IG. > > On 17 Apr 2014, at 12:42, Lorena Jaume-Palasí > > wrote: > >> indeed, it is a national security-law problem and as you >> stated, Nick, it has a digital dimension. Issues with a >> digital dimension and about regulation are not in the focus of >> internet governance? I do think that this is an internet >> governance issue -however not exclusively since it affects >> other political dimensions too. >> Kind regards, >> Lorena >> >> Am 17.04.2014 12:31, schrieb Nick Ashton-Hart: >> > I think the key issue here is: how do countries treat non-nationals in pursuit of their >> national security and law enforcement activities. >> > >> > This is not actually an ‘Internet problem’ or an Internet >> governance issue to my mind, it is a surveillance problem that >> affects the Internet because the Internet is the tool being used. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > Anne Jellema > CEO > +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) > +1 202 684 6885 (US) > @afjellema > * > * > *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington > DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org | > Twitter: @webfoundation* > > -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 901 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Apr 17 12:30:59 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 12:30:59 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Surveillance paragraph of netmundial document In-Reply-To: <534FEDCA.8030302@eff.org> References: <534FEDCA.8030302@eff.org> Message-ID: will this paper be presented at the German-Brazil meeting on the 22nd Katitza?! On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > Thank you, Ian. > > We must keep pushing for the principles. They are a guiding principles > that explain to States how to implement their international human rights > obligations in the context of communication surveillance. The Principles > are firmly rooted in international law and jurisprudence. > EFF and Article 19 will be releasing next week the Legal Background and > Analysis of where the language of the Principles are coming from. > > We need a country that take the lead in implementing the Principles into > national law, and that needs to come from the Parliament > There is a lack of trust in the Executive Power within the mass > surveillance debate. I don't think we will get much from a > multi-stakeholder dialogue where even the Executive Power has no real > knowledge of the scope and scale of mass surveillance. WE also hope the > litigation advance, and we hope to see more judges applying those > principles in the jurisprudence or more concluding observations from the > Human rights Committee applying them (whether they cited or they barrow > the language, which is also good to my eyes). > > Brazil and Germany are two States that are our last hope to get them to > do something useful and meaningful. NetMundial as minimum need a firm > rejection that mass surveillance is inherently a disproportionate measure. > > Mass surveillance, is the indiscriminate collection and retention of > communications and metadata without any form of targeting or reasonable > suspicion. > > By its very nature, mass surveillance does not involve any form of > targeting or selection, let alone any requirement on the authorities to > show reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Accordingly, mass > surveillance is inevitably disproportionate as a matter of simple > definition. The Principles reflect the above international standards > under the headings “necessity,” “adequacy,” "legitimate aim" and > “proportionality.” > > People have begun to realise that the current laws of their own country > provide only ineffective protection against mass surveillance and the > laws of other countries provide them with no protection at all. The > world is waking up to the reality that most governments treat the > private communications of non-residents and foreign nationals as fair > game. The UN Human Rights Committee has for the first time remonstrated > the US government for failing to provide extra-territorial protection > for the privacy of non-citizens and legal challenges are being brought > against bulk surveillance of foreign communications around the world. > > And definitely, the extraterritorial application of human rights law in > the context of national security is an internet governance issue. > > Given the extraordinary capabilities and programs of States (and a few > states more than others) to monitor global communications, the right to > privacy must apply to the communication the NSA scans or collect. To > accept otherwise, it defeat the purpose and objective of the ICCPR. > > You can read in EFF and Human rights Watch Submission to the Human > Rights Committee, > > https://www.eff.org/document/eff-and-human-rights-watch-joint-submission-human-rights-committee > > and our joint submission with Privacy International, APC, Human rights > Watch and others ot hte Office of the High commissioner on Human Rights > > https://www.eff.org/document/ohchr-consultation-connection-general-assembly-resolution-68167-right-privacy-digital-age > > While this is an internet governance issue too, I don't think we will > solve this problem via a multi-stakeholder dialogue, though we should > keep open the channel of communications with States and try to get some > States to actually take the lead taking strong steps against the mass > collection of data of innocent individuals, while we keep litigating in > courts at national level or internationally on this issue. > > > Katitza > > > > > > You can barrow some languages from the submissions we have made in both > Human Rights Committee and the next report of the Office of the High > Commissioner on Human Rights. > > But this issue is not only a matter of domestic law. As we seen, > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 04/16/2014 06:38 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > > > To me one of the weakest sections of the document is the paragraph > > dealing with surveillance issues (para 35 of the Roadmap) which reads > > “ Internet surveillance – Mass and arbitrary surveillance undermines > > trust in the Internet and trust in the Internet governance ecosystem. > > Surveillance of communications, their interception, and the collection > > of personal data, including mass surveillance, interception and > > collection should be conducted in accordance with states’ obligations > > under international human rights law. More dialogue is needed on this > > topic at the international level using forums like IGF and the Human > > Rights Council aiming to develop a common understanding on all the > > related aspects”. > > > > This fairly weak language and action line (more dialogue) is not > > surprising given the governmental input (including US Government) into > > the drafting. So far the only comment on this is from me, where I > > suggest reference to the necessaryandproportionate.org principles. > > > > I think it would be useful if others commented as individuals. Perhaps > > what we need is some better wording (which perhaps governments would be > > embarrassed not to include), and which would strengthen the response > > here. In any case, some wording and indication of level of concern to > > ensure that this is discussed on the floor of the meeting rather than > > simply passed by as an adequate wording would be useful! > > > > > > Ian Peter > > > > The site for entering responses is > > > http://document.netmundial.br/2-roadmap-for-the-future-evolution-of-the-internet-governance/ > > -- > Katitza Rodriguez > International Rights Director > Electronic Frontier Foundation > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: From katitza at eff.org Thu Apr 17 14:37:43 2014 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 14:37:43 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Surveillance paragraph of netmundial document In-Reply-To: <93F18D6396A6456C94941FC544F6CAD8@Toshiba> References: <534F3568.6050605@itforchange.net> <534F85B8.5020205@wzb.eu> <534F8BC8.9030202@apc.org> <93F18D6396A6456C94941FC544F6CAD8@Toshiba> Message-ID: <53501F77.7000508@eff.org> Hi Ian, comments below: On 04/17/2014 05:25 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > no idea why Mawaki. Perhaps others know... > > *From:* Mawaki Chango > *Sent:* Thursday, April 17, 2014 7:17 PM > *To:* Ian Peter > *Cc:* Anriette Esterhuysen ; Jeanette Hofmann > ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Surveillance paragraph of netmundial document > > Hi Ian, > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Ian Peter > wrote: > > IN respect of this, just reposting something Patrik Falstrom posted > in another place, suggesting that nations who have signed Human > Rights Treaty cannot sign in to necessary and proportionate? > > > Did he explain why, in short? Thanks. Mawaki I would love to find the source that I can cite in my blogging. In any case, we are not asking States to sign onto the Principles necessarily. If they does it, that's a nice gesture. But I think you can still cited the Principles in the NetMundial document. As I explained, they are guiding principles for States, legislators, judges on how to apply their existing international human rights obligations in the context of communication surveillance. It would be nice to get a reference in the netmundial document! -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 901 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From katitza at eff.org Thu Apr 17 14:41:32 2014 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 14:41:32 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Surveillance paragraph of netmundial document In-Reply-To: References: <534FEDCA.8030302@eff.org> Message-ID: <5350205C.5070608@eff.org> I have no idea what happened on the 22nd Carolina. I haven't been able to track netmundial. But my colleague Danny O'brien and Gabrielle Guillermin (with whom we work on the paper) will be in Sao Paulo for net mundial. If the 22nd is a good date, we might be able to launch the paper there. I'll coordinate internally. On 04/17/2014 12:30 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > will this paper be presented at the German-Brazil meeting on the 22nd > Katitza?! > > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Katitza Rodriguez > wrote: > > Thank you, Ian. > > We must keep pushing for the principles. They are a guiding principles > that explain to States how to implement their international human rights > obligations in the context of communication surveillance. The Principles > are firmly rooted in international law and jurisprudence. > EFF and Article 19 will be releasing next week the Legal Background and > Analysis of where the language of the Principles are coming from. > > We need a country that take the lead in implementing the Principles into > national law, and that needs to come from the Parliament > There is a lack of trust in the Executive Power within the mass > surveillance debate. I don't think we will get much from a > multi-stakeholder dialogue where even the Executive Power has no real > knowledge of the scope and scale of mass surveillance. WE also hope the > litigation advance, and we hope to see more judges applying those > principles in the jurisprudence or more concluding observations from the > Human rights Committee applying them (whether they cited or they barrow > the language, which is also good to my eyes). > > Brazil and Germany are two States that are our last hope to get them to > do something useful and meaningful. NetMundial as minimum need a firm > rejection that mass surveillance is inherently a disproportionate > measure. > > Mass surveillance, is the indiscriminate collection and retention of > communications and metadata without any form of targeting or reasonable > suspicion. > > By its very nature, mass surveillance does not involve any form of > targeting or selection, let alone any requirement on the authorities to > show reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Accordingly, mass > surveillance is inevitably disproportionate as a matter of simple > definition. The Principles reflect the above international standards > under the headings “necessity,” “adequacy,” "legitimate aim" and > “proportionality.” > > People have begun to realise that the current laws of their own country > provide only ineffective protection against mass surveillance and the > laws of other countries provide them with no protection at all. The > world is waking up to the reality that most governments treat the > private communications of non-residents and foreign nationals as fair > game. The UN Human Rights Committee has for the first time remonstrated > the US government for failing to provide extra-territorial protection > for the privacy of non-citizens and legal challenges are being brought > against bulk surveillance of foreign communications around the world. > > And definitely, the extraterritorial application of human rights law in > the context of national security is an internet governance issue. > > Given the extraordinary capabilities and programs of States (and a few > states more than others) to monitor global communications, the right to > privacy must apply to the communication the NSA scans or collect. To > accept otherwise, it defeat the purpose and objective of the ICCPR. > > You can read in EFF and Human rights Watch Submission to the Human > Rights Committee, > https://www.eff.org/document/eff-and-human-rights-watch-joint-submission-human-rights-committee > > and our joint submission with Privacy International, APC, Human rights > Watch and others ot hte Office of the High commissioner on Human Rights > https://www.eff.org/document/ohchr-consultation-connection-general-assembly-resolution-68167-right-privacy-digital-age > > While this is an internet governance issue too, I don't think we will > solve this problem via a multi-stakeholder dialogue, though we should > keep open the channel of communications with States and try to get some > States to actually take the lead taking strong steps against the mass > collection of data of innocent individuals, while we keep litigating in > courts at national level or internationally on this issue. > > > Katitza > > > > > > You can barrow some languages from the submissions we have made in both > Human Rights Committee and the next report of the Office of the High > Commissioner on Human Rights. > > But this issue is not only a matter of domestic law. As we seen, > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 04/16/2014 06:38 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > > > To me one of the weakest sections of the document is the paragraph > > dealing with surveillance issues (para 35 of the Roadmap) which reads > > “ Internet surveillance – Mass and arbitrary surveillance undermines > > trust in the Internet and trust in the Internet governance ecosystem. > > Surveillance of communications, their interception, and the collection > > of personal data, including mass surveillance, interception and > > collection should be conducted in accordance with states’ obligations > > under international human rights law. More dialogue is needed on this > > topic at the international level using forums like IGF and the Human > > Rights Council aiming to develop a common understanding on all the > > related aspects”. > > > > This fairly weak language and action line (more dialogue) is not > > surprising given the governmental input (including US Government) into > > the drafting. So far the only comment on this is from me, where I > > suggest reference to the necessaryandproportionate.org > principles. > > > > I think it would be useful if others commented as individuals. Perhaps > > what we need is some better wording (which perhaps governments > would be > > embarrassed not to include), and which would strengthen the response > > here. In any case, some wording and indication of level of concern to > > ensure that this is discussed on the floor of the meeting rather than > > simply passed by as an adequate wording would be useful! > > > > > > Ian Peter > > > > The site for entering responses is > > > http://document.netmundial.br/2-roadmap-for-the-future-evolution-of-the-internet-governance/ > > -- > Katitza Rodriguez > International Rights Director > Electronic Frontier Foundation > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 901 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From katitza at eff.org Thu Apr 17 15:27:21 2014 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 15:27:21 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Surveillance paragraph of netmundial document In-Reply-To: <534F8BC8.9030202@apc.org> References: <534F3568.6050605@itforchange.net> <534F85B8.5020205@wzb.eu> <534F8BC8.9030202@apc.org> Message-ID: <53502B19.60804@eff.org> Yes please fight hard, Jeanette and Anriette. Thank you so much for your work. On 04/17/2014 04:07 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Agree. And I would like to understand why it was removed. > > I propose that everyone who submits input focuses on this. I have yet to > work on the doc with colleagues in APC and will share insights as we go. > > But this is particularly important as it covers ALL surveillance, not > just mass surveillance. It addresses ALL governments and not just the US > government. It is important for the long term. > > Anriette > > > > On 17/04/2014 09:41, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> I think that particularly because necessary and proportionate has been >> in the document before and refers to principles that have broad >> political support, chances are good to get this language back in. It >> is definitely worth fighting for! >> >> jeanette >> >> Am 17.04.14 03:59, schrieb parminder: >>> >>> On Thursday 17 April 2014 04:08 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> To me one of the weakest sections of the document is the paragraph >>>> dealing with surveillance issues (para 35 of the Roadmap) which reads >>>> “Internet surveillance – Mass and arbitrary surveillance undermines >>>> trust in the Internet and trust in the Internet governance ecosystem. >>>> Surveillance of communications, their interception, and the collection >>>> of personal data, including mass surveillance, interception and >>>> collection should be conducted in accordance with states’ obligations >>>> under international human rights law. More dialogue is needed on this >>>> topic at the international level using forums like IGF and the Human >>>> Rights Council aiming to develop a common understanding on all the >>>> related aspects”. >>>> This fairly weak language and action line (more dialogue) is not >>>> surprising given the governmental input (including US Government) into >>>> the drafting. So far the only comment on this is from me, where I >>>> suggest reference to the necessaryandproportionate.org principles. >>> >>> >>> You of course know that reference to 'necessary and proportionate' was >>> there in the original draft and it got removed... What are the chances >>> then it will be reinstated at your request? >>> >>> parminder >>> >>>> I think it would be useful if others commented as individuals. Perhaps >>>> what we need is some better wording (which perhaps governments would >>>> be embarrassed not to include), and which would strengthen the >>>> response here. In any case, some wording and indication of level of >>>> concern to ensure that this is discussed on the floor of the meeting >>>> rather than simply passed by as an adequate wording would be useful! >>>> Ian Peter >>>> The site for entering responses is >>>> http://document.netmundial.br/2-roadmap-for-the-future-evolution-of-the-internet-governance/ >>>> >>> > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > 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 > -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 901 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Apr 17 17:30:33 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 17:30:33 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [IANAtransition] Microsoft's Statement In-Reply-To: <1c3bd094b82d4524a3c8728694ac2c8a@BLUPR03MB359.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> References: <1c3bd094b82d4524a3c8728694ac2c8a@BLUPR03MB359.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mehmet Akcin Date: Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 4:23 PM Subject: [IANAtransition] Microsoft's Statement To: "ianatransition at icann.org" Microsoft is supportive of the NTIA’s move to transition key Internet Domain functions to the global multistakeholder community. Our statement on the NTIA announcement is available at http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2014/03/17/microsoft-applauds-us-ntia-s-transition-of-key-internet-domain-name-functions.aspx Mehmet Akcin, Microsoft _______________________________________________ ianatransition mailing list ianatransition at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition -- *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: From subi.igp at gmail.com Thu Apr 17 17:56:27 2014 From: subi.igp at gmail.com (Subi Chaturvedi) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 03:26:27 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Breaking my silence on Netmundial related concerns raised by colleagues from India Message-ID: Dear CS colleagues and friends, This has reference to the article published in HT on 8th April, 2014 which has been shared and referred to on this mailing list, multiple times. At the outset I want to thank all of you who have written to me showing solidarity against this vicious personal attack, based on wrong, misleading and manipulated information, indicative of a perverse mind, as you'd realize after, going through this post. I had chosen to maintain silence in the face of repeated and grave provocation but the attacks continue unabated, thwarting and disrupting all attempts at having any civilized conversation about the key issues that concern global CS, even on the eve of Netmundial. The reason why we've invested our energy, faith and considerable amount of time engaging with the process, in the first place. I am now also compelled to write this email, for it is unfair on those who have shown solidarity with me by writing to me or defending me publicly on this list and elsewhere, to be left in this position without a minimal comment from me. I wish to assure global civil society that our views are being shared, represented and recognised. I have made multiple interventions on the calls as well as over emails and continue to work across time zones to ensure that our views are reflected. Anriette, my colleague from the MAG, has done a fairly balanced assessment of the situation though, and I completely agree with her, we have real challenges ahead of us. I think our time would be utilised better if we focus on the issues at hand- in Netmundial, I see a significant oppurtunity for change. In the internet, I see not just a source of knowledge but also an amplifier of dissent and an enabler of human rights and permissionless innovation. I have been a free speech activist and have fought for these issues long and hard and therefore this is deeply painful. My interventions are available publicly and a basic name search would reveal my interventions at the global IGF as well on national media in India. Many of these national meetings have been with my friends and respected colleagues from civil society in India and remain on their websites or any outreach platforms of communication. At the last India IGF MAG meeting where three of the co-signatories, who are also on the MAG, made interventions with me. Their interventions and mine captured are in the official minutes. In the same meeting I was also appointed as the convenor of the Working group of the India IGF with the knowledge and consent of Mr.Parmindar from ITfC and with consensus from the floor. My work in the Internet Governance Space and related areas of media and communication, deepening democracy and public policy can be found on my blog *http://subichaturvedi.blogspot.in/ * Now I ask all of you, who have been relentlessly subjected to the said article and appeals by my respectable colleagues and collaborators from Indian CS- was it appropriate to include me in this story related to surveillance by a corporate? Is there any connection at all? Other than to cause harm to me; in which they miserably failed. As identified in Ian’s email, apart from being a vicious personal attack, the article is manipulative on multiple levels and makes several inaccurate assertions. Notwithstanding this unfortunate exception, I want to assure all of you that journalism in India is free, fair for the most part, and a harbinger of truth and justice. I would urge you not to judge Indian media based on this article. I submit the following for your consideration: the portions in italics are direct quotes from the same article. . a. *“**Emails accessed by HT suggest that Bhatia championed Chaturvedi's rise in Indian internet governance circles” .* You would surely notice that while pdfs of all charges were hyperlinked, this allegation conspicuously remains unsubstantiated and any proof to the effect is missing from the story. I challenge anyone to put out any evidence of anyone- either me or anyone, at all doing any advocacy for me to be appointed as the co-chair of Netmundial or on the MAG. It is quite unfortunate that my work and my merit should be called into question. Undermining all multistakeholder processes. However malicious even the article does not make this extrapolation that Mr. Parminder Jeet singh repeatedly continues to make. Despite a clarification on the 4th of April, 2014 issued by the distinguished academician and General Chair of the Meeting Minister Virgilio Almeida. b. “*Chaturvedi has also publicly acknowledged a former AT&T official, Marylin Cade as a "coach and mentor”:* I quote the same tweet: “frm (from) Ms. Marilyn Cade *coach and Mentor other proposals* and IGF should limit it’s own”. [image: Inline images 1] In plain violation of the most basic tenets of journalism concocting evidence, he disingenuously parades my tweet about Ms. Cade’s comment at the UN MAG to “coach and mentor other proposals and limit proposals from the MAG itself” as my “public acknowledgement” of Ms. Cade being my “coach and mentor”. c. “*She was also paid upwards of **Rs.* *2.3 lakh for her role at a FICCI-led conference on internet governance. Subsequently, she also received part-funding from FICCI to attend an international conference. This raises a clear conflict of interest since she was on board as a civil society representative, but accepted payments from industry and corporate bodies”.* He knowingly suppressed the context of the Rs.2.3 lakh (3,814 USD), payment by the industry association and presented it as “conflict of interest”. The journalist knew fully well that the payment was a reimbursement of costs incurred at the request of the conference secretariat to produce professional videos, hire resources, material and camera costs, still photography, new media activation and related hardware and studio costs. He knew but purposefully left out my extensive contribution to the conference as a speaker and session organizer on a pro bono basis. He deliberately misrepresented in spite of knowing that the travel assistance given by the industry association was contributed by ISOC (Internet Society) and remaining by NIXI (National Internet Exchange of India). He already knew but hid that both organisations routinely provide travel assistance to scores of civil society representatives, including to some who authored the said letter. This CANNOT under any circumstances be construed as accepting money for advocacy from a corporate and presented as "conflict of interest". This is the most absurd allegation which even seasoned propagandists would shy away from. Further he deceitfully persisted with the false “conflict of interest”, charge by suppressing scores of emails , tweets, posts, videos, film and TV interviews given to him and easily available in the public domain, as my firm stance against illegal surveillance, invasion of privacy, and violation of freedom of speech and expression and human rights. d. *Ph.D* : *Can a **mere research studentship**,** which I am still pursuing**,* *be** the basis on which I was appointed at any forum?* It was used only to put an unsubstantiated charge of plagiarism for my character assassination. I preferred to change my guide then to “say sorry”, to her for the offense I had not committed and continue with her. With a view to purposefully mislead the readers, the journalist grossly manipulated the facts around my PhD by deliberately obfuscating that I have steadfastly refuted “any academic wrong doing”. *The IIT has never charged me with this offense, no show ca**use has ever** been given to me and hence no action has been taken against me,* detailed evidence was given to the journalist who chose to deliberately ignore it in order to convey a premeditated message. IIT has the highest ethical code of conduct and so do I. And my PhD. is well underway. *The letter of notable members of civil society.* The CS letter from India carried the support of 10 individuals +1 author, some of whom claim to represent different organisations. I have worked with most who are in this space including Parminder, Prabir, Anja Kovacs, Chinmayi Arun, Rishab Bailey, Mishi Choudhary, Sunil Abraham; 7 Out of 10. Two of remaining 3 have attended a national conference on IG with me where Parminder was present through out. It is full of misrepresentation. Their claims are absurd that: *1- They don’t know me* *2. They haven’t worked with me and I am not active in this space.* *3. They don’t know how to reach me**.* *4. And I do not teach IG* *My Response**:* Ø *Not only do they know me quite well* Ø *We have hosted joint events, * Ø *We have served on organizational bodies together related to IG, * Ø *We have appeared as panelists together on IG, * Ø *We have traveled and worked together on IG, * Ø *We have submitted joint inputs to government of India on IG, * Ø *Prepared background papers together for multistakeholder dialogues and events on IG, * Ø *Co-moderated dialogues and multistakeholder panels on IG. * Ø *I receive emails from them, respond to them, they have appreciated and thanked me for my inputs and efforts. * Ø *They have called me on my mobile phone * Ø *They have visited me in person and with their teams to seek my inputs on their drafts. * I am happy to compare and contrast my interventions and my work in the IG space with all of them individually or collectively. The ITRs submission of CS was jointly made by Ø Society for Knowledge commons represented by Rishab Bailey (author of the CS letter), Ø Internet Democracy Project (Anja Kovacs- co-signatory), Ø Free Software Movement of India (Kiran Chandra (General Secretary- co-signatory), Ø Delhi Science Forum (Prabir – co-signatory), Ø Media For Change( represented by me) Ø SFLC.in (Mishi – co-signatory). Ø Ms. Chinmayi Arun was part of all the 4 day meetings and discussions and is on all the emails but did not finally submit the ITRs formal response. ​ More evidence of Joint work (There’s a lot but I do not wish to burden this list)- One of the recent multistakeholder meeting on IG that I co-organized including drafting the background paper with Ms. Anja Kovacs from the Internet democracy project (yes we have worked together and collaborated on many occasions and often take same positions publicly), was on the 29thJanuary, 2014. Where I worked with 1. Anja Kovacs, IDP (co-signatory) 2. Sunil Abraham , CIS (cosignatory)- represented by Snehashish Ghosh 3. Mishi Chowdhary, SFLC.in (Cosignatory)- represented by Prashanth Sugathan 4. Ms. Chinmayi Arun Co-moderated the meeting with me and Ms. Anja Kovacs ​ *Interlinkages between all the authors of the India CS letter:* Ms Anja Kovacs, IDP is a cosignatory & a CIS fellow and has also worked for ITfC which is represented on this letter by Mr. Parminder Jeet Singh, Ms. Chinmayi Arun from CCG (is a cosignatory & also a CIS fellow), Mr. Sunil Abraham is the director of CIS, Rishab Bailey the author of the CS letter has been associated with IDP, and with SFLC (another co-signatory) and is now representing SKC which is currently represented on this letter by Mr. Prabir Purkayastha (co-signatory) who is also associated formally as an office bearer with the SFM represented on the letter by Mr. Kiran Chandra (co-signatory). All these are respected colleagues and have worked with me on the ITRs and many other IG related workshops and panels as mentioned above. CIS’s director Mr. Sunil Abraham has also served with me on multiple panels and bodies together and my interventions can be found online and at the CIS website http://cis-india.org/@@search?SearchableText=subi+chaturvedi They are all signatories to the letter. *Again, my heartfelt gratitude to all those who have written to me, or supported me. We have a very important task at hand, thank you again for reposing your faith and for believing in me. And I wish that at all times the dignity of the caucus be preserved and upheld. * Finally, I do not hold any grudges against those, including the journalist who may have been involved in this unfortunate and unwarranted personal attack. I continue to have the highest respect for the work that my colleagues do. I am look forward to working with all of you and will be available in Sao Paulo from the 21st and over email. Do feel free to reach out with any questions or comments you may have. I would be happy to participate in any meeting or related discussion and will continue to work to the best of my ability and do my utmost, towards the evolution of the IG ecosphere so that we have an internet, which remains free and open, which amplifies human rights and allows for permissionless innovation and connects the unconnected. More details about my IG interventions can be found on my blog here http://subichaturvedi.blogspot.in/ and *Contributions at the UN IGF : (Partial List) is available here for ready reference* https://www.google.co.in/search?q=igf+MAG+Subi+Chaturvedi+site:www.intgovforum.org&es_sm=91 I am equally thrilled that our collective inputs and suggestions are being taken on board. And I am also hopeful that the outcome document will reflect truly, what will emerge from the floor. Our friends in Brazil from the civil society and from across stakeholder groups have also done commendable work to bring us here. Delighted that it will be a multistakeholder panel, which will open Netmundial 2014 in Brazil. Many congratulations Nnenna, we are in great hands. Very proud to have you representing us and your address at the IGF 2013, in Bali was both profoundly evocative and stirring. I hope you will make time to emphasize the role that the Internet is playing especially in peace building and conflict transformation as well. Your tremendous and deeply inspiring work in Côte d'Ivoire underscores the importance of national and regional initiatives, along with intercessional work. We have a fantastic ambassador in you. And it might be an uphill climb for all of us but let's put our best foot forward. Looking forward to seeing you all in Sao Paulo soon. Safe travels, all. Warmest, Subi ---- Subi Chaturvedi Assistant Prof. Journalism & Comm, Lady Shri Ram College for Women (LSR), Delhi University, India Twitter:@subichaturvedi http://subichaturvedi.blogspot.in/ Member MAG, UN-IGF (Media & Civil Society) Member MAG, India-IGF (Civil Society) Convenor WG-India IGF Co-Chair, Netmundial (Civil Society) Founder & Hon. Managing Trustee, Media For Change Founder, Chief Mentor & Editor The Saltlist www.thesaltlist.org Independent DocumentaryFilmmaker, Photographer, Curator, Media Critic & Scholar PhD. Scholar, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT-D), New Delhi PS: Global CS Community who may not aware of my contribution here’s snapshot ABOUT me and my work specifically on internet /governances/ freedom of speech and expression: *IG specific Roles:* 1. Recipient of the NIXI (National Internet Exchange, India) fellowship for IG 2014-2015 2. Co-Chair Netmundial 2014 3. Convenor Working group Indian IGF MAG 4. Member MAG UN IGF 2014 5. Member MAG India IGF 2013 6. Member MAG UN-IGF 2013 7. Co-Lead Breakout group- Multistakeholderism & Enhance cooperation IGF 2013 8. Lead facilitator main focus session on principles of Multistakeholderism IGF 2013 9. Member MAG IIGC 2013 10. Member MAG, IIGC 2012 *Made several noteworthy contributions to the IGF and other global and national Internet governance processes and capacity building initiatives on information and communication especially for under-represented stakeholder groups in IG.* I’d be happy to provide detailed reports of my interventions and my contributions at each meeting attended or organised National or global. https://www.google.co.in/search?q=igf+MAG+Subi+Chaturvedi+site:www.intgovforum.org&es_sm=91#q=igf+MAG+Subi+Chaturvedi+site%3Awww.intgovforum.org&start=0 I have been teaching Journalism and Mass Communication including but not limited to papers on New Media technology (including IG) and Media, Law and Ethics, since the last 5 ½ years in the capcity of Assistant Professor at India’s leading liberal arts college for Women, part of Delhi University. I hold 3 gold medals in Anthropology, Psychology, and a gold medal in mass communication from the AJK MCRC, Jamia Millia Islamia, cleared the NET (which is a mandatory requirement for teaching at central universities in India), while a final year student in my first attempt and then hold a CGPA of 9.25/10 at the IIT-D as a part time registered PhD student doing my course work without leave from LSR, while taking full classes and contributing to the College immensely. My most recent article was published in the Hindu which is one of India’s most respected news daily as the lead opinion commentary on the 18th of February- “for an unfettered internet”, and can be accessed here http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/for-an-unfettered-internet/article5699615.ece It calls for a review of the Indian government’s position on IG. An article for EPW (a prestigious journal) against Corporatisation of Media in India and the loss of pluraity which I have co-authored and the documentary film- Freedom Song on issues of Freedom of Speech and expression in India for PSBT, co directed with Mr. Paranjoy Guha Thakurta(an eminent journalist from India) . http://www.epw.in/commentary/corporatisation-media.html The position that I often take is against corporatization and control of the media including the Internet by a few, be they governments, private sector including large small/corporate of any national origin, civil society group All my interventions, which are quite a few and substantive in their depth and coverage of issues are online on the IGF website. *This is just a partial list of some of the work that I have done in this academic year 2013-2014:* My article *“For an unfettered internet’, *was published as the lead opinion commentary in The Hindu, India's most respected news daily on why India needs to re-examine it's position on global Internet governance. *http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/for-an-unfettered-internet/article5700871.ece * My co-directed critically acclaimed documentary FREEDOM SONG, a film on freedom of Speech and expression in contemporary India for PSBT was screened at the IIHS Bangalore City Campus this year and premiered at the prestigious Open Frame. Two of my curated projects, The Many Moods and Moments of Aung San Suu Kyi and ‘The Nobel Women for Peace Project’, were exhibited as part of HH. The Dalai Lama’s visit at LSR. In recognition of *my **contribution to Internet and society**,* I been awarded: 1) The prestigious NIXI (National Internet Exchange of India, GOI), Fellowship for Internet Governance 2013-2014. 2) I have been appointed as the first Indian woman from two stakeholdergroups ( civil society and media) on the United Nations –IGF MAG, for the second consecutive term. 3) I have also been invited to Co-Chair the Global Multistakeholder Meeting in Brazil on the Future of the Internet. 4) I have also been appointed as the convener of the working group of the India Internet Governance Forum (IGF) by the Chair from DeitY, Ministry of Communication & IT. And also been appointed on the MAG (Multistakeholder Advisory Group) of the India IGF (Internet Governance Forum) to be hosted by MOC&IT, India. 5) At the last Global IGF 2013, held at Bali, Indonesia. I contributed on several panels on Access and diversity, Relating national and regional IGFs, Broadband access and local content, emerging issues- Surveillance and a enhance cooperation (I also the remote moderator for it). And I also moderated and mentored DoT (MoC&IT), Government of India’s Open forum “Connecting the next Billion”. Additionally I also organized and spoke at the Main Focus session on Multistakeholderism as a panelist. 6) I also co-organised a multistakeholder panel discussion on “Will Internet and Social Media be a game changer for the next general election 2014 with senior leaders and ministers from the government and eminent journalists and editors at the India International Centre (IIC), New Delhi. 7) I was also a panelist with sr. editors on the role of media in promoting art at the global stage organized by exchange4media at IIC. 8) I was also a panelist at the National Convention on "Crisis of Capitalism and brazen onslaught on DEMOCRACY" , organized by the INSAF foundation at the constitution club for the session on SURVEILLANCE, STATE AND PERILS OF DEMOCRACY. With Mr. Prabir who is a cosignatory of the letter. 9) I was a panelist on IGF and the way forward organized by ORF, New Delhi. Ms. Anja Kovacs was my co-panelist a basic online search would reveal and expose the claims made in the letter. The ORF report is online with our interventions and images together. 10) I was also the key note speaker on Internet –a democratic space, at NALSAR along with eminent and sr. judges and lawyers of the supreme court on Social Media and Hate speech. Both Ms. Chinmayi Arun and Ms. Anja Kovacs were part of the same event. Ms. Kovacs was,moreover on the same session as I was. 11) I also organized and moderated a multitsakeholder panel discussion at the ITU-WSIS 2013, Geneva on, “ Ensuring Internet Access and Better Governance by Deepening Multistakeholderism- A Developing Nation Perspective with sr. ministers and heads of regional and national Internet & ICT initiatives. 12) Held a capacity building Workshop for the youth -"Towards a new Ethics of Cyberspace- Being a responsible online Digital Citizen with sr. industry leaders as key resource persons. 13) I also appeared as a distinguished panelist on national media on internet, new media regulation and social media, women safety and empowerment related issues, through the year. 14) I also organised and moderated the MEDIA CONGRESS- Panel on 'Government Surveillance vs Individual Privacy : Are they mutually exclusive?' with distinguished speakers: Dr. Usha Rmanathan eminent civil society activist, Dr. Govind, CEO NIXI, Mr. Pavan Duggal, Prof. Vibodh Parthasarathi and Ms. Shalini Singh. 15) I was also a panelist at the IMDEC 2013, Panel on “The Internet We Want: A Multistakeholder View” along with global leaders from civil society, industry, government and the technical community at FICCI. Mr. Sunil Abraham (CIS) was also an invited panelist. 16) I co-organised a multistakeholder dialogue on *The Future of the Internet, who should govern it & what is at stake for us*with sr. members of the government, industry, academia, technical community, media at IIC. The youth were also invited as end users to share their inputs and experiences. The background paper was jointly prepared by me and Ms. Anja Kovacs. 17) I also organized a youth meet with over 700 youth leaders from India on the Internet We Want- Conversation Series. 18) Another youth meet was organized by me at the Aligarh Muslim University, a minority institution with over 300 youth delegates from the minorities and the margins and sr. editors from the media on the role of media and youth in election 2014 particularly the impact that social media and the internet can have in amplyfying participation of the youth. 19) I was also invited to conduct a leadership training workshop for the sr. management of TATA Sons and their group companies on social media. 20) I also conducted a third youth meet over 700 young leaders on the “Digital Agenda for the Youth and IG principals”. This was part of the global #FightBack campaign against surveillance and held on the world internet day. 21) I was also a invited to present my paper on Cybersecurity a multistakeholder perspective by ORF New Delhi part of the young voices policy forum. It was extremely well received. 22) I also led the new media outreach and supported the on ground activation for the national Internet Safety campaign for the youth in India in association with Data Security Council of India (A NASSCOM initiative). 23) I am a member of the International Association for Women in Radio and television (IAWRT) and the Internet Society (ISOC). warmest Subi ---- Subi Chaturvedi Assistant Prof. Journalism & Comm, Lady Shri Ram College for Women (LSR), Delhi University, India Twitter:@subichaturvedi http://subichaturvedi.blogspot.in/ Member MAG, UN-IGF (Media & Civil Society) Member MAG, India-IGF (Civil Society) Convenor WG-India IGF Co-Chair, Netmundial (Civil Society) Founder & Hon. Managing Trustee, Media For Change Founder, Chief Mentor & Editor The Saltlist www.thesaltlist.org Independent DocumentaryFilmmaker, Photographer, Curator, Media Critic & Scholar PhD. Scholar, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT-D), New Delhi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: My org in a Jt. submission on ITR by Indian CS co-signatories where the author of the Indian CS letter against me represents me.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 593712 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tweet.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 84909 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: MS Dialogue on Internet Governance e-invite.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 134414 bytes Desc: not available URL: From deborah at accessnow.org Thu Apr 17 18:34:57 2014 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 18:34:57 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Civil society input - call for contributions - General Assembly Resolution 67/167 "The right to privacy in the digital age" In-Reply-To: References: <1116688586741.1103337725730.4115.0.141247JL.1002@scheduler.constantcontact.com> Message-ID: In case of interest, the results of OHCHR's consultation on the right to privacy in the digital age are posted here: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/DigitalAge/Pages/Contributions.aspx#states All the best, Deborah ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Deborah Brown Date: Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 7:28 PM Subject: Fwd: Civil society input - call for contributions - General Assembly Resolution 67/167 "The right to privacy in the digital age" To: "" Hi all, Apologies for cross-posting, but I don't think this call for input into OHCHR's report on the right to privacy in the digital age has been circulated here. Is anyone thinking of/interested in preparing a submission? Note the deadline is 1 April. All the best, Deborah ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: OHCHR Civil Society Section Date: Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:48 PM Subject: Civil society input - call for contributions - General Assembly Resolution 67/167 "The right to privacy in the digital age" To: deborah at accessnow.org *中文 *** Español *** Français *** العربية *** Pусский* For an unofficial translation of this message into another language you may try: http://translate.google.com/ Civil Society Section Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Dear civil society actors, We are pleased to forward this call for contributions in connection with the General Assembly Resolution 67/167 "The right to privacy in a digital age". OHCHR on Facebook OHCHR on Twitter OHCHR on YouTube *中文 *** Español *** Français *** العربية *** Pусский * For an unofficial translation of this message into another language you may try: http://translate.google.com/ Best regards, Civil Society Section Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Tel. +41 (0) 22 - 917 - 9656 Visit our website Click hereto join our mailing list. This email was sent to deborah at accessnow.org by civilsociety at ohchr.org | Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy . OHCHR Civil Society Section | UNOG-OHCHR | Geneva | 1211 | Switzerland -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | accessnow.org rightscon.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | accessnow.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Apr 17 23:48:08 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 13:48:08 +1000 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Breaking my silence on Netmundial related concerns raised by colleagues from India In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Subi, It would have taken a lot of courage to write that, and to engage here. I am very glad you did,and thank you for doing so, because it will help to eventually clear the air. My first wish is that, whatever the reactions are to your post, you will continue to engage here with the rest of civil society interested in internet governance. It’s not always a friendly space, as others have discovered, but the interchange and dialogue among people with different perspectives here is important, and leads to more constructive and valuable inputs for civil society as a whole. Whatever the reactions to your post are, I hope you continue to engage here. My second wish is that everyone involved in this dispute can find a way to move past these issues. That’s not going to be easy, and perhaps not immediate, but it is important we do so. My third and final wish is that my first and second wishes come to fruition! Ian Peter From: Subi Chaturvedi Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 7:56 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [governance] Breaking my silence on Netmundial related concerns raised by colleagues from India Dear CS colleagues and friends, This has reference to the article published in HT on 8th April, 2014 which has been shared and referred to on this mailing list, multiple times. At the outset I want to thank all of you who have written to me showing solidarity against this vicious personal attack, based on wrong, misleading and manipulated information, indicative of a perverse mind, as you'd realize after, going through this post. I had chosen to maintain silence in the face of repeated and grave provocation but the attacks continue unabated, thwarting and disrupting all attempts at having any civilized conversation about the key issues that concern global CS, even on the eve of Netmundial. The reason why we've invested our energy, faith and considerable amount of time engaging with the process, in the first place. I am now also compelled to write this email, for it is unfair on those who have shown solidarity with me by writing to me or defending me publicly on this list and elsewhere, to be left in this position without a minimal comment from me. I wish to assure global civil society that our views are being shared, represented and recognised. I have made multiple interventions on the calls as well as over emails and continue to work across time zones to ensure that our views are reflected. Anriette, my colleague from the MAG, has done a fairly balanced assessment of the situation though, and I completely agree with her, we have real challenges ahead of us. I think our time would be utilised better if we focus on the issues at hand- in Netmundial, I see a significant oppurtunity for change. In the internet, I see not just a source of knowledge but also an amplifier of dissent and an enabler of human rights and permissionless innovation. I have been a free speech activist and have fought for these issues long and hard and therefore this is deeply painful. My interventions are available publicly and a basic name search would reveal my interventions at the global IGF as well on national media in India. Many of these national meetings have been with my friends and respected colleagues from civil society in India and remain on their websites or any outreach platforms of communication. At the last India IGF MAG meeting where three of the co-signatories, who are also on the MAG, made interventions with me. Their interventions and mine captured are in the official minutes. In the same meeting I was also appointed as the convenor of the Working group of the India IGF with the knowledge and consent of Mr.Parmindar from ITfC and with consensus from the floor. My work in the Internet Governance Space and related areas of media and communication, deepening democracy and public policy can be found on my blog http://subichaturvedi.blogspot.in/ Now I ask all of you, who have been relentlessly subjected to the said article and appeals by my respectable colleagues and collaborators from Indian CS- was it appropriate to include me in this story related to surveillance by a corporate? Is there any connection at all? Other than to cause harm to me; in which they miserably failed. As identified in Ian’s email, apart from being a vicious personal attack, the article is manipulative on multiple levels and makes several inaccurate assertions. Notwithstanding this unfortunate exception, I want to assure all of you that journalism in India is free, fair for the most part, and a harbinger of truth and justice. I would urge you not to judge Indian media based on this article. I submit the following for your consideration: the portions in italics are direct quotes from the same article. . a. “Emails accessed by HT suggest that Bhatia championed Chaturvedi's rise in Indian internet governance circles” . You would surely notice that while pdfs of all charges were hyperlinked, this allegation conspicuously remains unsubstantiated and any proof to the effect is missing from the story. I challenge anyone to put out any evidence of anyone- either me or anyone, at all doing any advocacy for me to be appointed as the co-chair of Netmundial or on the MAG. It is quite unfortunate that my work and my merit should be called into question. Undermining all multistakeholder processes. However malicious even the article does not make this extrapolation that Mr. Parminder Jeet singh repeatedly continues to make. Despite a clarification on the 4th of April, 2014 issued by the distinguished academician and General Chair of the Meeting Minister Virgilio Almeida. b. “Chaturvedi has also publicly acknowledged a former AT&T official, Marylin Cade as a "coach and mentor”: I quote the same tweet: “frm (from) Ms. Marilyn Cade coach and Mentor other proposals and IGF should limit it’s own”. In plain violation of the most basic tenets of journalism concocting evidence, he disingenuously parades my tweet about Ms. Cade’s comment at the UN MAG to “coach and mentor other proposals and limit proposals from the MAG itself” as my “public acknowledgement” of Ms. Cade being my “coach and mentor”. c. “She was also paid upwards of Rs. 2.3 lakh for her role at a FICCI-led conference on internet governance. Subsequently, she also received part-funding from FICCI to attend an international conference. This raises a clear conflict of interest since she was on board as a civil society representative, but accepted payments from industry and corporate bodies”. He knowingly suppressed the context of the Rs.2.3 lakh (3,814 USD), payment by the industry association and presented it as “conflict of interest”. The journalist knew fully well that the payment was a reimbursement of costs incurred at the request of the conference secretariat to produce professional videos, hire resources, material and camera costs, still photography, new media activation and related hardware and studio costs. He knew but purposefully left out my extensive contribution to the conference as a speaker and session organizer on a pro bono basis. He deliberately misrepresented in spite of knowing that the travel assistance given by the industry association was contributed by ISOC (Internet Society) and remaining by NIXI (National Internet Exchange of India). He already knew but hid that both organisations routinely provide travel assistance to scores of civil society representatives, including to some who authored the said letter. This CANNOT under any circumstances be construed as accepting money for advocacy from a corporate and presented as "conflict of interest". This is the most absurd allegation which even seasoned propagandists would shy away from. Further he deceitfully persisted with the false “conflict of interest”, charge by suppressing scores of emails , tweets, posts, videos, film and TV interviews given to him and easily available in the public domain, as my firm stance against illegal surveillance, invasion of privacy, and violation of freedom of speech and expression and human rights. d. Ph.D : Can a mere research studentship, which I am still pursuing, be the basis on which I was appointed at any forum? It was used only to put an unsubstantiated charge of plagiarism for my character assassination. I preferred to change my guide then to “say sorry”, to her for the offense I had not committed and continue with her. With a view to purposefully mislead the readers, the journalist grossly manipulated the facts around my PhD by deliberately obfuscating that I have steadfastly refuted “any academic wrong doing”. The IIT has never charged me with this offense, no show cause has ever been given to me and hence no action has been taken against me, detailed evidence was given to the journalist who chose to deliberately ignore it in order to convey a premeditated message. IIT has the highest ethical code of conduct and so do I. And my PhD. is well underway. The letter of notable members of civil society. The CS letter from India carried the support of 10 individuals +1 author, some of whom claim to represent different organisations. I have worked with most who are in this space including Parminder, Prabir, Anja Kovacs, Chinmayi Arun, Rishab Bailey, Mishi Choudhary, Sunil Abraham; 7 Out of 10. Two of remaining 3 have attended a national conference on IG with me where Parminder was present through out. It is full of misrepresentation. Their claims are absurd that: 1- They don’t know me 2. They haven’t worked with me and I am not active in this space. 3. They don’t know how to reach me. 4. And I do not teach IG My Response: Ø Not only do they know me quite well Ø We have hosted joint events, Ø We have served on organizational bodies together related to IG, Ø We have appeared as panelists together on IG, Ø We have traveled and worked together on IG, Ø We have submitted joint inputs to government of India on IG, Ø Prepared background papers together for multistakeholder dialogues and events on IG, Ø Co-moderated dialogues and multistakeholder panels on IG. Ø I receive emails from them, respond to them, they have appreciated and thanked me for my inputs and efforts. Ø They have called me on my mobile phone Ø They have visited me in person and with their teams to seek my inputs on their drafts. I am happy to compare and contrast my interventions and my work in the IG space with all of them individually or collectively. The ITRs submission of CS was jointly made by Ø Society for Knowledge commons represented by Rishab Bailey (author of the CS letter), Ø Internet Democracy Project (Anja Kovacs- co-signatory), Ø Free Software Movement of India (Kiran Chandra (General Secretary- co-signatory), Ø Delhi Science Forum (Prabir – co-signatory), Ø Media For Change( represented by me) Ø SFLC.in (Mishi – co-signatory). Ø Ms. Chinmayi Arun was part of all the 4 day meetings and discussions and is on all the emails but did not finally submit the ITRs formal response. ​ More evidence of Joint work (There’s a lot but I do not wish to burden this list)- One of the recent multistakeholder meeting on IG that I co-organized including drafting the background paper with Ms. Anja Kovacs from the Internet democracy project (yes we have worked together and collaborated on many occasions and often take same positions publicly), was on the 29th January, 2014. Where I worked with 1. Anja Kovacs, IDP (co-signatory) 2. Sunil Abraham , CIS (cosignatory)- represented by Snehashish Ghosh 3. Mishi Chowdhary, SFLC.in (Cosignatory)- represented by Prashanth Sugathan 4. Ms. Chinmayi Arun Co-moderated the meeting with me and Ms. Anja Kovacs ​ Interlinkages between all the authors of the India CS letter: Ms Anja Kovacs, IDP is a cosignatory & a CIS fellow and has also worked for ITfC which is represented on this letter by Mr. Parminder Jeet Singh, Ms. Chinmayi Arun from CCG (is a cosignatory & also a CIS fellow), Mr. Sunil Abraham is the director of CIS, Rishab Bailey the author of the CS letter has been associated with IDP, and with SFLC (another co-signatory) and is now representing SKC which is currently represented on this letter by Mr. Prabir Purkayastha (co-signatory) who is also associated formally as an office bearer with the SFM represented on the letter by Mr. Kiran Chandra (co-signatory). All these are respected colleagues and have worked with me on the ITRs and many other IG related workshops and panels as mentioned above. CIS’s director Mr. Sunil Abraham has also served with me on multiple panels and bodies together and my interventions can be found online and at the CIS website http://cis-india.org/@@search?SearchableText=subi+chaturvedi They are all signatories to the letter. Again, my heartfelt gratitude to all those who have written to me, or supported me. We have a very important task at hand, thank you again for reposing your faith and for believing in me. And I wish that at all times the dignity of the caucus be preserved and upheld. Finally, I do not hold any grudges against those, including the journalist who may have been involved in this unfortunate and unwarranted personal attack. I continue to have the highest respect for the work that my colleagues do. I am look forward to working with all of you and will be available in Sao Paulo from the 21st and over email. Do feel free to reach out with any questions or comments you may have. I would be happy to participate in any meeting or related discussion and will continue to work to the best of my ability and do my utmost, towards the evolution of the IG ecosphere so that we have an internet, which remains free and open, which amplifies human rights and allows for permissionless innovation and connects the unconnected. More details about my IG interventions can be found on my blog here http://subichaturvedi.blogspot.in/ and Contributions at the UN IGF : (Partial List) is available here for ready reference https://www.google.co.in/search?q=igf+MAG+Subi+Chaturvedi+site:www.intgovforum.org&es_sm=91 I am equally thrilled that our collective inputs and suggestions are being taken on board. And I am also hopeful that the outcome document will reflect truly, what will emerge from the floor. Our friends in Brazil from the civil society and from across stakeholder groups have also done commendable work to bring us here. Delighted that it will be a multistakeholder panel, which will open Netmundial 2014 in Brazil. Many congratulations Nnenna, we are in great hands. Very proud to have you representing us and your address at the IGF 2013, in Bali was both profoundly evocative and stirring. I hope you will make time to emphasize the role that the Internet is playing especially in peace building and conflict transformation as well. Your tremendous and deeply inspiring work in Côte d'Ivoire underscores the importance of national and regional initiatives, along with intercessional work. We have a fantastic ambassador in you. And it might be an uphill climb for all of us but let's put our best foot forward. Looking forward to seeing you all in Sao Paulo soon. Safe travels, all. Warmest, Subi ---- Subi Chaturvedi Assistant Prof. Journalism & Comm, Lady Shri Ram College for Women (LSR), Delhi University, India Twitter:@subichaturvedi http://subichaturvedi.blogspot.in/ Member MAG, UN-IGF (Media & Civil Society) Member MAG, India-IGF (Civil Society) Convenor WG-India IGF Co-Chair, Netmundial (Civil Society) Founder & Hon. Managing Trustee, Media For Change Founder, Chief Mentor & Editor The Saltlist www.thesaltlist.org Independent DocumentaryFilmmaker, Photographer, Curator, Media Critic & Scholar PhD. Scholar, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT-D), New Delhi PS: Global CS Community who may not aware of my contribution here’s snapshot ABOUT me and my work specifically on internet /governances/ freedom of speech and expression: IG specific Roles: 1. Recipient of the NIXI (National Internet Exchange, India) fellowship for IG 2014-2015 2. Co-Chair Netmundial 2014 3. Convenor Working group Indian IGF MAG 4. Member MAG UN IGF 2014 5. Member MAG India IGF 2013 6. Member MAG UN-IGF 2013 7. Co-Lead Breakout group- Multistakeholderism & Enhance cooperation IGF 2013 8. Lead facilitator main focus session on principles of Multistakeholderism IGF 2013 9. Member MAG IIGC 2013 10. Member MAG, IIGC 2012 Made several noteworthy contributions to the IGF and other global and national Internet governance processes and capacity building initiatives on information and communication especially for under-represented stakeholder groups in IG. I’d be happy to provide detailed reports of my interventions and my contributions at each meeting attended or organised National or global. https://www.google.co.in/search?q=igf+MAG+Subi+Chaturvedi+site:www.intgovforum.org&es_sm=91#q=igf+MAG+Subi+Chaturvedi+site%3Awww.intgovforum.org&start=0 I have been teaching Journalism and Mass Communication including but not limited to papers on New Media technology (including IG) and Media, Law and Ethics, since the last 5 ½ years in the capcity of Assistant Professor at India’s leading liberal arts college for Women, part of Delhi University. I hold 3 gold medals in Anthropology, Psychology, and a gold medal in mass communication from the AJK MCRC, Jamia Millia Islamia, cleared the NET (which is a mandatory requirement for teaching at central universities in India), while a final year student in my first attempt and then hold a CGPA of 9.25/10 at the IIT-D as a part time registered PhD student doing my course work without leave from LSR, while taking full classes and contributing to the College immensely. My most recent article was published in the Hindu which is one of India’s most respected news daily as the lead opinion commentary on the 18th of February- “for an unfettered internet”, and can be accessed here http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/for-an-unfettered-internet/article5699615.ece It calls for a review of the Indian government’s position on IG. An article for EPW (a prestigious journal) against Corporatisation of Media in India and the loss of pluraity which I have co-authored and the documentary film- Freedom Song on issues of Freedom of Speech and expression in India for PSBT, co directed with Mr. Paranjoy Guha Thakurta (an eminent journalist from India). http://www.epw.in/commentary/corporatisation-media.html The position that I often take is against corporatization and control of the media including the Internet by a few, be they governments, private sector including large small/corporate of any national origin, civil society group All my interventions, which are quite a few and substantive in their depth and coverage of issues are online on the IGF website. This is just a partial list of some of the work that I have done in this academic year 2013-2014: My article “For an unfettered internet’, was published as the lead opinion commentary in The Hindu, India's most respected news daily on why India needs to re-examine it's position on global Internet governance. http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/for-an-unfettered-internet/article5700871.ece My co-directed critically acclaimed documentary FREEDOM SONG, a film on freedom of Speech and expression in contemporary India for PSBT was screened at the IIHS Bangalore City Campus this year and premiered at the prestigious Open Frame. Two of my curated projects, The Many Moods and Moments of Aung San Suu Kyi and ‘The Nobel Women for Peace Project’, were exhibited as part of HH. The Dalai Lama’s visit at LSR. In recognition of my contribution to Internet and society, I been awarded: 1) The prestigious NIXI (National Internet Exchange of India, GOI), Fellowship for Internet Governance 2013-2014. 2) I have been appointed as the first Indian woman from two stakeholdergroups ( civil society and media) on the United Nations –IGF MAG, for the second consecutive term. 3) I have also been invited to Co-Chair the Global Multistakeholder Meeting in Brazil on the Future of the Internet. 4) I have also been appointed as the convener of the working group of the India Internet Governance Forum (IGF) by the Chair from DeitY, Ministry of Communication & IT. And also been appointed on the MAG (Multistakeholder Advisory Group) of the India IGF (Internet Governance Forum) to be hosted by MOC&IT, India. 5) At the last Global IGF 2013, held at Bali, Indonesia. I contributed on several panels on Access and diversity, Relating national and regional IGFs, Broadband access and local content, emerging issues- Surveillance and a enhance cooperation (I also the remote moderator for it). And I also moderated and mentored DoT (MoC&IT), Government of India’s Open forum “Connecting the next Billion”. Additionally I also organized and spoke at the Main Focus session on Multistakeholderism as a panelist. 6) I also co-organised a multistakeholder panel discussion on “Will Internet and Social Media be a game changer for the next general election 2014 with senior leaders and ministers from the government and eminent journalists and editors at the India International Centre (IIC), New Delhi. 7) I was also a panelist with sr. editors on the role of media in promoting art at the global stage organized by exchange4media at IIC. 8) I was also a panelist at the National Convention on "Crisis of Capitalism and brazen onslaught on DEMOCRACY" , organized by the INSAF foundation at the constitution club for the session on SURVEILLANCE, STATE AND PERILS OF DEMOCRACY. With Mr. Prabir who is a cosignatory of the letter. 9) I was a panelist on IGF and the way forward organized by ORF, New Delhi. Ms. Anja Kovacs was my co-panelist a basic online search would reveal and expose the claims made in the letter. The ORF report is online with our interventions and images together. 10) I was also the key note speaker on Internet –a democratic space, at NALSAR along with eminent and sr. judges and lawyers of the supreme court on Social Media and Hate speech. Both Ms. Chinmayi Arun and Ms. Anja Kovacs were part of the same event. Ms. Kovacs was, moreover on the same session as I was. 11) I also organized and moderated a multitsakeholder panel discussion at the ITU-WSIS 2013, Geneva on, “ Ensuring Internet Access and Better Governance by Deepening Multistakeholderism- A Developing Nation Perspective with sr. ministers and heads of regional and national Internet & ICT initiatives. 12) Held a capacity building Workshop for the youth -"Towards a new Ethics of Cyberspace- Being a responsible online Digital Citizen with sr. industry leaders as key resource persons. 13) I also appeared as a distinguished panelist on national media on internet, new media regulation and social media, women safety and empowerment related issues, through the year. 14) I also organised and moderated the MEDIA CONGRESS- Panel on 'Government Surveillance vs Individual Privacy : Are they mutually exclusive?' with distinguished speakers: Dr. Usha Rmanathan eminent civil society activist, Dr. Govind, CEO NIXI, Mr. Pavan Duggal, Prof. Vibodh Parthasarathi and Ms. Shalini Singh. 15) I was also a panelist at the IMDEC 2013, Panel on “The Internet We Want: A Multistakeholder View” along with global leaders from civil society, industry, government and the technical community at FICCI. Mr. Sunil Abraham (CIS) was also an invited panelist. 16) I co-organised a multistakeholder dialogue on The Future of the Internet, who should govern it & what is at stake for us with sr. members of the government, industry, academia, technical community, media at IIC. The youth were also invited as end users to share their inputs and experiences. The background paper was jointly prepared by me and Ms. Anja Kovacs. 17) I also organized a youth meet with over 700 youth leaders from India on the Internet We Want- Conversation Series. 18) Another youth meet was organized by me at the Aligarh Muslim University, a minority institution with over 300 youth delegates from the minorities and the margins and sr. editors from the media on the role of media and youth in election 2014 particularly the impact that social media and the internet can have in amplyfying participation of the youth. 19) I was also invited to conduct a leadership training workshop for the sr. management of TATA Sons and their group companies on social media. 20) I also conducted a third youth meet over 700 young leaders on the “Digital Agenda for the Youth and IG principals”. This was part of the global #FightBack campaign against surveillance and held on the world internet day. 21) I was also a invited to present my paper on Cybersecurity a multistakeholder perspective by ORF New Delhi part of the young voices policy forum. It was extremely well received. 22) I also led the new media outreach and supported the on ground activation for the national Internet Safety campaign for the youth in India in association with Data Security Council of India (A NASSCOM initiative). 23) I am a member of the International Association for Women in Radio and television (IAWRT) and the Internet Society (ISOC). warmest Subi ---- Subi Chaturvedi Assistant Prof. Journalism & Comm, Lady Shri Ram College for Women (LSR), Delhi University, India Twitter:@subichaturvedi http://subichaturvedi.blogspot.in/ Member MAG, UN-IGF (Media & Civil Society) Member MAG, India-IGF (Civil Society) Convenor WG-India IGF Co-Chair, Netmundial (Civil Society) Founder & Hon. Managing Trustee, Media For Change Founder, Chief Mentor & Editor The Saltlist www.thesaltlist.org Independent DocumentaryFilmmaker, Photographer, Curator, Media Critic & Scholar PhD. Scholar, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT-D), New Delhi -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tweet.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 84909 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: My org in a Jt. submission on ITR by Indian CS co-signatories where the author of the Indian CS letter against me represents me.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 593712 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: MS Dialogue on Internet Governance e-invite.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 134414 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avri at acm.org Fri Apr 18 02:34:19 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 02:34:19 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Breaking my silence on Netmundial related concerns raised by colleagues from India In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5350C76B.7030006@acm.org> +1 On 17-Apr-14 23:48, Ian Peter wrote: > Subi, > > It would have taken a lot of courage to write that, and to engage here. > I am very glad you did,and thank you for doing so, because it will help > to eventually clear the air. > > My first wish is that, whatever the reactions are to your post, you will > continue to engage here with the rest of civil society interested in > internet governance. It’s not always a friendly space, as others have > discovered, but the interchange and dialogue among people with different > perspectives here is important, and leads to more constructive and > valuable inputs for civil society as a whole. Whatever the reactions to > your post are, I hope you continue to engage here. > > My second wish is that everyone involved in this dispute can find a way > to move past these issues. That’s not going to be easy, and perhaps not > immediate, but it is important we do so. > > My third and final wish is that my first and second wishes come to fruition! > > Ian Peter > > > > *From:* Subi Chaturvedi > *Sent:* Friday, April 18, 2014 7:56 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* [governance] Breaking my silence on Netmundial related > concerns raised by colleagues from India > > > Dear CS colleagues and friends, > ... From chinmayiarun at gmail.com Fri Apr 18 02:38:29 2014 From: chinmayiarun at gmail.com (Chinmayi Arun) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 12:08:29 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Civil society input - call for contributions - General Assembly Resolution 67/167 "The right to privacy in the digital age" In-Reply-To: References: <1116688586741.1103337725730.4115.0.141247JL.1002@scheduler.constantcontact.com> Message-ID: Thanks Deborah. This is very useful. Best, Chinmayi On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 4:04 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > In case of interest, the results of OHCHR's consultation on the right to > privacy in the digital age are posted here: > > http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/DigitalAge/Pages/Contributions.aspx#states > > All the best, > Deborah > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Deborah Brown > Date: Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 7:28 PM > Subject: Fwd: Civil society input - call for contributions - General > Assembly Resolution 67/167 "The right to privacy in the digital age" > To: "" > > > Hi all, > > Apologies for cross-posting, but I don't think this call for input into > OHCHR's report on the right to privacy in the digital age has been > circulated here. > Is anyone thinking of/interested in preparing a submission? Note the > deadline is 1 April. > > All the best, > Deborah > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: OHCHR Civil Society Section > Date: Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:48 PM > Subject: Civil society input - call for contributions - General Assembly > Resolution 67/167 "The right to privacy in the digital age" > To: deborah at accessnow.org > > > > > *中文 *** Español *** Français *** العربية *** > Pусский* > For an unofficial translation of this message into another language you > may try: > http://translate.google.com/ > > > Civil Society Section > > Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights > > > > Dear civil society actors, > > > > We are pleased to forward this call for contributions in > connection with the General Assembly Resolution 67/167 "The right to > privacy in a digital age". > > > > OHCHR on Facebook > > > > > OHCHR on Twitter > > > > OHCHR on YouTube > *中文 *** Español *** Français *** العربية *** > Pусский * > For an unofficial translation of this message into another language you > may try: > http://translate.google.com/ > > Best regards, > > Civil Society Section > Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights > Tel. +41 (0) 22 - 917 - 9656 > Visit our website > > > Click hereto join our mailing list. > > > This email was sent to deborah at accessnow.org by civilsociety at ohchr.org | > > Update Profile/Email Address > | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ > | Privacy Policy > . > OHCHR Civil Society Section | UNOG-OHCHR | Geneva | 1211 | Switzerland > > > > -- > Deborah Brown > Senior Policy Analyst > Access | accessnow.org > rightscon.org > > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D > > > > -- > Deborah Brown > Senior Policy Analyst > Access | accessnow.org > > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri Apr 18 07:35:57 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 07:35:57 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: NETmundial data-mining References: <009501cf5af4$36e7e180$a4b7a480$@diplomacy.edu> Message-ID: Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: > From: "Vladimir Radunovic" > Date: April 18, 2014 at 6:51:53 AM EDT > To: "Marilia Maciel" , "'Carolina Rossini'" > Cc: "Jovan Kurbalija" > Subject: NETmundial data-mining > > Marilia, Carol, > > we just published some interesting results from the data-mining research: > http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/predicting-netmundial-what-does-data-mining-co > ntributions-tell-us > Feel free to share with your colleagues. > > It took more than we expected, and we are still working on some "emotional > analysis" aspects. If we get something more I will let you know. > > Best, > > Vlada > > > > *** > Upcoming online courses at Diplo: > Master in Contemporary Diplomacy (with Internet Governance option) l > Internet Governance l E-diplomacy l Current Issues in the UN l Diplomacy of > Small states l > Complete Catalogue of Online Courses: http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses > *** > > _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ > > Vladimir Radunovic > Internet Governance and E-diplomacy > DiploFoundation > email: vladar at diplomacy.edu > web: www.diplomacy.edu > twitter: @vradunovic > > _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amedinagomez at gmail.com Fri Apr 18 07:59:16 2014 From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=C3=B3mez?=) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 06:59:16 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Breaking my silence on Netmundial related concerns raised by colleagues from India In-Reply-To: References: <5350C76B.7030006@acm.org> Message-ID: +1 Antonio Medina Gómez Presidente Asociación Colombiana de Usuarios de Internet presidencia at acui.co @amedinagomez Skype amedinagomez Celular 3118689626 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ca at cafonso.ca Fri Apr 18 09:26:12 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 10:26:12 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Breaking my silence on Netmundial related concerns raised by colleagues from India In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <535127F4.8010604@cafonso.ca> Absolutely agree with Ian, including the three wishes. fraternal regards --c.a. On 04/18/2014 12:48 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Subi, > > It would have taken a lot of courage to write that, and to engage here. > I am very glad you did,and thank you for doing so, because it will help > to eventually clear the air. > > My first wish is that, whatever the reactions are to your post, you will > continue to engage here with the rest of civil society interested in > internet governance. It’s not always a friendly space, as others have > discovered, but the interchange and dialogue among people with different > perspectives here is important, and leads to more constructive and > valuable inputs for civil society as a whole. Whatever the reactions to > your post are, I hope you continue to engage here. > > My second wish is that everyone involved in this dispute can find a way > to move past these issues. That’s not going to be easy, and perhaps not > immediate, but it is important we do so. > > My third and final wish is that my first and second wishes come to fruition! > > Ian Peter > > > > *From:* Subi Chaturvedi > *Sent:* Friday, April 18, 2014 7:56 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* [governance] Breaking my silence on Netmundial related > concerns raised by colleagues from India > > > Dear CS colleagues and friends, > > > This has reference to the article published in HT on 8^th April, 2014 > which has been shared and referred to on this mailing list, multiple times. > > At the outset I want to thank all of you who have written to me showing > solidarity against this vicious personal attack, based on wrong, > misleading and manipulated information, indicative of a perverse mind, > as you'd realize after, going through this post. > > I had chosen to maintain silence in the face of repeatedand grave > provocation but the attacks continue unabated, thwarting and disrupting > all attempts at having any civilized conversation about the key issues > that concern global CS, even on the eve of Netmundial. The reason why > we've invested our energy, faith and considerable amount of time > engaging with the process, in the first place. > > I am now also compelled to write this email, for it is unfair on those > who have shown solidarity with me by writing to me or defending me > publicly on this list and elsewhere, to be left in this position without > a minimal comment from me.I wish to assure global civil society that our > views are being shared, represented and recognised. I have made multiple > interventions on the calls as well as over emails and continue to work > across time zones to ensure that our views are reflected. Anriette, my > colleague from the MAG, has done a fairly balanced assessment of the > situation though, and I completely agree with her, we have real > challenges ahead of us. I think our time would be utilised better if we > focus on the issues at hand- in Netmundial, I see a significant > oppurtunity for change. > > In the internet, I see not just a source of knowledge but also an > amplifier of dissent and an enabler of human rights and permissionless > innovation. I have been a free speech activist and have fought for these > issues long and hard and therefore this is deeply painful. My > interventions are available publicly and a basic name search would > reveal my interventions at the global IGF as well on national media in > India. Many of these national meetings have been with my friends and > respected colleagues from civil society in India and remain on their > websites or any outreach platforms of communication. At the last India > IGF MAG meeting where three of the co-signatories, who are also on the > MAG, made interventions with me. Their interventions and mine > capturedare in the official minutes. In the same meeting I was also > appointed as the convenor of the Working group of the India IGF with the > knowledge and consent of Mr.Parmindar from ITfC and with consensus from > the floor. > > My work in the Internet Governance Space and related areas of media and > communication, deepening democracy and public policy can be found on my > blog *http://subichaturvedi.blogspot.in/* > > Now Iask all of you, who have been relentlessly subjected to the said > article and appeals by my respectable colleagues and collaborators from > Indian CS- was it appropriate toincludeme in this story related to > surveillance by a corporate? Is there any connection at all? Other than > to cause harm to me; in which they miserably failed.As identified in > Ian’s email, apart from being a vicious personal attack, the article is > manipulative on multiple levels and makesseveral inaccurate assertions. > > Notwithstanding this unfortunate exception, I want to assure all of you > that journalism in India is free, fair for the most part, and aharbinger > of truth and justice. I would urge you not to judge Indian media based > on this article. > > I submit the following for your consideration:the portions in italics > are direct quotes from the same article. > > . > > a. /“//Emails accessed by HT suggest that Bhatia championed > Chaturvedi's rise in Indian internet governance circles” ./ > > You would surely notice that while pdfs of all charges were hyperlinked, > this allegation conspicuously remains unsubstantiated and any proof to > the effect is missing fromthe story. I challenge anyone to put out any > evidence of anyone- either me or anyone, at all doing any advocacy for > me to be appointed as the co-chair of Netmundial or on the MAG. It is > quite unfortunate that my work and my merit should be called into > question. Undermining all multistakeholder processes. However malicious > even the article does not make this extrapolation that Mr. Parminder > Jeet singh repeatedly continuesto make. Despite a clarification on the > 4th of April, 2014 issued by the distinguished academician and General > Chair of the Meeting Minister Virgilio Almeida. > > > > b. “/Chaturvedi has also publicly acknowledged a former AT&T > official, Marylin Cade as a "coach and mentor”:/ > > > > / /I quote the same tweet: “frm (from) Ms. Marilyn Cade *_coach and > Mentor other proposals_*and IGF should limit it’s own”. > > Inline images 1 > > In plain violation of the most basic tenets of journalism concocting > evidence, he disingenuously parades my tweet about Ms. Cade’s comment at > the UN MAG to “coach and mentor other proposals and limit proposals from > the MAG itself” as my “public acknowledgement” of Ms. Cade being my > “coach and mentor”. > > c. “/She was also paid upwards of //Rs.// //2.3 lakh for her role at > a FICCI-led conference on internet governance. Subsequently, she also > received part-funding from FICCI to attend an international conference. > This raises a clear conflict of interest since she was on board as a > civil society representative, but accepted payments from industry and > corporate bodies”./ > > He knowingly suppressed the context of the Rs.2.3 lakh (3,814 USD), > payment by the industry association and presented it as “conflict of > interest”. The journalist knew fully well that the payment was a > reimbursement of costs incurred at the request of the conference > secretariat to produce professional videos, hire resources, material and > camera costs, still photography, new media activation and related > hardware and studio costs. He knew but purposefully left out my > extensive contribution to the conference as a speaker and session > organizer on a pro bono basis. He deliberately misrepresented in spite > of knowing that the travel assistance given by the industry association > was contributed by ISOC (Internet Society) and remaining by NIXI > (National Internet Exchange of India). He already knew but hid that > both organisations routinely provide travel assistance to scores of > civil society representatives, including to some who authored the said > letter. > > > This CANNOT under any circumstances be construed as accepting money for > advocacy from a corporate and presented as "conflict of interest". This > is the most absurd allegation which even seasoned propagandists would > shy away from. > > Further he deceitfully persisted with the false “conflict of interest”, > charge by suppressing scores of emails , tweets, posts, videos, film > and TV interviews given to him and easily available in the public > domain, as my firm stance against illegal surveillance, invasion of > privacy, and violation of freedom of speech and expression and human > rights. > > d. /Ph.D/: ** > > *Can a **mere research studentship**,**which I am still > pursuing**,****be**the basis on which I was appointed at any forum?*It > was used only to put an unsubstantiated charge of plagiarism for my > character assassination. I preferred to change my guide then to “say > sorry”, to her for the offenseI had not committed and continue with her. > > With a view to purposefully mislead the readers, the journalist grossly > manipulated the facts around my PhD by deliberately obfuscating that I > have steadfastly refuted “any academic wrong doing”. * > * > > *The IIT has never charged me with this offense, no show ca**use has > ever**been given to me and hence no action has been taken against > me,*detailed evidence was given to the journalist who chose to > deliberately ignore it in order to convey a premeditated message. IIT > has the highest ethical code of conduct and so do I.And my PhD. is well > underway.// > > // > > /*The letter of notable members of civil society.*/// > > The CS letter from Indiacarried the support of 10 individuals+1 author, > some of whom claim to represent different organisations. I have worked > with most who are in this space including Parminder, Prabir,Anja Kovacs, > Chinmayi Arun, Rishab Bailey, Mishi Choudhary, Sunil Abraham; 7 Out of > 10. Two of remaining 3 have attended a national conference on IG with me > where Parminder was present through out. It is full of > misrepresentation.Their claimsare absurd that: > > /1- They don’t know me/// > > /2. They haven’t worked with me and I am not active in this space./// > > /3. They don’t know how to reach me//./// > > /4. And I do not teach IG/ > > *My Response**:*** > > Ø *Not only do they know me quite well*** > > Ø *We have hosted joint events, *** > > Ø *We have served on organizational bodies together related to IG, *** > > Ø *We have appeared as panelists together on IG, *** > > Ø *We have traveled and worked together on IG, *** > > Ø *We have submitted joint inputs to government of India on IG, *** > > Ø *Prepared background papers together for multistakeholder dialogues > and events on IG, *** > > Ø *Co-moderated dialogues and multistakeholder panels on IG. *** > > Ø *I receive emails from them, respond to them, they have appreciated > and thanked me for my inputs and efforts. *** > > Ø *They have called me on my mobile phone *** > > Ø *They have visited me in person and with their teams to seek my > inputs on their drafts. *** > > I am happy to compare and contrast my interventions and my work in the > IG space with all of them individually or collectively. ** > > > The ITRs submission of CS was jointly made by > > Ø Society for Knowledge commons represented by Rishab Bailey (author of > the CS letter), > > Ø Internet Democracy Project (Anja Kovacs- co-signatory), > > Ø Free Software Movement of India (Kiran Chandra (General Secretary- > co-signatory), > > Ø Delhi Science Forum (Prabir – co-signatory), > > Ø Media For Change( represented by me) > > Ø SFLC.in (Mishi – co-signatory). > > Ø Ms. Chinmayi Arun was part of all the 4 day meetings and discussions > and is on all the emails but did not finally submit the ITRs formal > response. > > > > > ​ > > > > More evidence of Joint work (There’s a lot but I do not wish to burden > this list)- > > One of the recent multistakeholder meetingon IGthat I co-organized > including drafting the background paper with Ms. Anja Kovacs from the > Internet democracy project (yes we have worked together and collaborated > on many occasions and oftentake same positions publicly), was on the > 29^th January, 2014. > > > > Where I worked with > > > > 1. Anja Kovacs, IDP (co-signatory) > > 2. Sunil Abraham , CIS (cosignatory)- represented by Snehashish Ghosh > > 3. Mishi Chowdhary, SFLC.in (Cosignatory)- represented by Prashanth Sugathan > > 4. Ms. Chinmayi Arun Co-moderated the meeting with me and Ms. Anja Kovacs > > > > > ​ > > _ > > > > * > * > > *Interlinkages between all the authors of the India CS letter:*** > > > > Ms Anja Kovacs, IDP is a cosignatory & a CIS fellow and has also worked > for ITfC which is represented on this letter by Mr. Parminder Jeet > Singh, Ms. Chinmayi Arun from CCG (is a cosignatory & also a CIS > fellow), Mr. Sunil Abraham is the director of CIS, RishabBailey the > author of the CS letter has been associated with IDP, and with SFLC > (another co-signatory) and is now representing SKC which is currently > represented on this letter by Mr. Prabir Purkayastha (co-signatory) who > is also associated formally as an office bearer with the SFM represented > on the letter by Mr. Kiran Chandra (co-signatory). All these are > respected colleagues and have worked with me on the ITRs and many other > IG related workshops and panels as mentioned above. > > > > CIS’s director Mr. Sunil Abraham has also served with me on multiple > panels and bodies together and my interventions can be found online and > at the CIS website > > http://cis-india.org/@@search?SearchableText=subi+chaturvedi > > > They are all signatories to the letter. > > > > *Again, my heartfelt gratitude to all those who have written tome, or > supported me. We have a very important task at hand, thank you again > for reposing yourfaith and for believing in me. And I wish that at all > times the dignity of the caucus be preserved and upheld. * > > > Finally, I do not hold any grudges against those, including the > journalist who may have been involved in this unfortunate and > unwarranted personal attack. I continue to have the highest respect for > the work that my colleagues do. > > > I am look forward to working with all of you and will be available in > Sao Paulo from the 21st and over email. Do feel free to reach out with > any questions or comments you may have. I would be happy to participate > in any meeting or related discussion and will continue to work to the > best of my ability and do my utmost, towards the evolution of the IG > ecosphere so that we have an internet, which remains free and open, > which amplifies human rights and allows for permissionless innovation > and connects the unconnected. > > > More details about my IG interventions can be found on my blog here > http://subichaturvedi.blogspot.in/ > > > and *Contributions at the UN IGF : (Partial List) is available here for > ready reference* > > https://www.google.co.in/search?q=igf+MAG+Subi+Chaturvedi+site:www.intgovforum.org&es_sm=91 > > I am equally thrilled that our collective inputs and suggestions are > being taken on board. And I am also hopeful that the outcome document > will reflect truly, what will emerge from the floor. Our friends in > Brazil from the civil society and from across stakeholder groups have > also done commendable work to bring us here. Delighted that it will be a > multistakeholder panel, which will open Netmundial 2014 in Brazil. > > Many congratulations Nnenna, we are in great hands. Very proud to have > you representing us and your address at the IGF 2013, in Bali was both > profoundly evocative and stirring. I hope you will make time to > emphasize the role that the Internet is playing especially in peace > building and conflict transformation as well. Your tremendous and deeply > inspiring work in Côte d'Ivoire underscores the importance of national > and regional initiatives, along with intercessional work. We have a > fantastic ambassador in you. And it might be an uphill climb for all of > us but let's put our best foot forward. > > Looking forward to seeing you all in Sao Paulo soon. > > Safe travels, all. > > > Warmest, > > > Subi > ---- > > Subi Chaturvedi > > Assistant Prof. Journalism & Comm, > > Lady Shri Ram College for Women (LSR), > > Delhi University, India > > Twitter:@subichaturvedi > > http://subichaturvedi.blogspot.in/ > > > Member MAG, UN-IGF (Media & Civil Society) > > Member MAG, India-IGF (Civil Society) > Convenor WG-India IGF > Co-Chair, Netmundial (Civil Society) > > > Founder & Hon. Managing Trustee, > > Media For Change > > > Founder, Chief Mentor & Editor > > The Saltlist > > www.thesaltlist.org > > > Independent DocumentaryFilmmaker, Photographer, > > Curator, Media Critic & Scholar > > > PhD. Scholar, > > Indian Institute of Technology (IIT-D), New Delhi > > > > PS: > > > Global CS Community who may not aware of my contribution here’s snapshot > ABOUT me and my work specifically on internet /governances/ freedom of > speech and expression: > > * > * > > *IG specific Roles:* > > > > 1. Recipient of the NIXI (National Internet Exchange, India) > fellowship for IG 2014-2015 > > 2. Co-Chair Netmundial 2014 > > 3. Convenor Working group Indian IGF MAG > > 4. Member MAG UN IGF 2014 > > 5. Member MAG India IGF 2013 > > 6. Member MAG UN-IGF 2013 > > 7. Co-Lead Breakout group- Multistakeholderism & Enhance cooperation > IGF 2013 > > 8. Lead facilitator main focus session on principles of > Multistakeholderism IGF 2013 > > 9. Member MAG IIGC 2013 > > 10. Member MAG, IIGC 2012 > > *Made several noteworthy contributions to the IGF and other global and > national Internet governance processes and capacity building initiatives > on information and communication especially for under-represented > stakeholder groups in IG.* > > * > * > > I’d be happy to provide detailed reports of my interventions and my > contributions at each meeting attended or organised National or global. > > > https://www.google.co.in/search?q=igf+MAG+Subi+Chaturvedi+site:www.intgovforum.org&es_sm=91#q=igf+MAG+Subi+Chaturvedi+site%3Awww.intgovforum.org&start=0 > > > I have been teaching Journalism and Mass Communication including but not > limited to papers on New Media technology (including IG) and Media, Law > and Ethics, since the last 5 ½ years in the capcity of Assistant > Professor at India’s leading liberal arts college for Women, part of > Delhi University. > > I hold 3 gold medals in Anthropology, Psychology, and a gold medal in > mass communication from the AJK MCRC, Jamia Millia Islamia, cleared the > NET (which is a mandatory requirement for teaching at central > universities in India), while a final year student in my first attempt > and then hold a CGPA of 9.25/10 at the IIT-Das a part time registered > PhD student doing my course work without leave from LSR, while taking > full classes and contributing to the College immensely. > > My most recent article was published in the Hindu which is one of > India’s most respected news daily as the lead opinion commentary on the > 18^th of February- “for an unfettered internet”, and can be accessed here > > http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/for-an-unfettered-internet/article5699615.ece > > It calls for a review of the Indian government’s position on IG. > > An article for EPW (a prestigious journal) against Corporatisation of > Media in India and the loss of pluraity which I have co-authored and the > documentary film- Freedom Song on issues of Freedom of Speech and > expression in India for PSBT, co directed with Mr. Paranjoy Guha > Thakurta(an eminent journalist from India). > > http://www.epw.in/commentary/corporatisation-media.html > > The position that I often take isagainst corporatization and control of > the media including the Internet by a few,be they governments, private > sector including large small/corporate of any national origin, civil > society group All my interventions, which are quite a few and > substantive in their depth and coverage of issues are online on the IGF > website. > > *This is just a partial list of some of the work that I have done in > this academic year 2013-2014:* > > My article *“For an unfettered internet’, *was published as the lead > opinion commentary in The Hindu, India's most respected news daily on > why India needs to re-examine it's position on global Internet governance. > > _http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/for-an-unfettered-internet/article5700871.ece_ > > My co-directed critically acclaimed documentary FREEDOM SONG, a film on > freedom of Speech and expression in contemporary India for PSBT was > screened at theIIHS Bangalore City Campus this year and premiered at the > prestigious Open Frame. Two of my curated projects, The Many Moods and > Moments of Aung San Suu Kyi and ‘The Nobel Women for Peace Project’, > were exhibited as part of HH. The Dalai Lama’s visit at LSR. > > > In recognition of _my _*_contribution to Internet and society_*_,_I been > awarded: > > 1) The prestigious NIXI (National Internet Exchange of India, GOI), > > Fellowship for Internet Governance 2013-2014. > > 2) I have been appointed as the first Indian woman from two > stakeholdergroups ( civil society and media) on the United Nations –IGF > MAG, for the second consecutive term. > > 3) I have also been invited to Co-Chair the Global Multistakeholder > Meeting in Brazil on the Future of the Internet. > > 4) I have also been appointed as the convener of the working group of > the India Internet Governance Forum (IGF) by the Chair from DeitY, > Ministry of Communication & IT. And also been appointed on the MAG > (Multistakeholder Advisory Group) of the India IGF (Internet Governance > Forum) to be hosted by MOC&IT, India. > > 5) At the last Global IGF 2013, held at Bali, Indonesia. I contributed > on several panels on Access and diversity, Relating national and > regional IGFs, Broadband access and local content, emerging issues- > Surveillance and a enhance cooperation (I also the remote moderator for > it). And I also moderated and mentored DoT (MoC&IT), Government of > India’s Open forum “Connecting the next Billion”. Additionally I also > organized and spoke at the Main Focus session on Multistakeholderism as > a panelist. > > 6) I also co-organised a multistakeholder panel discussion on “Will > Internet and Social Media be a game changer for the next general > election 2014 with senior leaders and ministers from the government and > eminent journalists and editors at the India International Centre (IIC), > New Delhi. > > 7) I was also a panelist with sr. editors on the role of media in > promoting art at the global stage organized by exchange4media at IIC. > > 8) I was also a panelist at the National Convention on "Crisis of > Capitalism and brazen onslaught on DEMOCRACY" , organized by the INSAF > foundation at the constitution club for the session on SURVEILLANCE, > STATE AND PERILS OF DEMOCRACY. With Mr. Prabir who is a cosignatory of > the letter. > > 9) I was a panelist on IGF and the way forward organized by ORF, New > Delhi. Ms. Anja Kovacs was my co-panelist a basic online search would > reveal and expose the claims made in the letter. The ORF report is > online with our interventions and images together. > > 10) I was also the key note speaker on Internet –a > democratic space, at NALSAR along with eminent and sr. judges and > lawyers of the supreme court on Social Media and Hate speech. Both Ms. > Chinmayi Arun and Ms. Anja Kovacs were part of the same event. Ms. > Kovacs was,moreover on the same session as I was. > > 11) I also organized and moderated a multitsakeholder > panel discussion at the ITU-WSIS 2013, Geneva on, “ Ensuring Internet > Access and Better Governance by Deepening Multistakeholderism- A > Developing Nation Perspective with sr. ministers and heads of regional > and national Internet & ICT initiatives. > > 12) Held a capacity building Workshop for the youth > -"Towards a new Ethics of Cyberspace- Being a responsible online Digital > Citizen with sr. industry leaders as key resource persons. > > 13) I also appeared as a distinguished panelist on > national media on internet, new media regulation and social media, women > safety and empowerment related issues, through the year. > > 14) I also organised and moderated the MEDIA CONGRESS- > Panel on 'Government Surveillance vs Individual Privacy : Are they > mutually exclusive?' with distinguished speakers: Dr. Usha Rmanathan > eminent civil society activist, Dr. Govind, CEO NIXI, Mr. Pavan Duggal, > Prof. Vibodh Parthasarathi and Ms. Shalini Singh. > > 15) I was also a panelist at the IMDEC 2013, Panel on > “The Internet We Want: A Multistakeholder View” along with global > leaders from civil society, industry, government and the technical > community at FICCI. Mr. Sunil Abraham (CIS) was also an invited panelist. > > 16) I co-organised a multistakeholder dialogue on *The > Future of the Internet, who should govern it & what is at stake for > us*with sr. members of the government, industry, academia, technical > community, media at IIC. The youth were also invited as end users to > share their inputs and experiences. The background paper was jointly > prepared by me and Ms. Anja Kovacs. > > 17) I also organized a youth meet with over 700 youth > leaders from India on the Internet We Want- Conversation Series. > > 18) Another youth meet was organized by me at the > Aligarh Muslim University, a minority institutionwith over 300 youth > delegates from the minorities and the margins and sr. editors from the > media on the role of media and youth in election 2014particularly the > impact that social media and the internet can have in amplyfying > participation of the youth. > > 19) I was also invited to conduct a leadership training > workshop for the sr. management of TATA Sons and their group companies > on social media. > > 20) I also conducted a third youth meet over 700 young > leaders on the “Digital Agenda for the Youth and IG principals”. This > was part of the global #FightBack campaign against surveillance and held > on the world internet day. > > 21) I was also a invited to present my paper on > Cybersecurity a multistakeholder perspective by ORF New Delhi part of > the young voices policy forum. It was extremely well received. > > 22) I also led the new media outreach and supported the > on ground activation for the national Internet Safety campaign for the > youth in India in association with Data Security Council of India (A > NASSCOM initiative). > > 23) I am a member of the International Association for > Women in Radio and television (IAWRT) and the Internet Society (ISOC). > > > > > warmest > > Subi > ---- > > Subi Chaturvedi > > Assistant Prof. Journalism & Comm, > > Lady Shri Ram College for Women (LSR), > > Delhi University, India > > Twitter:@subichaturvedi > > http://subichaturvedi.blogspot.in/ > > > Member MAG, UN-IGF (Media & Civil Society) > > Member MAG, India-IGF (Civil Society) > > Convenor WG-India IGF > > Co-Chair, Netmundial (Civil Society) > > > Founder & Hon. Managing Trustee, > > Media For Change > > > Founder, Chief Mentor & Editor > > The Saltlist > > www.thesaltlist.org > > > Independent DocumentaryFilmmaker, Photographer, > > Curator, Media Critic & Scholar > > > PhD. Scholar, > > Indian Institute of Technology (IIT-D), New Delhi > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Fri Apr 18 13:43:55 2014 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 14:43:55 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] NETmundial: hubs and remote participation Message-ID: Dear all, I would like to remind everybody once more of opporunities for remote participation in NETmundial. The list of hubs around the globe and their addresses can be found here: http://netmundial.br/remote-participation/ Hubs will be able to send comments to NETmundial. The chair will ensure that the opportunity to take the floor rotates among stakeholders and that will include a "queue" for remote participants. The idea is to bring remote participants in on very fair grounds. If there is a hub in your city, I would personally encourage you to follow NETmundial in the company of others in a hub. It is a very enriching experience and an opportunity for community building and networking. Of course, anyone can connect individually, from wherever they are. Best wishes, Marilia -- *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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kichango at gmail.com Fri Apr 18 14:48:22 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 18:48:22 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Agenda for Civil Society pre-NetMundial Coordination Meeting In-Reply-To: References: <3B978AD6-7A77-4CEF-AA81-6F420D6EAF30@Malcolm.id.au> <2E333DCE-0233-439B-8FF3-3970E425D185@Malcolm.id.au> <76D6148C-F2A8-46A4-B29C-9FC4D8310DE3@glocom.ac.jp> <71D57EB9-2D08-4AC6-9674-01DE5DBB7AF3@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: Hi, Could anyone please tell how far (or how accessible) the Centro Cultural is from the Grand Hyatt? Thanks Mawaki -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri Apr 18 14:50:46 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 14:50:46 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Agenda for Civil Society pre-NetMundial Coordination Meeting In-Reply-To: References: <3B978AD6-7A77-4CEF-AA81-6F420D6EAF30@Malcolm.id.au> <2E333DCE-0233-439B-8FF3-3970E425D185@Malcolm.id.au> <76D6148C-F2A8-46A4-B29C-9FC4D8310DE3@glocom.ac.jp> <71D57EB9-2D08-4AC6-9674-01DE5DBB7AF3@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: You will need to taxi Around 10km which in SP can take 1 hr On Apr 18, 2014 2:49 PM, "Mawaki Chango" wrote: > Hi, > Could anyone please tell how far (or how accessible) the Centro Cultural > is from the Grand Hyatt? Thanks > > Mawaki > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From magaly.pazello at gmail.com Fri Apr 18 14:57:28 2014 From: magaly.pazello at gmail.com (Magaly Pazello) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 15:57:28 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Agenda for Civil Society pre-NetMundial Coordination Meeting In-Reply-To: References: <3B978AD6-7A77-4CEF-AA81-6F420D6EAF30@Malcolm.id.au> <2E333DCE-0233-439B-8FF3-3970E425D185@Malcolm.id.au> <76D6148C-F2A8-46A4-B29C-9FC4D8310DE3@glocom.ac.jp> <71D57EB9-2D08-4AC6-9674-01DE5DBB7AF3@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: Hi! It is far and considering São Paulo is a very busy city it also can take at least one hour from Hyatt to Centro Cultural. You can take taxi, or can try public transportation in this case the best option is train + metro all integrated in a same system. There is a metro station very close to Centro Cultural. Depends when you are planned to go to one point to another one public transportation is better than taxi. São Paulo is famous by its incredible traffic jam. Magaly On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Hi, > Could anyone please tell how far (or how accessible) the Centro Cultural > is from the Grand Hyatt? Thanks > > Mawaki > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kichango at gmail.com Fri Apr 18 15:17:40 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 19:17:40 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Agenda for Civil Society pre-NetMundial Coordination Meeting In-Reply-To: References: <3B978AD6-7A77-4CEF-AA81-6F420D6EAF30@Malcolm.id.au> <2E333DCE-0233-439B-8FF3-3970E425D185@Malcolm.id.au> <76D6148C-F2A8-46A4-B29C-9FC4D8310DE3@glocom.ac.jp> <71D57EB9-2D08-4AC6-9674-01DE5DBB7AF3@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: Thanks a lot! That was useful. On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 6:57 PM, Magaly Pazello wrote: > Hi! > > It is far and considering São Paulo is a very busy city it also can take > at least one hour from Hyatt to Centro Cultural. You can take taxi, or can > try public transportation in this case the best option is train + metro all > integrated in a same system. There is a metro station very close to Centro > Cultural. Depends when you are planned to go to one point to another one > public transportation is better than taxi. São Paulo is famous by its > incredible traffic jam. > > Magaly > > > On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > >> Hi, >> Could anyone please tell how far (or how accessible) the Centro Cultural >> is from the Grand Hyatt? Thanks >> >> Mawaki >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From isolatedn at gmail.com Fri Apr 18 17:10:40 2014 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 02:40:40 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Breaking my silence on Netmundial related concerns raised by colleagues from India In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Subi, > > It would have taken a lot of courage to write that, and to engage here. I > am very glad you did,and thank you for doing so, because it will help to > eventually clear the air. > > My first wish is that, whatever the reactions are to your post, you will > continue to engage here with the rest of civil society interested in > internet governance. It’s not always a friendly space, as others have > discovered, but the interchange and dialogue among people with different > perspectives here is important, and leads to more constructive and > valuable inputs for civil society as a whole. Whatever the reactions to > your post are, I hope you continue to engage here. > > My second wish is that everyone involved in this dispute can find a way to > move past these issues. That’s not going to be easy, and perhaps not > immediate, but it is important we do so. > > My third and final wish is that my first and second wishes come to > fruition! > > Ian Peter > > > > *From:* Subi Chaturvedi > *Sent:* Friday, April 18, 2014 7:56 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* [governance] Breaking my silence on Netmundial related > concerns raised by colleagues from India > > > Dear CS colleagues and friends, > > > This has reference to the article published in HT on 8th April, 2014 > which has been shared and referred to on this mailing list, multiple times. > > At the outset I want to thank all of you who have written to me showing > solidarity against this vicious personal attack, based on wrong, > misleading and manipulated information, indicative of a perverse mind, as > you'd realize after, going through this post. > > I had chosen to maintain silence in the face of repeated and grave > provocation but the attacks continue unabated, thwarting and disrupting all > attempts at having any civilized conversation about the key issues that > concern global CS, even on the eve of Netmundial. The reason why we've > invested our energy, faith and considerable amount of time engaging with > the process, in the first place. > > I am now also compelled to write this email, for it is unfair on those who > have shown solidarity with me by writing to me or defending me publicly on > this list and elsewhere, to be left in this position without a minimal > comment from me. I wish to assure global civil society that our views are > being shared, represented and recognised. I have made multiple > interventions on the calls as well as over emails and continue to work > across time zones to ensure that our views are reflected. Anriette, my > colleague from the MAG, has done a fairly balanced assessment of the > situation though, and I completely agree with her, we have real challenges > ahead of us. I think our time would be utilised better if we focus on the > issues at hand- in Netmundial, I see a significant oppurtunity for change. > > In the internet, I see not just a source of knowledge but also an > amplifier of dissent and an enabler of human rights and permissionless > innovation. I have been a free speech activist and have fought for these > issues long and hard and therefore this is deeply painful. My interventions > are available publicly and a basic name search would reveal my > interventions at the global IGF as well on national media in India. Many of > these national meetings have been with my friends and respected colleagues > from civil society in India and remain on their websites or any outreach > platforms of communication. At the last India IGF MAG meeting where three > of the co-signatories, who are also on the MAG, made interventions with me. > Their interventions and mine captured are in the official minutes. In the > same meeting I was also appointed as the convenor of the Working group of > the India IGF with the knowledge and consent of Mr.Parmindar from ITfC and > with consensus from the floor. > > My work in the Internet Governance Space and related areas of media and > communication, deepening democracy and public policy can be found on my > blog *http://subichaturvedi.blogspot.in/ > * > > Now I ask all of you, who have been relentlessly subjected to the said > article and appeals by my respectable colleagues and collaborators from > Indian CS- was it appropriate to include me in this story related to > surveillance by a corporate? Is there any connection at all? Other than > to cause harm to me; in which they miserably failed. As identified in > Ian’s email, apart from being a vicious personal attack, the article is > manipulative on multiple levels and makes several inaccurate assertions. > > Notwithstanding this unfortunate exception, I want to assure all of you > that journalism in India is free, fair for the most part, and a harbinger > of truth and justice. I would urge you not to judge Indian media based on > this article. > > I submit the following for your consideration: the portions in italics > are direct quotes from the same article. > > . > > a. *“**Emails accessed by HT suggest that Bhatia championed > Chaturvedi's rise in Indian internet governance circles” .* > > You would surely notice that while pdfs of all charges were hyperlinked, this > allegation conspicuously remains unsubstantiated and any proof to the > effect is missing from the story. I challenge anyone to put out any > evidence of anyone- either me or anyone, at all doing any advocacy for me > to be appointed as the co-chair of Netmundial or on the MAG. It is quite > unfortunate that my work and my merit should be called into question. > Undermining all multistakeholder processes. However malicious even the > article does not make this extrapolation that Mr. Parminder Jeet singh > repeatedly continues to make. Despite a clarification on the 4th of > April, 2014 issued by the distinguished academician and General Chair of > the Meeting Minister Virgilio Almeida. > > > > b. “*Chaturvedi has also publicly acknowledged a former AT&T official, > Marylin Cade as a "coach and mentor”:* > > > > I quote the same tweet: “frm (from) Ms. Marilyn Cade *coach and Mentor > other proposals* and IGF should limit it’s own”. > > [image: Inline images 1] > > In plain violation of the most basic tenets of journalism concocting > evidence, he disingenuously parades my tweet about Ms. Cade’s comment at > the UN MAG to “coach and mentor other proposals and limit proposals from > the MAG itself” as my “public acknowledgement” of Ms. Cade being my “coach > and mentor”. > > c. “*She was also paid upwards of **Rs.* *2.3 lakh for her role at a > FICCI-led conference on internet governance. Subsequently, she also > received part-funding from FICCI to attend an international conference. > This raises a clear conflict of interest since she was on board as a civil > society representative, but accepted payments from industry and corporate > bodies”.* > > He knowingly suppressed the context of the Rs.2.3 lakh (3,814 USD), > payment by the industry association and presented it as “conflict of > interest”. The journalist knew fully well that the payment was a > reimbursement of costs incurred at the request of the conference > secretariat to produce professional videos, hire resources, material and > camera costs, still photography, new media activation and related hardware > and studio costs. He knew but purposefully left out my extensive > contribution to the conference as a speaker and session organizer on a pro > bono basis. He deliberately misrepresented in spite of knowing that the > travel assistance given by the industry association was contributed by ISOC > (Internet Society) and remaining by NIXI (National Internet Exchange of > India). He already knew but hid that both organisations routinely provide > travel assistance to scores of civil society representatives, including to > some who authored the said letter. > > > This CANNOT under any circumstances be construed as accepting money for > advocacy from a corporate and presented as "conflict of interest". This > is the most absurd allegation which even seasoned propagandists would shy > away from. > > Further he deceitfully persisted with the false “conflict of interest”, > charge by suppressing scores of emails , tweets, posts, videos, film and > TV interviews given to him and easily available in the public domain, as my > firm stance against illegal surveillance, invasion of privacy, and > violation of freedom of speech and expression and human rights. > > d. *Ph.D* : > > *Can a **mere research studentship**,** which I am still pursuing**,* *be** > the basis on which I was appointed at any forum?* It was used only to put > an unsubstantiated charge of plagiarism for my character assassination. I > preferred to change my guide then to “say sorry”, to her for the offenseI had not committed and continue with her. > > With a view to purposefully mislead the readers, the journalist grossly > manipulated the facts around my PhD by deliberately obfuscating that I have > steadfastly refuted “any academic wrong doing”. > > *The IIT has never charged me with this offense, no show ca**use has ever** > been given to me and hence no action has been taken against me,* detailed > evidence was given to the journalist who chose to deliberately ignore it in > order to convey a premeditated message. IIT has the highest ethical code > of conduct and so do I. And my PhD. is well underway. > > > > *The letter of notable members of civil society.* > > The CS letter from India carried the support of 10 individuals +1 author, > some of whom claim to represent different organisations. I have worked > with most who are in this space including Parminder, Prabir, Anja Kovacs, > Chinmayi Arun, Rishab Bailey, Mishi Choudhary, Sunil Abraham; 7 Out of 10. > Two of remaining 3 have attended a national conference on IG with me where > Parminder was present through out. It is full of misrepresentation. Their > claims are absurd that: > > *1- They don’t know me* > > *2. They haven’t worked with me and I am not active in this space.* > > *3. They don’t know how to reach me**.* > > *4. And I do not teach IG* > > *My Response**:* > > Ø *Not only do they know me quite well* > > Ø *We have hosted joint events, * > > Ø *We have served on organizational bodies together related to IG, * > > Ø *We have appeared as panelists together on IG, * > > Ø *We have traveled and worked together on IG, * > > Ø *We have submitted joint inputs to government of India on IG, * > > Ø *Prepared background papers together for multistakeholder dialogues > and events on IG, * > > Ø *Co-moderated dialogues and multistakeholder panels on IG. * > > Ø *I receive emails from them, respond to them, they have appreciated > and thanked me for my inputs and efforts. * > > Ø *They have called me on my mobile phone * > > Ø *They have visited me in person and with their teams to seek my inputs > on their drafts. * > > I am happy to compare and contrast my interventions and my work in the IG > space with all of them individually or collectively. > > > The ITRs submission of CS was jointly made by > > Ø Society for Knowledge commons represented by Rishab Bailey (author of > the CS letter), > > Ø Internet Democracy Project (Anja Kovacs- co-signatory), > > Ø Free Software Movement of India (Kiran Chandra (General Secretary- > co-signatory), > > Ø Delhi Science Forum (Prabir – co-signatory), > > Ø Media For Change( represented by me) > > Ø SFLC.in (Mishi – co-signatory). > > Ø Ms. Chinmayi Arun was part of all the 4 day meetings and discussions > and is on all the emails but did not finally submit the ITRs formal > response. > > > > > ​ > > > > More evidence of Joint work (There’s a lot but I do not wish to burden > this list)- > > One of the recent multistakeholder meeting on IG that I co-organized > including drafting the background paper with Ms. Anja Kovacs from the > Internet democracy project (yes we have worked together and collaborated on > many occasions and often take same positions publicly), was on the 29thJanuary, 2014. > > > > Where I worked with > > > > 1. Anja Kovacs, IDP (co-signatory) > > 2. Sunil Abraham , CIS (cosignatory)- represented by Snehashish Ghosh > > 3. Mishi Chowdhary, SFLC.in (Cosignatory)- represented by Prashanth > Sugathan > > 4. Ms. Chinmayi Arun Co-moderated the meeting with me and Ms. Anja Kovacs > > > > > ​ > > > > > *Interlinkages between all the authors of the India CS letter:* > > > > Ms Anja Kovacs, IDP is a cosignatory & a CIS fellow and has also worked > for ITfC which is represented on this letter by Mr. Parminder Jeet Singh, Ms. > Chinmayi Arun from CCG (is a cosignatory & also a CIS fellow), Mr. Sunil > Abraham is the director of CIS, Rishab Bailey the author of the CS > letter has been associated with IDP, and with SFLC (another co-signatory) > and is now representing SKC which is currently represented on this letter by > Mr. Prabir Purkayastha (co-signatory) who is also associated formally as > an office bearer with the SFM represented on the letter by Mr. Kiran > Chandra (co-signatory). All these are respected colleagues and have worked > with me on the ITRs and many other IG related workshops and panels as > mentioned above. > > > > CIS’s director Mr. Sunil Abraham has also served with me on multiple > panels and bodies together and my interventions can be found online and at > the CIS website > > http://cis-india.org/@@search?SearchableText=subi+chaturvedi > > > They are all signatories to the letter. > > > > *Again, my heartfelt gratitude to all those who have written to me, or > supported me. We have a very important task at hand, thank you again for > reposing your faith and for believing in me. And I wish that at all times > the dignity of the caucus be preserved and upheld. * > > > Finally, I do not hold any grudges against those, including the journalist > who may have been involved in this unfortunate and unwarranted personal > attack. I continue to have the highest respect for the work that my > colleagues do. > > > I am look forward to working with all of you and will be available in Sao > Paulo from the 21st and over email. Do feel free to reach out with any > questions or comments you may have. I would be happy to participate in any > meeting or related discussion and will continue to work to the best of my > ability and do my utmost, towards the evolution of the IG ecosphere so that > we have an internet, which remains free and open, which amplifies human > rights and allows for permissionless innovation and connects the > unconnected. > > > More details about my IG interventions can be found on my blog here > http://subichaturvedi.blogspot.in/ > > > and *Contributions at the UN IGF : (Partial List) is available here for > ready reference* > > > https://www.google.co.in/search?q=igf+MAG+Subi+Chaturvedi+site:www.intgovforum.org&es_sm=91 > > I am equally thrilled that our collective inputs and suggestions are being > taken on board. And I am also hopeful that the outcome document will > reflect truly, what will emerge from the floor. Our friends in Brazil from > the civil society and from across stakeholder groups have also done > commendable work to bring us here. Delighted that it will be a > multistakeholder panel, which will open Netmundial 2014 in Brazil. > > Many congratulations Nnenna, we are in great hands. Very proud to have you > representing us and your address at the IGF 2013, in Bali was both > profoundly evocative and stirring. I hope you will make time to emphasize > the role that the Internet is playing especially in peace building and > conflict transformation as well. Your tremendous and deeply inspiring work > in Côte d'Ivoire underscores the importance of national and regional > initiatives, along with intercessional work. We have a fantastic ambassador > in you. And it might be an uphill climb for all of us but let's put our > best foot forward. > > Looking forward to seeing you all in Sao Paulo soon. > > Safe travels, all. > > > Warmest, > > Subi > ---- > > Subi Chaturvedi > > Assistant Prof. Journalism & Comm, > > Lady Shri Ram College for Women (LSR), > > Delhi University, India > > Twitter:@subichaturvedi > > http://subichaturvedi.blogspot.in/ > > > Member MAG, UN-IGF (Media & Civil Society) > Member MAG, India-IGF (Civil Society) > Convenor WG-India IGF > Co-Chair, Netmundial (Civil Society) > > > Founder & Hon. Managing Trustee, > > Media For Change > > > Founder, Chief Mentor & Editor > > The Saltlist > > www.thesaltlist.org > > > Independent DocumentaryFilmmaker, Photographer, > > Curator, Media Critic & Scholar > > > PhD. Scholar, > > Indian Institute of Technology (IIT-D), New Delhi > > > > PS: > > > Global CS Community who may not aware of my contribution here’s snapshot > ABOUT me and my work specifically on internet /governances/ freedom of > speech and expression: > > > *IG specific Roles:* > > > > 1. Recipient of the NIXI (National Internet Exchange, India) > fellowship for IG 2014-2015 > > 2. Co-Chair Netmundial 2014 > > 3. Convenor Working group Indian IGF MAG > > 4. Member MAG UN IGF 2014 > > 5. Member MAG India IGF 2013 > > 6. Member MAG UN-IGF 2013 > > 7. Co-Lead Breakout group- Multistakeholderism & Enhance cooperation > IGF 2013 > > 8. Lead facilitator main focus session on principles of > Multistakeholderism IGF 2013 > > 9. Member MAG IIGC 2013 > > 10. Member MAG, IIGC 2012 > > *Made several noteworthy contributions to the IGF and other global and > national Internet governance processes and capacity building initiatives on > information and communication especially for under-represented stakeholder > groups in IG.* > > > I’d be happy to provide detailed reports of my interventions and my > contributions at each meeting attended or organised National or global. > > > > https://www.google.co.in/search?q=igf+MAG+Subi+Chaturvedi+site:www.intgovforum.org&es_sm=91#q=igf+MAG+Subi+Chaturvedi+site%3Awww.intgovforum.org&start=0 > > > I have been teaching Journalism and Mass Communication including but not > limited to papers on New Media technology (including IG) and Media, Law and > Ethics, since the last 5 ½ years in the capcity of Assistant Professor at > India’s leading liberal arts college for Women, part of Delhi University. > > I hold 3 gold medals in Anthropology, Psychology, and a gold medal in > mass communication from the AJK MCRC, Jamia Millia Islamia, cleared the NET (which > is a mandatory requirement for teaching at central universities in India), while > a final year student in my first attempt and then hold a CGPA of 9.25/10 at > the IIT-D as a part time registered PhD student doing my course work > without leave from LSR, while taking full classes and contributing to the > College immensely. > > My most recent article was published in the Hindu which is one of India’s > most respected news daily as the lead opinion commentary on the 18th of > February- “for an unfettered internet”, and can be accessed here > > > http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/for-an-unfettered-internet/article5699615.ece > > It calls for a review of the Indian government’s position on IG. > > An article for EPW (a prestigious journal) against Corporatisation of > Media in India and the loss of pluraity which I have co-authored and the > documentary film- Freedom Song on issues of Freedom of Speech and > expression in India for PSBT, co directed with Mr. Paranjoy Guha Thakurta(an eminent journalist from India) > . > > http://www.epw.in/commentary/corporatisation-media.html > > The position that I often take is against corporatization and control of > the media including the Internet by a few, be they governments, private > sector including large small/corporate of any national origin, civil > society group All my interventions, which are quite a few and substantive > in their depth and coverage of issues are online on the IGF website. > > *This is just a partial list of some of the work that I have done in this > academic year 2013-2014:* > > My article *“For an unfettered internet’, *was published as the lead > opinion commentary in The Hindu, India's most respected news daily on why > India needs to re-examine it's position on global Internet governance. > > *http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/for-an-unfettered-internet/article5700871.ece > * > > My co-directed critically acclaimed documentary FREEDOM SONG, a film on > freedom of Speech and expression in contemporary India for PSBT was > screened at the IIHS Bangalore City Campus this year and premiered at the > prestigious Open Frame. Two of my curated projects, The Many Moods and > Moments of Aung San Suu Kyi and ‘The Nobel Women for Peace Project’, were > exhibited as part of HH. The Dalai Lama’s visit at LSR. > > > In recognition of *my **contribution to Internet and society**,* I been > awarded: > > 1) The prestigious NIXI (National Internet Exchange of India, GOI), > > Fellowship for Internet Governance 2013-2014. > > 2) I have been appointed as the first Indian woman from two > stakeholdergroups ( civil society and media) on the United Nations –IGF > MAG, for the second consecutive term. > > 3) I have also been invited to Co-Chair the Global Multistakeholder > Meeting in Brazil on the Future of the Internet. > > 4) I have also been appointed as the convener of the working group of > the India Internet Governance Forum (IGF) by the Chair from DeitY, Ministry > of Communication & IT. And also been appointed on the MAG (Multistakeholder > Advisory Group) of the India IGF (Internet Governance Forum) to be hosted > by MOC&IT, India. > > 5) At the last Global IGF 2013, held at Bali, Indonesia. I contributed > on several panels on Access and diversity, Relating national and regional > IGFs, Broadband access and local content, emerging issues- Surveillance and > a enhance cooperation (I also the remote moderator for it). And I also > moderated and mentored DoT (MoC&IT), Government of India’s Open forum > “Connecting the next Billion”. Additionally I also organized and spoke at > the Main Focus session on Multistakeholderism as a panelist. > > 6) I also co-organised a multistakeholder panel discussion on “Will > Internet and Social Media be a game changer for the next general election > 2014 with senior leaders and ministers from the government and eminent > journalists and editors at the India International Centre (IIC), New Delhi. > > 7) I was also a panelist with sr. editors on the role of media in > promoting art at the global stage organized by exchange4media at IIC. > > 8) I was also a panelist at the National Convention on "Crisis of > Capitalism and brazen onslaught on DEMOCRACY" , organized by the INSAF > foundation at the constitution club for the session on SURVEILLANCE, STATE > AND PERILS OF DEMOCRACY. With Mr. Prabir who is a cosignatory of the > letter. > > 9) I was a panelist on IGF and the way forward organized by ORF, New > Delhi. Ms. Anja Kovacs was my co-panelist a basic online search would > reveal and expose the claims made in the letter. The ORF report is online > with our interventions and images together. > > 10) I was also the key note speaker on Internet –a > democratic space, at NALSAR along with eminent and sr. judges and lawyers > of the supreme court on Social Media and Hate speech. Both Ms. Chinmayi > Arun and Ms. Anja Kovacs were part of the same event. Ms. Kovacs was,moreover on the same session as I was. > > 11) I also organized and moderated a multitsakeholder > panel discussion at the ITU-WSIS 2013, Geneva on, “ Ensuring Internet > Access and Better Governance by Deepening Multistakeholderism- A Developing > Nation Perspective with sr. ministers and heads of regional and national > Internet & ICT initiatives. > > 12) Held a capacity building Workshop for the youth > -"Towards a new Ethics of Cyberspace- Being a responsible online Digital > Citizen with sr. industry leaders as key resource persons. > > 13) I also appeared as a distinguished panelist on > national media on internet, new media regulation and social media, women > safety and empowerment related issues, through the year. > > 14) I also organised and moderated the MEDIA CONGRESS- > Panel on 'Government Surveillance vs Individual Privacy : Are they mutually > exclusive?' with distinguished speakers: Dr. Usha Rmanathan eminent civil > society activist, Dr. Govind, CEO NIXI, Mr. Pavan Duggal, Prof. Vibodh > Parthasarathi and Ms. Shalini Singh. > > 15) I was also a panelist at the IMDEC 2013, Panel on > “The Internet We Want: A Multistakeholder View” along with global leaders > from civil society, industry, government and the technical community at > FICCI. Mr. Sunil Abraham (CIS) was also an invited panelist. > > 16) I co-organised a multistakeholder dialogue on *The > Future of the Internet, who should govern it & what is at stake for us*with sr. members of the government, industry, academia, technical > community, media at IIC. The youth were also invited as end users to share > their inputs and experiences. The background paper was jointly prepared > by me and Ms. Anja Kovacs. > > 17) I also organized a youth meet with over 700 youth > leaders from India on the Internet We Want- Conversation Series. > > 18) Another youth meet was organized by me at the Aligarh > Muslim University, a minority institution with over 300 youth delegates > from the minorities and the margins and sr. editors from the media on the > role of media and youth in election 2014 particularly the impact that > social media and the internet can have in amplyfying participation of the > youth. > > 19) I was also invited to conduct a leadership training > workshop for the sr. management of TATA Sons and their group companies on > social media. > > 20) I also conducted a third youth meet over 700 young > leaders on the “Digital Agenda for the Youth and IG principals”. This was > part of the global #FightBack campaign against surveillance and held on the > world internet day. > > 21) I was also a invited to present my paper on > Cybersecurity a multistakeholder perspective by ORF New Delhi part of the > young voices policy forum. It was extremely well received. > > 22) I also led the new media outreach and supported the > on ground activation for the national Internet Safety campaign for the > youth in India in association with Data Security Council of India (A > NASSCOM initiative). > > 23) I am a member of the International Association for > Women in Radio and television (IAWRT) and the Internet Society (ISOC). > > > > warmest > > Subi > ---- > > Subi Chaturvedi > > Assistant Prof. Journalism & Comm, > > Lady Shri Ram College for Women (LSR), > > Delhi University, India > > Twitter:@subichaturvedi > > http://subichaturvedi.blogspot.in/ > > > Member MAG, UN-IGF (Media & Civil Society) > > Member MAG, India-IGF (Civil Society) > > Convenor WG-India IGF > > Co-Chair, Netmundial (Civil Society) > > > Founder & Hon. Managing Trustee, > > Media For Change > > > Founder, Chief Mentor & Editor > > The Saltlist > > www.thesaltlist.org > > > Independent DocumentaryFilmmaker, Photographer, > > Curator, Media Critic & Scholar > > > PhD. Scholar, > > Indian Institute of Technology (IIT-D), New Delhi > > ------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Sivasubramanian Muthusamy India +91 99524 03099 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tweet.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 84909 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: My org in a Jt. submission on ITR by Indian CS co-signatories where the author of the Indian CS letter against me represents me.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 593712 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: MS Dialogue on Internet Governance e-invite.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 134414 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ca at cafonso.ca Fri Apr 18 17:20:29 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 18:20:29 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Agenda for Civil Society pre-NetMundial Coordination Meeting In-Reply-To: References: <3B978AD6-7A77-4CEF-AA81-6F420D6EAF30@Malcolm.id.au> <2E333DCE-0233-439B-8FF3-3970E425D185@Malcolm.id.au> <76D6148C-F2A8-46A4-B29C-9FC4D8310DE3@glocom.ac.jp> <71D57EB9-2D08-4AC6-9674-01DE5DBB7AF3@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <5351971D.3080406@cafonso.ca> A map is attached. It is about 13 km from Hyatt, about 20 minutes by taxi (+ or - R$35 ≃ US$15). --c.a. On 04/18/2014 03:48 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Hi, > Could anyone please tell how far (or how accessible) the Centro Cultural is > from the Grand Hyatt? Thanks > > Mawaki > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: hyatt_ccsp_map.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 286882 bytes Desc: not available URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri Apr 18 21:01:59 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 21:01:59 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Agenda for Civil Society pre-NetMundial Coordination Meeting In-Reply-To: <5351971D.3080406@cafonso.ca> References: <3B978AD6-7A77-4CEF-AA81-6F420D6EAF30@Malcolm.id.au> <2E333DCE-0233-439B-8FF3-3970E425D185@Malcolm.id.au> <76D6148C-F2A8-46A4-B29C-9FC4D8310DE3@glocom.ac.jp> <71D57EB9-2D08-4AC6-9674-01DE5DBB7AF3@Malcolm.id.au> <5351971D.3080406@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: 20 minutes without traffic - which is not a reality...45 min at least plus, weather foresees rain On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > A map is attached. It is about 13 km from Hyatt, about 20 minutes by > taxi (+ or - R$35 ≃ US$15). > > --c.a. > > On 04/18/2014 03:48 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > Hi, > > Could anyone please tell how far (or how accessible) the Centro Cultural > is > > from the Grand Hyatt? Thanks > > > > Mawaki > > > -- *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: From erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu Sat Apr 19 00:22:55 2014 From: erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu (JOSEFSSON Erik) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 04:22:55 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: NETmundial data-mining In-Reply-To: References: <009501cf5af4$36e7e180$a4b7a480$@diplomacy.edu>, Message-ID: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A069B1F44@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> That study looks like the Voight-Kampff stuff we have been talking about as the next step after Pippi Longstrings and Parltrack in EPFSUG. http://epfsug.eu/wws/arc/epfsug/2013-10/msg00054.html You have any source code doing that mining to share? //Erik ________________________________ From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Carolina [carolina.rossini at gmail.com] Sent: Friday 18 April 2014 13:35 To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: NETmundial data-mining Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Vladimir Radunovic" > Date: April 18, 2014 at 6:51:53 AM EDT To: "Marilia Maciel" >, "'Carolina Rossini'" > Cc: "Jovan Kurbalija" > Subject: NETmundial data-mining Marilia, Carol, we just published some interesting results from the data-mining research: http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/predicting-netmundial-what-does-data-mining-co ntributions-tell-us Feel free to share with your colleagues. It took more than we expected, and we are still working on some "emotional analysis" aspects. If we get something more I will let you know. Best, Vlada *** Upcoming online courses at Diplo: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy (with Internet Governance option) l Internet Governance l E-diplomacy l Current Issues in the UN l Diplomacy of Small states l Complete Catalogue of Online Courses: http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses *** _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Vladimir Radunovic Internet Governance and E-diplomacy DiploFoundation email: vladar at diplomacy.edu web: www.diplomacy.edu twitter: @vradunovic _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com Sat Apr 19 04:15:30 2014 From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 04:15:30 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Agenda for Civil Society pre-NetMundial Coordination Meeting In-Reply-To: <2E333DCE-0233-439B-8FF3-3970E425D185@Malcolm.id.au> References: <3B978AD6-7A77-4CEF-AA81-6F420D6EAF30@Malcolm.id.au> <2E333DCE-0233-439B-8FF3-3970E425D185@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: Hi folks -- I will be in town though I understand the registration is now closed for this prep session for civil society sector reps. I had planned to spend the day prepping on my own, but now wonder if there's a chance I can set up in my hostel and confab with you all by remote login. Seth Johnson On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 16 Apr 2014, at 7:38 pm, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > > Hi Jeremy, > > Do we have to register to participate in this meeting ? > > > Yes, by clicking "RSVP" at > http://bestbits.net/events/netmundial-coordination. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see > http://jere.my/l/pgp. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sat Apr 19 07:15:33 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 20:15:33 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Please comment on NETmundial documents. Message-ID: <58FCF72D-69C6-442E-AB8C-204F090BF1E2@glocom.ac.jp> I think there are about 40 messages in the thread about surveillance. Email to bestbits and IGC mean nothing to the NETmundial meeting. Please also comment on the documents. Surveillance paragraph is Roadmap, paragraph 35. Simple statements, example: I support Ian Peter's comment about that the Necessary and Proportionate principles must be included in this paragraph. Or propose a simple re-write of the paragraph so Necessary and Proportionate principles fit with the existing. Minimal changes to get the point across might be best. Comments close UTC 12:00 April 21st. Please comment now, don't leave until the last minute (who is going to read a flood of comments posted a few hours before deadline?) If you see comments by others you support, say so. And you can disagree. Principles: Roadmap: Adam (individual capacity) From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Sat Apr 19 17:29:53 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 17:29:53 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Just out: Collection of Essays on NetMundial Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Fabro Steibel* Date: Saturday, April 19, 2014 Subject: ((Brazil-Germany)) Just out: Collection of Essays on NetMundial To: Ronaldo Lemos Dear Participants of the Internet Governance Seminar and NETmundial, Please find attached the collection of essays "Stakes are High: Brazil and the future of the Global Internet". It has been organized in preparation to NetMundial, and includes essays by some of our conference participants, such as Wolfgang Schulz, Markus Kummer, Markus Beckedhal, Juliana Nolasco and Ronaldo Lemos. This was produced as a part of the Internet Policy Observatory, a program at the Center for Global Communication Studies, the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. It was edited and curated by a steering committee including Ellery Roberts Biddle of Global Voices, Ronaldo Lemos of the Rio Institute for Technology & Society, and Monroe Price of the Annenberg School for Communication. They were assisted by Alexandra Esenler, Laura Schwartz-Henderson, and Briar Smith. We believe these essays capture part of the state of play before NetMundial and should be useful to frame the discussions we will have in the next few days. Best regards, Ronaldo Lemos Director of the Rio Institute for Technology & Society -- *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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: StakesAreHigh_BrazilNETmundial.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 681349 bytes Desc: not available URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Apr 19 20:54:29 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 06:24:29 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Breaking my silence on Netmundial related concerns raised by colleagues from India In-Reply-To: <535127F4.8010604@cafonso.ca> References: <535127F4.8010604@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <53531AC5.2050004@itforchange.net> Dear Ian and Carlos, Perhaps it does not behove me to say this since I am quite junior to both of you in the global IG civil society space - but then I feel that it is my unhappy duty to say it: I am pained that you have put your considerable reputation and goodwill in this space in service of defending what patently is political corruption of the highest order, that too with regard to a model of MSism which you both so vigorously promote. Yes, this particular instance is one of pure and simple political corruption of the highest order, the kind which normally immediately produces reactions of revulsion and outrage in civil society groups...It is not personal. Thousands teach in colleges and have political and social ambitions, and take various kinds of routes to pursue them; similarly thousands work in NGOs like I do. I dont think any of the signatories of the letter from Indian CS groups was in any kind of keen competition to be in NetMundial organisational positions. So, it should not matter to us that much who becomes the top CS reps to the MetMundial... In any case, such is the diversity and structural dis-organisation of civil society that different, often very unexpected, kinds of appointments from civil society regularly takes place, and we may whisper and complain among ourselves but always let it be... It is kind of part of being civil society. This present one is not such a case. And in my view, for anyone willing to be on guard against such subversions, it is not difficult to see the nature of the issue here. As said, it is a case of highest political corruption.. Big business from the US, backed by some strong political interests in that country, have been working in India for 2-3 years now to subvert India's political processes around IG basically with the objective to keep its voice silent on the global level... There have been much discussion inside India lately on this phenomenon including some news reports. Will cut this story short.... What I am coming to is, it is as a part of this political strategy that Sub was picked up and promoted as a 'civil society voice' in India. India has a proud culture of vibrant democracy and a rather mature civil society, whereby it is of course absolutely unacceptable for us, Indian civil society groups, that such a political subversion and corruption takes place. This was and remains the cause of our strong reaction. When, as they say in India, we saw the water go over the head, with Subi's appointment as civil society co-chair of NetMundial, Indian civil society groups took it as their responsibility to bring the facts to the table, and make global actors cognizant about them. It is not an easy decision to take - we all know that while one has to work hard and devote much time to such kind of a thing, there will also always be considerable comebacks, because we are dealing with actors who are extremely resourcefully (obvious, when a completely unknown person can suddenly be placed at the CS head position of a major global meeting), and therefore expectation of counter personal attacks, as indeed have been happening. It perhaps is this reason that most of the other signatories of the letter have not come out publicly on this list to present and push the case. (BTW, I may disclose that I was neither the party to initiate the collective letter nor the news item in Hindustan Times; just so that you all know.) What was surprising is that, when practically all civil society groups in India, who are engaged with IG work - and have extensive work relationships with all other global actors, often stronger than they have among themselves - came out to present the facts on the ground about the inappropriateness of Subi's selections, practically no one from the global civil society expressed real support. (Yes, a good quote from my email to be used by Subi.) I see this as primarily the fault of the civil society leadership. They cannot be doing this with their national CS partners, especially of a country with one seventh of world's population and whose general maturity of civil society processes cannot easily be questioned. But the fact that this did happen points to serious structural flaws in the form and role of civil society, especially its leadership, in MSist spaces. No, it is not the civil society groups from India who lost here - it is the global MSist civil society that has lost, and it may need to introspect deeply about it, if it ever will... Apparently, the testimony of practically all the civil society groups engaged with IG in India was not enough... Then came**this investigative report from one of the largest and most-respected dailies of India. A report which I know was being worked for more than 2 months. With extensive interactions inter alia with all people who have been namedadverselyin the report... I also happen to know that the involved people personally met the senior most editors of the newspaper... All opportunities for defence and clarification were given, and all testimonies and material accepted. Senior editors thoroughly went over all the details overs many days. Do not under-estimate the difficulty and the extent of caution required with regard to a news report like this one which implicates one of the most powerful and entrenched lobbyist in the capital of India. For a long time when the report did not appear, I actually thought, well the obvious has happened! But the newspaper stood its ground and came out with a report presenting just those facts about which it had absolute evidence, and which met their very high reporting standards. So, you guys dont believe the statement of a full group of Indian civil society organisations, and you do not believe even the investigative news report in one of the most highly regarded newspapers of India, a report which was researched for 2 months. Well, in that case, it really must take something to make you believe - or perhaps, you have decided your position already, which is not to rock the MS (multistakeholder) boat as the highest priority, with all else paling in comparison. Anywhere else, a case of this kind, where first the whole civil society in an area makes a case, which is then supported by a well- researched news story, will be an open and shut case for global civil society to support. But not on this occasion...This is something you all guys need to answer. There is nothing more for us, of Indian civil society groups, to say... We are proud that we did a very difficult civil society task of exposing political corruption, took an 'insistent' public stand against it, and refused to be cowed down by cat calls that have become customary on this list whenever any issue implicating the power of big business or the US is raised..... One last point, though I think it may be superfluous, because you all know and understand it. People here have been saying that there is no evidence, which is quite surprising because this is one of few rare cases (and thus must be pushed hard and fully capitalised on) where there is actually considerable evidence of political corruption. Now, this is not a court proceeding, really. Think of when, say in our own countries, an appointment of an industry watchdog is made, or for an anti- corruption body. What is the standard of knowledge and evidence on which civil society will act on what they may regard as complete inappropriateness of an appointment - and perhaps write petitions, boycott proceedings, and so on... Just that level of knowledge and evidence is needed in this case as well. And it is as clear as daylight that such knowledge and evidence is indeed available. To act or not, and whether to denounce or make light of those who indeed are doing their civil society work, remains your own respective political decisions. I see that you are inviting Subi to remain undeterred and continue to engage with civil society here. We too are going to remain undeterred in doing what we see as the real CS work. Best regards parminder PS: I will not respond to Subi's 'clarifications', and I can understand her desperation as well the discomfort of those whose huge interests are affected by this.... However, at one place in her recent email there is a specific reference to my name, mentioning that her recent appointment to some position in the WG on India IGF was with my consent; this is lie typical of much of her statements ... There was no such consent, something which is very easy to verify because the room had around 30 people from gov, industry and CS, and there is also avaiable an official document coming from the meeting. I do however see that the inference from the quote of Marilyn Cade was an inadvertent error on the part of the journalist. On Friday 18 April 2014 06:56 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Absolutely agree with Ian, including the three wishes. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > On 04/18/2014 12:48 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> Subi, >> >> It would have taken a lot of courage to write that, and to engage here. >> I am very glad you did,and thank you for doing so, because it will help >> to eventually clear the air. >> >> My first wish is that, whatever the reactions are to your post, you will >> continue to engage here with the rest of civil society interested in >> internet governance. It’s not always a friendly space, as others have >> discovered, but the interchange and dialogue among people with different >> perspectives here is important, and leads to more constructive and >> valuable inputs for civil society as a whole. Whatever the reactions to >> your post are, I hope you continue to engage here. >> >> My second wish is that everyone involved in this dispute can find a way >> to move past these issues. That’s not going to be easy, and perhaps not >> immediate, but it is important we do so. >> >> My third and final wish is that my first and second wishes come to fruition! >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> >> *From:* Subi Chaturvedi >> *Sent:* Friday, April 18, 2014 7:56 AM >> *To:*governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> *Cc:*bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> *Subject:* [governance] Breaking my silence on Netmundial related >> concerns raised by colleagues from India >> >> >> Dear CS colleagues and friends, >> >> >> This has reference to the article published in HT on 8^th April, 2014 >> which has been shared and referred to on this mailing list, multiple times. >> >> At the outset I want to thank all of you who have written to me showing >> solidarity against this vicious personal attack, based on wrong, >> misleading and manipulated information, indicative of a perverse mind, >> as you'd realize after, going through this post. >> >> I had chosen to maintain silence in the face of repeatedand grave >> provocation but the attacks continue unabated, thwarting and disrupting >> all attempts at having any civilized conversation about the key issues >> that concern global CS, even on the eve of Netmundial. The reason why >> we've invested our energy, faith and considerable amount of time >> engaging with the process, in the first place. >> >> I am now also compelled to write this email, for it is unfair on those >> who have shown solidarity with me by writing to me or defending me >> publicly on this list and elsewhere, to be left in this position without >> a minimal comment from me.I wish to assure global civil society that our >> views are being shared, represented and recognised. I have made multiple >> interventions on the calls as well as over emails and continue to work >> across time zones to ensure that our views are reflected. Anriette, my >> colleague from the MAG, has done a fairly balanced assessment of the >> situation though, and I completely agree with her, we have real >> challenges ahead of us. I think our time would be utilised better if we >> focus on the issues at hand- in Netmundial, I see a significant >> oppurtunity for change. >> >> In the internet, I see not just a source of knowledge but also an >> amplifier of dissent and an enabler of human rights and permissionless >> innovation. I have been a free speech activist and have fought for these >> issues long and hard and therefore this is deeply painful. My >> interventions are available publicly and a basic name search would >> reveal my interventions at the global IGF as well on national media in >> India. Many of these national meetings have been with my friends and >> respected colleagues from civil society in India and remain on their >> websites or any outreach platforms of communication. At the last India >> IGF MAG meeting where three of the co-signatories, who are also on the >> MAG, made interventions with me. Their interventions and mine >> capturedare in the official minutes. In the same meeting I was also >> appointed as the convenor of the Working group of the India IGF with the >> knowledge and consent of Mr.Parmindar from ITfC and with consensus from >> the floor. >> >> My work in the Internet Governance Space and related areas of media and >> communication, deepening democracy and public policy can be found on my >> blog *http://subichaturvedi.blogspot.in/* >> >> Now Iask all of you, who have been relentlessly subjected to the said >> article and appeals by my respectable colleagues and collaborators from >> Indian CS- was it appropriate toincludeme in this story related to >> surveillance by a corporate? Is there any connection at all? Other than >> to cause harm to me; in which they miserably failed.As identified in >> Ian’s email, apart from being a vicious personal attack, the article is >> manipulative on multiple levels and makesseveral inaccurate assertions. >> >> Notwithstanding this unfortunate exception, I want to assure all of you >> that journalism in India is free, fair for the most part, and aharbinger >> of truth and justice. I would urge you not to judge Indian media based >> on this article. >> >> I submit the following for your consideration:the portions in italics >> are direct quotes from the same article. >> >> . >> >> a. /“//Emails accessed by HT suggest that Bhatia championed >> Chaturvedi's rise in Indian internet governance circles” ./ >> >> You would surely notice that while pdfs of all charges were hyperlinked, >> this allegation conspicuously remains unsubstantiated and any proof to >> the effect is missing fromthe story. I challenge anyone to put out any >> evidence of anyone- either me or anyone, at all doing any advocacy for >> me to be appointed as the co-chair of Netmundial or on the MAG. It is >> quite unfortunate that my work and my merit should be called into >> question. Undermining all multistakeholder processes. However malicious >> even the article does not make this extrapolation that Mr. Parminder >> Jeet singh repeatedly continuesto make. Despite a clarification on the >> 4th of April, 2014 issued by the distinguished academician and General >> Chair of the Meeting Minister Virgilio Almeida. >> >> >> >> b. “/Chaturvedi has also publicly acknowledged a former AT&T >> official, Marylin Cade as a "coach and mentor”:/ >> >> >> >> / /I quote the same tweet: “frm (from) Ms. Marilyn Cade *_coach and >> Mentor other proposals_*and IGF should limit it’s own”. >> >> Inline images 1 >> >> In plain violation of the most basic tenets of journalism concocting >> evidence, he disingenuously parades my tweet about Ms. Cade’s comment at >> the UN MAG to “coach and mentor other proposals and limit proposals from >> the MAG itself” as my “public acknowledgement” of Ms. Cade being my >> “coach and mentor”. >> >> c. “/She was also paid upwards of //Rs.// //2.3 lakh for her role at >> a FICCI-led conference on internet governance. Subsequently, she also >> received part-funding from FICCI to attend an international conference. >> This raises a clear conflict of interest since she was on board as a >> civil society representative, but accepted payments from industry and >> corporate bodies”./ >> >> He knowingly suppressed the context of the Rs.2.3 lakh (3,814 USD), >> payment by the industry association and presented it as “conflict of >> interest”. The journalist knew fully well that the payment was a >> reimbursement of costs incurred at the request of the conference >> secretariat to produce professional videos, hire resources, material and >> camera costs, still photography, new media activation and related >> hardware and studio costs. He knew but purposefully left out my >> extensive contribution to the conference as a speaker and session >> organizer on a pro bono basis. He deliberately misrepresented in spite >> of knowing that the travel assistance given by the industry association >> was contributed by ISOC (Internet Society) and remaining by NIXI >> (National Internet Exchange of India). He already knew but hid that >> both organisations routinely provide travel assistance to scores of >> civil society representatives, including to some who authored the said >> letter. >> >> >> This CANNOT under any circumstances be construed as accepting money for >> advocacy from a corporate and presented as "conflict of interest". This >> is the most absurd allegation which even seasoned propagandists would >> shy away from. >> >> Further he deceitfully persisted with the false “conflict of interest”, >> charge by suppressing scores of emails , tweets, posts, videos, film >> and TV interviews given to him and easily available in the public >> domain, as my firm stance against illegal surveillance, invasion of >> privacy, and violation of freedom of speech and expression and human >> rights. >> >> d. /Ph.D/: ** >> >> *Can a **mere research studentship**,**which I am still >> pursuing**,****be**the basis on which I was appointed at any forum?*It >> was used only to put an unsubstantiated charge of plagiarism for my >> character assassination. I preferred to change my guide then to “say >> sorry”, to her for the offenseI had not committed and continue with her. >> >> With a view to purposefully mislead the readers, the journalist grossly >> manipulated the facts around my PhD by deliberately obfuscating that I >> have steadfastly refuted “any academic wrong doing”. * >> * >> >> *The IIT has never charged me with this offense, no show ca**use has >> ever**been given to me and hence no action has been taken against >> me,*detailed evidence was given to the journalist who chose to >> deliberately ignore it in order to convey a premeditated message. IIT >> has the highest ethical code of conduct and so do I.And my PhD. is well >> underway.// >> >> // >> >> /*The letter of notable members of civil society.*/// >> >> The CS letter from Indiacarried the support of 10 individuals+1 author, >> some of whom claim to represent different organisations. I have worked >> with most who are in this space including Parminder, Prabir,Anja Kovacs, >> Chinmayi Arun, Rishab Bailey, Mishi Choudhary, Sunil Abraham; 7 Out of >> 10. Two of remaining 3 have attended a national conference on IG with me >> where Parminder was present through out. It is full of >> misrepresentation.Their claimsare absurd that: >> >> /1- They don’t know me/// >> >> /2. They haven’t worked with me and I am not active in this space./// >> >> /3. They don’t know how to reach me//./// >> >> /4. And I do not teach IG/ >> >> *My Response**:*** >> >> Ø *Not only do they know me quite well*** >> >> Ø *We have hosted joint events, *** >> >> Ø *We have served on organizational bodies together related to IG, *** >> >> Ø *We have appeared as panelists together on IG, *** >> >> Ø *We have traveled and worked together on IG, *** >> >> Ø *We have submitted joint inputs to government of India on IG, *** >> >> Ø *Prepared background papers together for multistakeholder dialogues >> and events on IG, *** >> >> Ø *Co-moderated dialogues and multistakeholder panels on IG. *** >> >> Ø *I receive emails from them, respond to them, they have appreciated >> and thanked me for my inputs and efforts. *** >> >> Ø *They have called me on my mobile phone *** >> >> Ø *They have visited me in person and with their teams to seek my >> inputs on their drafts. *** >> >> I am happy to compare and contrast my interventions and my work in the >> IG space with all of them individually or collectively. ** >> >> >> The ITRs submission of CS was jointly made by >> >> Ø Society for Knowledge commons represented by Rishab Bailey (author of >> the CS letter), >> >> Ø Internet Democracy Project (Anja Kovacs- co-signatory), >> >> Ø Free Software Movement of India (Kiran Chandra (General Secretary- >> co-signatory), >> >> Ø Delhi Science Forum (Prabir – co-signatory), >> >> Ø Media For Change( represented by me) >> >> Ø SFLC.in (Mishi – co-signatory). >> >> Ø Ms. Chinmayi Arun was part of all the 4 day meetings and discussions >> and is on all the emails but did not finally submit the ITRs formal >> response. >> >> >> >> >> ​ >> >> >> >> More evidence of Joint work (There’s a lot but I do not wish to burden >> this list)- >> >> One of the recent multistakeholder meetingon IGthat I co-organized >> including drafting the background paper with Ms. Anja Kovacs from the >> Internet democracy project (yes we have worked together and collaborated >> on many occasions and oftentake same positions publicly), was on the >> 29^th January, 2014. >> >> >> >> Where I worked with >> >> >> >> 1. Anja Kovacs, IDP (co-signatory) >> >> 2. Sunil Abraham , CIS (cosignatory)- represented by Snehashish Ghosh >> >> 3. Mishi Chowdhary, SFLC.in (Cosignatory)- represented by Prashanth Sugathan >> >> 4. Ms. Chinmayi Arun Co-moderated the meeting with me and Ms. Anja Kovacs >> >> >> >> >> ​ >> >> _ >> >> >> >> * >> * >> >> *Interlinkages between all the authors of the India CS letter:*** >> >> >> >> Ms Anja Kovacs, IDP is a cosignatory & a CIS fellow and has also worked >> for ITfC which is represented on this letter by Mr. Parminder Jeet >> Singh, Ms. Chinmayi Arun from CCG (is a cosignatory & also a CIS >> fellow), Mr. Sunil Abraham is the director of CIS, RishabBailey the >> author of the CS letter has been associated with IDP, and with SFLC >> (another co-signatory) and is now representing SKC which is currently >> represented on this letter by Mr. Prabir Purkayastha (co-signatory) who >> is also associated formally as an office bearer with the SFM represented >> on the letter by Mr. Kiran Chandra (co-signatory). All these are >> respected colleagues and have worked with me on the ITRs and many other >> IG related workshops and panels as mentioned above. >> >> >> >> CIS’s director Mr. Sunil Abraham has also served with me on multiple >> panels and bodies together and my interventions can be found online and >> at the CIS website >> >> http://cis-india.org/@@search?SearchableText=subi+chaturvedi >> >> >> They are all signatories to the letter. >> >> >> >> *Again, my heartfelt gratitude to all those who have written tome, or >> supported me. We have a very important task at hand, thank you again >> for reposing yourfaith and for believing in me. And I wish that at all >> times the dignity of the caucus be preserved and upheld. * >> >> >> Finally, I do not hold any grudges against those, including the >> journalist who may have been involved in this unfortunate and >> unwarranted personal attack. I continue to have the highest respect for >> the work that my colleagues do. >> >> >> I am look forward to working with all of you and will be available in >> Sao Paulo from the 21st and over email. Do feel free to reach out with >> any questions or comments you may have. I would be happy to participate >> in any meeting or related discussion and will continue to work to the >> best of my ability and do my utmost, towards the evolution of the IG >> ecosphere so that we have an internet, which remains free and open, >> which amplifies human rights and allows for permissionless innovation >> and connects the unconnected. >> >> >> More details about my IG interventions can be found on my blog here >> http://subichaturvedi.blogspot.in/ >> >> >> and *Contributions at the UN IGF : (Partial List) is available here for >> ready reference* >> >> https://www.google.co.in/search?q=igf+MAG+Subi+Chaturvedi+site:www.intgovforum.org&es_sm=91 >> >> I am equally thrilled that our collective inputs and suggestions are >> being taken on board. And I am also hopeful that the outcome document >> will reflect truly, what will emerge from the floor. Our friends in >> Brazil from the civil society and from across stakeholder groups have >> also done commendable work to bring us here. Delighted that it will be a >> multistakeholder panel, which will open Netmundial 2014 in Brazil. >> >> Many congratulations Nnenna, we are in great hands. Very proud to have >> you representing us and your address at the IGF 2013, in Bali was both >> profoundly evocative and stirring. I hope you will make time to >> emphasize the role that the Internet is playing especially in peace >> building and conflict transformation as well. Your tremendous and deeply >> inspiring work in Côte d'Ivoire underscores the importance of national >> and regional initiatives, along with intercessional work. We have a >> fantastic ambassador in you. And it might be an uphill climb for all of >> us but let's put our best foot forward. >> >> Looking forward to seeing you all in Sao Paulo soon. >> >> Safe travels, all. >> >> >> Warmest, >> >> >> Subi >> ---- >> >> Subi Chaturvedi >> >> Assistant Prof. Journalism & Comm, >> >> Lady Shri Ram College for Women (LSR), >> >> Delhi University, India >> >> Twitter:@subichaturvedi >> >> http://subichaturvedi.blogspot.in/ >> >> >> Member MAG, UN-IGF (Media & Civil Society) >> >> Member MAG, India-IGF (Civil Society) >> Convenor WG-India IGF >> Co-Chair, Netmundial (Civil Society) >> >> >> Founder & Hon. Managing Trustee, >> >> Media For Change >> >> >> Founder, Chief Mentor & Editor >> >> The Saltlist >> >> www.thesaltlist.org >> >> >> Independent DocumentaryFilmmaker, Photographer, >> >> Curator, Media Critic & Scholar >> >> >> PhD. Scholar, >> >> Indian Institute of Technology (IIT-D), New Delhi >> >> >> >> PS: >> >> >> Global CS Community who may not aware of my contribution here’s snapshot >> ABOUT me and my work specifically on internet /governances/ freedom of >> speech and expression: >> >> * >> * >> >> *IG specific Roles:* >> >> >> >> 1. Recipient of the NIXI (National Internet Exchange, India) >> fellowship for IG 2014-2015 >> >> 2. Co-Chair Netmundial 2014 >> >> 3. Convenor Working group Indian IGF MAG >> >> 4. Member MAG UN IGF 2014 >> >> 5. Member MAG India IGF 2013 >> >> 6. Member MAG UN-IGF 2013 >> >> 7. Co-Lead Breakout group- Multistakeholderism & Enhance cooperation >> IGF 2013 >> >> 8. Lead facilitator main focus session on principles of >> Multistakeholderism IGF 2013 >> >> 9. Member MAG IIGC 2013 >> >> 10. Member MAG, IIGC 2012 >> >> *Made several noteworthy contributions to the IGF and other global and >> national Internet governance processes and capacity building initiatives >> on information and communication especially for under-represented >> stakeholder groups in IG.* >> >> * >> * >> >> I’d be happy to provide detailed reports of my interventions and my >> contributions at each meeting attended or organised National or global. >> >> >> https://www.google.co.in/search?q=igf+MAG+Subi+Chaturvedi+site:www.intgovforum.org&es_sm=91#q=igf+MAG+Subi+Chaturvedi+site%3Awww.intgovforum.org&start=0 >> >> >> I have been teaching Journalism and Mass Communication including but not >> limited to papers on New Media technology (including IG) and Media, Law >> and Ethics, since the last 5 ½ years in the capcity of Assistant >> Professor at India’s leading liberal arts college for Women, part of >> Delhi University. >> >> I hold 3 gold medals in Anthropology, Psychology, and a gold medal in >> mass communication from the AJK MCRC, Jamia Millia Islamia, cleared the >> NET (which is a mandatory requirement for teaching at central >> universities in India), while a final year student in my first attempt >> and then hold a CGPA of 9.25/10 at the IIT-Das a part time registered >> PhD student doing my course work without leave from LSR, while taking >> full classes and contributing to the College immensely. >> >> My most recent article was published in the Hindu which is one of >> India’s most respected news daily as the lead opinion commentary on the >> 18^th of February- “for an unfettered internet”, and can be accessed here >> >> http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/for-an-unfettered-internet/article5699615.ece >> >> It calls for a review of the Indian government’s position on IG. >> >> An article for EPW (a prestigious journal) against Corporatisation of >> Media in India and the loss of pluraity which I have co-authored and the >> documentary film- Freedom Song on issues of Freedom of Speech and >> expression in India for PSBT, co directed with Mr. Paranjoy Guha >> Thakurta(an eminent journalist from India). >> >> http://www.epw.in/commentary/corporatisation-media.html >> >> The position that I often take isagainst corporatization and control of >> the media including the Internet by a few,be they governments, private >> sector including large small/corporate of any national origin, civil >> society group All my interventions, which are quite a few and >> substantive in their depth and coverage of issues are online on the IGF >> website. >> >> *This is just a partial list of some of the work that I have done in >> this academic year 2013-2014:* >> >> My article *“For an unfettered internet’, *was published as the lead >> opinion commentary in The Hindu, India's most respected news daily on >> why India needs to re-examine it's position on global Internet governance. >> >> _http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/for-an-unfettered-internet/article5700871.ece_ >> >> My co-directed critically acclaimed documentary FREEDOM SONG, a film on >> freedom of Speech and expression in contemporary India for PSBT was >> screened at theIIHS Bangalore City Campus this year and premiered at the >> prestigious Open Frame. Two of my curated projects, The Many Moods and >> Moments of Aung San Suu Kyi and ‘The Nobel Women for Peace Project’, >> were exhibited as part of HH. The Dalai Lama’s visit at LSR. >> >> >> In recognition of _my _*_contribution to Internet and society_*_,_I been >> awarded: >> >> 1) The prestigious NIXI (National Internet Exchange of India, GOI), >> >> Fellowship for Internet Governance 2013-2014. >> >> 2) I have been appointed as the first Indian woman from two >> stakeholdergroups ( civil society and media) on the United Nations –IGF >> MAG, for the second consecutive term. >> >> 3) I have also been invited to Co-Chair the Global Multistakeholder >> Meeting in Brazil on the Future of the Internet. >> >> 4) I have also been appointed as the convener of the working group of >> the India Internet Governance Forum (IGF) by the Chair from DeitY, >> Ministry of Communication & IT. And also been appointed on the MAG >> (Multistakeholder Advisory Group) of the India IGF (Internet Governance >> Forum) to be hosted by MOC&IT, India. >> >> 5) At the last Global IGF 2013, held at Bali, Indonesia. I contributed >> on several panels on Access and diversity, Relating national and >> regional IGFs, Broadband access and local content, emerging issues- >> Surveillance and a enhance cooperation (I also the remote moderator for >> it). And I also moderated and mentored DoT (MoC&IT), Government of >> India’s Open forum “Connecting the next Billion”. Additionally I also >> organized and spoke at the Main Focus session on Multistakeholderism as >> a panelist. >> >> 6) I also co-organised a multistakeholder panel discussion on “Will >> Internet and Social Media be a game changer for the next general >> election 2014 with senior leaders and ministers from the government and >> eminent journalists and editors at the India International Centre (IIC), >> New Delhi. >> >> 7) I was also a panelist with sr. editors on the role of media in >> promoting art at the global stage organized by exchange4media at IIC. >> >> 8) I was also a panelist at the National Convention on "Crisis of >> Capitalism and brazen onslaught on DEMOCRACY" , organized by the INSAF >> foundation at the constitution club for the session on SURVEILLANCE, >> STATE AND PERILS OF DEMOCRACY. With Mr. Prabir who is a cosignatory of >> the letter. >> >> 9) I was a panelist on IGF and the way forward organized by ORF, New >> Delhi. Ms. Anja Kovacs was my co-panelist a basic online search would >> reveal and expose the claims made in the letter. The ORF report is >> online with our interventions and images together. >> >> 10) I was also the key note speaker on Internet –a >> democratic space, at NALSAR along with eminent and sr. judges and >> lawyers of the supreme court on Social Media and Hate speech. Both Ms. >> Chinmayi Arun and Ms. Anja Kovacs were part of the same event. Ms. >> Kovacs was,moreover on the same session as I was. >> >> 11) I also organized and moderated a multitsakeholder >> panel discussion at the ITU-WSIS 2013, Geneva on, “ Ensuring Internet >> Access and Better Governance by Deepening Multistakeholderism- A >> Developing Nation Perspective with sr. ministers and heads of regional >> and national Internet & ICT initiatives. >> >> 12) Held a capacity building Workshop for the youth >> -"Towards a new Ethics of Cyberspace- Being a responsible online Digital >> Citizen with sr. industry leaders as key resource persons. >> >> 13) I also appeared as a distinguished panelist on >> national media on internet, new media regulation and social media, women >> safety and empowerment related issues, through the year. >> >> 14) I also organised and moderated the MEDIA CONGRESS- >> Panel on 'Government Surveillance vs Individual Privacy : Are they >> mutually exclusive?' with distinguished speakers: Dr. Usha Rmanathan >> eminent civil society activist, Dr. Govind, CEO NIXI, Mr. Pavan Duggal, >> Prof. Vibodh Parthasarathi and Ms. Shalini Singh. >> >> 15) I was also a panelist at the IMDEC 2013, Panel on >> “The Internet We Want: A Multistakeholder View” along with global >> leaders from civil society, industry, government and the technical >> community at FICCI. Mr. Sunil Abraham (CIS) was also an invited panelist. >> >> 16) I co-organised a multistakeholder dialogue on *The >> Future of the Internet, who should govern it & what is at stake for >> us*with sr. members of the government, industry, academia, technical >> community, media at IIC. The youth were also invited as end users to >> share their inputs and experiences. The background paper was jointly >> prepared by me and Ms. Anja Kovacs. >> >> 17) I also organized a youth meet with over 700 youth >> leaders from India on the Internet We Want- Conversation Series. >> >> 18) Another youth meet was organized by me at the >> Aligarh Muslim University, a minority institutionwith over 300 youth >> delegates from the minorities and the margins and sr. editors from the >> media on the role of media and youth in election 2014particularly the >> impact that social media and the internet can have in amplyfying >> participation of the youth. >> >> 19) I was also invited to conduct a leadership training >> workshop for the sr. management of TATA Sons and their group companies >> on social media. >> >> 20) I also conducted a third youth meet over 700 young >> leaders on the “Digital Agenda for the Youth and IG principals”. This >> was part of the global #FightBack campaign against surveillance and held >> on the world internet day. >> >> 21) I was also a invited to present my paper on >> Cybersecurity a multistakeholder perspective by ORF New Delhi part of >> the young voices policy forum. It was extremely well received. >> >> 22) I also led the new media outreach and supported the >> on ground activation for the national Internet Safety campaign for the >> youth in India in association with Data Security Council of India (A >> NASSCOM initiative). >> >> 23) I am a member of the International Association for >> Women in Radio and television (IAWRT) and the Internet Society (ISOC). >> >> >> >> >> warmest >> >> Subi >> ---- >> >> Subi Chaturvedi >> >> Assistant Prof. Journalism & Comm, >> >> Lady Shri Ram College for Women (LSR), >> >> Delhi University, India >> >> Twitter:@subichaturvedi >> >> http://subichaturvedi.blogspot.in/ >> >> >> Member MAG, UN-IGF (Media & Civil Society) >> >> Member MAG, India-IGF (Civil Society) >> >> Convenor WG-India IGF >> >> Co-Chair, Netmundial (Civil Society) >> >> >> Founder & Hon. Managing Trustee, >> >> Media For Change >> >> >> Founder, Chief Mentor & Editor >> >> The Saltlist >> >> www.thesaltlist.org >> >> >> Independent DocumentaryFilmmaker, Photographer, >> >> Curator, Media Critic & Scholar >> >> >> PhD. Scholar, >> >> Indian Institute of Technology (IIT-D), New Delhi >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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: From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Apr 19 21:19:24 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 06:49:24 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Breaking my silence on Netmundial related concerns raised by colleagues from India In-Reply-To: <53531AC5.2050004@itforchange.net> References: <535127F4.8010604@cafonso.ca> <53531AC5.2050004@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5353209C.9060901@itforchange.net> Subi's email says that there is no evidence that she is associated with corporate interests and have been representing them... Well, this is the crux of the issue - what or whom does she represent, and what is the basis of her ascendency to representational positions in multi stakeholder structures. It must be obvious that MetMundial Chair does not personally know Subi and therefore obviously someone proposed her name for civil society co chair... We know for sure that she did not go through any civil society nominations process, some of which got organised.... I also dont think that any civil society person or leader of any standing proposed her name to the Chair. (I may be wrong but then that can be easily corrected by the Chair, that civil society person(s) or Subi telling us the facts.) Now, if civil society did not recommend her to the Chair, then who did... This is the simple question we are asking... I do not, for the moment, even seek to challenge the Chair's right to act on any recommendation or not, or the appropriateness of the recommending party.... I just want to know - as a civil society person - who recommended her.... And of course, even Subi would know who recommended her, right?. Why does she not share that name(s) with us, and the air will really clear, about who pushed her into that position, and then it can be left to people to draw inferences, or not, about whose interests she may be representing. Or does Subi want to tell us that she simply has no idea, and that she was sitting at home with not the slightest premonition and the news suddenly arrived that she has been selected as NetMudial's CS co-chair. The draft NetMundial draft says: * Stakeholder representatives appointed to multistakeholder Internet governance processes should be selected through open and transparent processes. Different stakeholder groups should self-manage their processes based on inclusive, publicly known, well defined and accountable mechanisms. Therefore, we are not asking for something radical - let the organisers and Subi herself tell us, who recommended her to the position of co-chair. A very similar thing happened a few months back, which makes a pattern that cannot be ignored. We heard the news that Subi was made a MAG member. Now, again we know that she did not come through any civil society process whereas almost all other/earlier CS MAG members seem to have some through such a process. I understand that the journalist who did the Hindustan Times story sought this information from the MAG secretariat/ Chair but drew a blank. Now, again, the report of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, stamped now with the authority of the UN General Assembly clearly seeks transparency in the process of stakeholder representative selection and self-management of the process by different groups. Then why does the MAG chair/ secretariat and also Subi not tell us who recommended her to the MAG. Do we not have the right to know. Last point: There have been some concern here about public parading of (proven) plagiarism charges against Subi. The fact is that I do not care how people earn their degrees and do their PhDs... Everyone has skeletons in the cupboard which are best left there.... But, here again this issue comes up only with regard to the central question that we are seized of - whom or what does Subi represent in the positions that she is holding. There has been a certain slipperiness in her statements in this regard. If she is pushed about her civil society credential, she often says that she represents media, and at other times, that she represents the academic community .... Now, if indeed it is on the credential of academic community that she has come into these positions, then the current controversies regarding her standing and conduct in the concerned academic institutions is certainly of direct relevance to the issue of representation. That alone is the context of the plagiarism charges, and thus they are not of a personal nature but fully political. parminder PS: It is our job as civil society activists to oppose political corruption, and be relentless about it. Such work gets done at enormous personal costs, which I will not get into explaining here. But I think I have said and done all that I would want to do. Let me now focus on other important work. It is up to other civil society people now to do something about this issue or not. I for one will go out of the room if and when Subi speaks from the NetMundial stage as a civil society rep. On Sunday 20 April 2014 06:24 AM, parminder wrote: > > Dear Ian and Carlos, > > Perhaps it does not behove me to say this since I am quite junior to > both of you in the global IG civil society space - but then I feel > that it is my unhappy duty to say it: I am pained that you have put > your considerable reputation and goodwill in this space in service of > defending what patently is political corruption of the highest order, > that too with regard to a model of MSism which you both so vigorously > promote. > > Yes, this particular instance is one of pure and simple political > corruption of the highest order, the kind which normally immediately > produces reactions of revulsion and outrage in civil society > groups...It is not personal. Thousands teach in colleges and have > political and social ambitions, and take various kinds of routes to > pursue them; similarly thousands work in NGOs like I do. I dont think > any of the signatories of the letter from Indian CS groups was in any > kind of keen competition to be in NetMundial organisational positions. > So, it should not matter to us that much who becomes the top CS reps > to the MetMundial... In any case, such is the diversity and structural > dis-organisation of civil society that different, often very > unexpected, kinds of appointments from civil society regularly takes > place, and we may whisper and complain among ourselves but always let > it be... It is kind of part of being civil society. > > This present one is not such a case. And in my view, for anyone > willing to be on guard against such subversions, it is not difficult > to see the nature of the issue here. As said, it is a case of highest > political corruption.. Big business from the US, backed by some strong > political interests in that country, have been working in India for > 2-3 years now to subvert India's political processes around IG > basically with the objective to keep its voice silent on the global > level... There have been much discussion inside India lately on this > phenomenon including some news reports. Will cut this story short.... > What I am coming to is, it is as a part of this political strategy > that Sub was picked up and promoted as a 'civil society voice' in > India. India has a proud culture of vibrant democracy and a rather > mature civil society, whereby it is of course absolutely unacceptable > for us, Indian civil society groups, that such a political subversion > and corruption takes place. This was and remains the cause of our > strong reaction. > > When, as they say in India, we saw the water go over the head, with > Subi's appointment as civil society co-chair of NetMundial, Indian > civil society groups took it as their responsibility to bring the > facts to the table, and make global actors cognizant about them. It is > not an easy decision to take - we all know that while one has to work > hard and devote much time to such kind of a thing, there will also > always be considerable comebacks, because we are dealing with actors > who are extremely resourcefully (obvious, when a completely unknown > person can suddenly be placed at the CS head position of a major > global meeting), and therefore expectation of counter personal > attacks, as indeed have been happening. It perhaps is this reason that > most of the other signatories of the letter have not come out publicly > on this list to present and push the case. (BTW, I may disclose that I > was neither the party to initiate the collective letter nor the news > item in Hindustan Times; just so that you all know.) > > What was surprising is that, when practically all civil society groups > in India, who are engaged with IG work - and have extensive work > relationships with all other global actors, often stronger than they > have among themselves - came out to present the facts on the ground > about the inappropriateness of Subi's selections, practically no one > from the global civil society expressed real support. (Yes, a good > quote from my email to be used by Subi.) I see this as primarily the > fault of the civil society leadership. They cannot be doing this with > their national CS partners, especially of a country with one seventh > of world's population and whose general maturity of civil society > processes cannot easily be questioned. But the fact that this did > happen points to serious structural flaws in the form and role of > civil society, especially its leadership, in MSist spaces. No, it is > not the civil society groups from India who lost here - it is the > global MSist civil society that has lost, and it may need to > introspect deeply about it, if it ever will... > > Apparently, the testimony of practically all the civil society groups > engaged with IG in India was not enough... Then came**this > investigative report > from > one of the largest and most-respected dailies of India. A report which > I know was being worked for more than 2 months. With extensive > interactions inter alia with all people who have been > namedadverselyin the report... I also happen to know that the involved > people personally met the senior most editors of the newspaper... All > opportunities for defence and clarification were given, and all > testimonies and material accepted. Senior editors thoroughly went over > all the details overs many days. Do not under-estimate the difficulty > and the extent of caution required with regard to a news report like > this one which implicates one of the most powerful and entrenched > lobbyist in the capital of India. For a long time when the report did > not appear, I actually thought, well the obvious has happened! But the > newspaper stood its ground and came out with a report presenting just > those facts about which it had absolute evidence, and which met their > very high reporting standards. > > So, you guys dont believe the statement of a full group of Indian > civil society organisations, and you do not believe even the > investigative news report in one of the most highly regarded > newspapers of India, a report which was researched for 2 months. Well, > in that case, it really must take something to make you believe - or > perhaps, you have decided your position already, which is not to rock > the MS (multistakeholder) boat as the highest priority, with all else > paling in comparison. > > Anywhere else, a case of this kind, where first the whole civil > society in an area makes a case, which is then supported by a well- > researched news story, will be an open and shut case for global civil > society to support. But not on this occasion...This is something you > all guys need to answer. There is nothing more for us, of Indian civil > society groups, to say... We are proud that we did a very difficult > civil society task of exposing political corruption, took an > 'insistent' public stand against it, and refused to be cowed down by > cat calls that have become customary on this list whenever any issue > implicating the power of big business or the US is raised..... > > One last point, though I think it may be superfluous, because you all > know and understand it. People here have been saying that there is no > evidence, which is quite surprising because this is one of few rare > cases (and thus must be pushed hard and fully capitalised on) where > there is actually considerable evidence of political corruption. Now, > this is not a court proceeding, really. Think of when, say in our own > countries, an appointment of an industry watchdog is made, or for an > anti- corruption body. What is the standard of knowledge and evidence > on which civil society will act on what they may regard as complete > inappropriateness of an appointment - and perhaps write petitions, > boycott proceedings, and so on... Just that level of knowledge and > evidence is needed in this case as well. And it is as clear as > daylight that such knowledge and evidence is indeed available. To act > or not, and whether to denounce or make light of those who indeed are > doing their civil society work, remains your own respective political > decisions. I see that you are inviting Subi to remain undeterred and > continue to engage with civil society here. We too are going to remain > undeterred in doing what we see as the real CS work. > > Best regards > > parminder > > PS: I will not respond to Subi's 'clarifications', and I can > understand her desperation as well the discomfort of those whose huge > interests are affected by this.... However, at one place in her recent > email there is a specific reference to my name, mentioning that her > recent appointment to some position in the WG on India IGF was with my > consent; this is lie typical of much of her statements ... There was > no such consent, something which is very easy to verify because the > room had around 30 people from gov, industry and CS, and there is also > avaiable an official document coming from the meeting. > > I do however see that the inference from the quote of Marilyn Cade was > an inadvertent error on the part of the journalist. > > > On Friday 18 April 2014 06:56 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> Absolutely agree with Ian, including the three wishes. >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 04/18/2014 12:48 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>> Subi, >>> >>> It would have taken a lot of courage to write that, and to engage here. >>> I am very glad you did,and thank you for doing so, because it will help >>> to eventually clear the air. >>> >>> My first wish is that, whatever the reactions are to your post, you will >>> continue to engage here with the rest of civil society interested in >>> internet governance. It’s not always a friendly space, as others have >>> discovered, but the interchange and dialogue among people with different >>> perspectives here is important, and leads to more constructive and >>> valuable inputs for civil society as a whole. Whatever the reactions to >>> your post are, I hope you continue to engage here. >>> >>> My second wish is that everyone involved in this dispute can find a way >>> to move past these issues. That’s not going to be easy, and perhaps not >>> immediate, but it is important we do so. >>> >>> My third and final wish is that my first and second wishes come to fruition! >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Subi Chaturvedi >>> *Sent:* Friday, April 18, 2014 7:56 AM >>> *To:*governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> *Cc:*bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> *Subject:* [governance] Breaking my silence on Netmundial related >>> concerns raised by colleagues from India >>> >>> >>> Dear CS colleagues and friends, >>> >>> >>> This has reference to the article published in HT on 8^th April, 2014 >>> which has been shared and referred to on this mailing list, multiple times. >>> >>> At the outset I want to thank all of you who have written to me showing >>> solidarity against this vicious personal attack, based on wrong, >>> misleading and manipulated information, indicative of a perverse mind, >>> as you'd realize after, going through this post. >>> >>> I had chosen to maintain silence in the face of repeatedand grave >>> provocation but the attacks continue unabated, thwarting and disrupting >>> all attempts at having any civilized conversation about the key issues >>> that concern global CS, even on the eve of Netmundial. The reason why >>> we've invested our energy, faith and considerable amount of time >>> engaging with the process, in the first place. >>> >>> I am now also compelled to write this email, for it is unfair on those >>> who have shown solidarity with me by writing to me or defending me >>> publicly on this list and elsewhere, to be left in this position without >>> a minimal comment from me.I wish to assure global civil society that our >>> views are being shared, represented and recognised. I have made multiple >>> interventions on the calls as well as over emails and continue to work >>> across time zones to ensure that our views are reflected. Anriette, my >>> colleague from the MAG, has done a fairly balanced assessment of the >>> situation though, and I completely agree with her, we have real >>> challenges ahead of us. I think our time would be utilised better if we >>> focus on the issues at hand- in Netmundial, I see a significant >>> oppurtunity for change. >>> >>> In the internet, I see not just a source of knowledge but also an >>> amplifier of dissent and an enabler of human rights and permissionless >>> innovation. I have been a free speech activist and have fought for these >>> issues long and hard and therefore this is deeply painful. My >>> interventions are available publicly and a basic name search would >>> reveal my interventions at the global IGF as well on national media in >>> India. Many of these national meetings have been with my friends and >>> respected colleagues from civil society in India and remain on their >>> websites or any outreach platforms of communication. At the last India >>> IGF MAG meeting where three of the co-signatories, who are also on the >>> MAG, made interventions with me. Their interventions and mine >>> capturedare in the official minutes. In the same meeting I was also >>> appointed as the convenor of the Working group of the India IGF with the >>> knowledge and consent of Mr.Parmindar from ITfC and with consensus from >>> the floor. >>> >>> My work in the Internet Governance Space and related areas of media and >>> communication, deepening democracy and public policy can be found on my >>> blog *http://subichaturvedi.blogspot.in/* >>> >>> Now Iask all of you, who have been relentlessly subjected to the said >>> article and appeals by my respectable colleagues and collaborators from >>> Indian CS- was it appropriate toincludeme in this story related to >>> surveillance by a corporate? Is there any connection at all? Other than >>> to cause harm to me; in which they miserably failed.As identified in >>> Ian’s email, apart from being a vicious personal attack, the article is >>> manipulative on multiple levels and makesseveral inaccurate assertions. >>> >>> Notwithstanding this unfortunate exception, I want to assure all of you >>> that journalism in India is free, fair for the most part, and aharbinger >>> of truth and justice. I would urge you not to judge Indian media based >>> on this article. >>> >>> I submit the following for your consideration:the portions in italics >>> are direct quotes from the same article. >>> >>> . >>> >>> a. /“//Emails accessed by HT suggest that Bhatia championed >>> Chaturvedi's rise in Indian internet governance circles” ./ >>> >>> You would surely notice that while pdfs of all charges were hyperlinked, >>> this allegation conspicuously remains unsubstantiated and any proof to >>> the effect is missing fromthe story. I challenge anyone to put out any >>> evidence of anyone- either me or anyone, at all doing any advocacy for >>> me to be appointed as the co-chair of Netmundial or on the MAG. It is >>> quite unfortunate that my work and my merit should be called into >>> question. Undermining all multistakeholder processes. However malicious >>> even the article does not make this extrapolation that Mr. Parminder >>> Jeet singh repeatedly continuesto make. Despite a clarification on the >>> 4th of April, 2014 issued by the distinguished academician and General >>> Chair of the Meeting Minister Virgilio Almeida. >>> >>> >>> >>> b. “/Chaturvedi has also publicly acknowledged a former AT&T >>> official, Marylin Cade as a "coach and mentor”:/ >>> >>> >>> >>> / /I quote the same tweet: “frm (from) Ms. Marilyn Cade *_coach and >>> Mentor other proposals_*and IGF should limit it’s own”. >>> >>> Inline images 1 >>> >>> In plain violation of the most basic tenets of journalism concocting >>> evidence, he disingenuously parades my tweet about Ms. Cade’s comment at >>> the UN MAG to “coach and mentor other proposals and limit proposals from >>> the MAG itself” as my “public acknowledgement” of Ms. Cade being my >>> “coach and mentor”. >>> >>> c. “/She was also paid upwards of //Rs.// //2.3 lakh for her role at >>> a FICCI-led conference on internet governance. Subsequently, she also >>> received part-funding from FICCI to attend an international conference. >>> This raises a clear conflict of interest since she was on board as a >>> civil society representative, but accepted payments from industry and >>> corporate bodies”./ >>> >>> He knowingly suppressed the context of the Rs.2.3 lakh (3,814 USD), >>> payment by the industry association and presented it as “conflict of >>> interest”. The journalist knew fully well that the payment was a >>> reimbursement of costs incurred at the request of the conference >>> secretariat to produce professional videos, hire resources, material and >>> camera costs, still photography, new media activation and related >>> hardware and studio costs. He knew but purposefully left out my >>> extensive contribution to the conference as a speaker and session >>> organizer on a pro bono basis. He deliberately misrepresented in spite >>> of knowing that the travel assistance given by the industry association >>> was contributed by ISOC (Internet Society) and remaining by NIXI >>> (National Internet Exchange of India). He already knew but hid that >>> both organisations routinely provide travel assistance to scores of >>> civil society representatives, including to some who authored the said >>> letter. >>> >>> >>> This CANNOT under any circumstances be construed as accepting money for >>> advocacy from a corporate and presented as "conflict of interest". This >>> is the most absurd allegation which even seasoned propagandists would >>> shy away from. >>> >>> Further he deceitfully persisted with the false “conflict of interest”, >>> charge by suppressing scores of emails , tweets, posts, videos, film >>> and TV interviews given to him and easily available in the public >>> domain, as my firm stance against illegal surveillance, invasion of >>> privacy, and violation of freedom of speech and expression and human >>> rights. >>> >>> d. /Ph.D/: ** >>> >>> *Can a **mere research studentship**,**which I am still >>> pursuing**,****be**the basis on which I was appointed at any forum?*It >>> was used only to put an unsubstantiated charge of plagiarism for my >>> character assassination. I preferred to change my guide then to “say >>> sorry”, to her for the offenseI had not committed and continue with her. >>> >>> With a view to purposefully mislead the readers, the journalist grossly >>> manipulated the facts around my PhD by deliberately obfuscating that I >>> have steadfastly refuted “any academic wrong doing”. * >>> * >>> >>> *The IIT has never charged me with this offense, no show ca**use has >>> ever**been given to me and hence no action has been taken against >>> me,*detailed evidence was given to the journalist who chose to >>> deliberately ignore it in order to convey a premeditated message. IIT >>> has the highest ethical code of conduct and so do I.And my PhD. is well >>> underway.// >>> >>> // >>> >>> /*The letter of notable members of civil society.*/// >>> >>> The CS letter from Indiacarried the support of 10 individuals+1 author, >>> some of whom claim to represent different organisations. I have worked >>> with most who are in this space including Parminder, Prabir,Anja Kovacs, >>> Chinmayi Arun, Rishab Bailey, Mishi Choudhary, Sunil Abraham; 7 Out of >>> 10. Two of remaining 3 have attended a national conference on IG with me >>> where Parminder was present through out. It is full of >>> misrepresentation.Their claimsare absurd that: >>> >>> /1- They don’t know me/// >>> >>> /2. They haven’t worked with me and I am not active in this space./// >>> >>> /3. They don’t know how to reach me//./// >>> >>> /4. And I do not teach IG/ >>> >>> *My Response**:*** >>> >>> Ø *Not only do they know me quite well*** >>> >>> Ø *We have hosted joint events, *** >>> >>> Ø *We have served on organizational bodies together related to IG, *** >>> >>> Ø *We have appeared as panelists together on IG, *** >>> >>> Ø *We have traveled and worked together on IG, *** >>> >>> Ø *We have submitted joint inputs to government of India on IG, *** >>> >>> Ø *Prepared background papers together for multistakeholder dialogues >>> and events on IG, *** >>> >>> Ø *Co-moderated dialogues and multistakeholder panels on IG. *** >>> >>> Ø *I receive emails from them, respond to them, they have appreciated >>> and thanked me for my inputs and efforts. *** >>> >>> Ø *They have called me on my mobile phone *** >>> >>> Ø *They have visited me in person and with their teams to seek my >>> inputs on their drafts. *** >>> >>> I am happy to compare and contrast my interventions and my work in the >>> IG space with all of them individually or collectively. ** >>> >>> >>> The ITRs submission of CS was jointly made by >>> >>> Ø Society for Knowledge commons represented by Rishab Bailey (author of >>> the CS letter), >>> >>> Ø Internet Democracy Project (Anja Kovacs- co-signatory), >>> >>> Ø Free Software Movement of India (Kiran Chandra (General Secretary- >>> co-signatory), >>> >>> Ø Delhi Science Forum (Prabir – co-signatory), >>> >>> Ø Media For Change( represented by me) >>> >>> Ø SFLC.in (Mishi – co-signatory). >>> >>> Ø Ms. Chinmayi Arun was part of all the 4 day meetings and discussions >>> and is on all the emails but did not finally submit the ITRs formal >>> response. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ​ >>> >>> >>> >>> More evidence of Joint work (There’s a lot but I do not wish to burden >>> this list)- >>> >>> One of the recent multistakeholder meetingon IGthat I co-organized >>> including drafting the background paper with Ms. Anja Kovacs from the >>> Internet democracy project (yes we have worked together and collaborated >>> on many occasions and oftentake same positions publicly), was on the >>> 29^th January, 2014. >>> >>> >>> >>> Where I worked with >>> >>> >>> >>> 1. Anja Kovacs, IDP (co-signatory) >>> >>> 2. Sunil Abraham , CIS (cosignatory)- represented by Snehashish Ghosh >>> >>> 3. Mishi Chowdhary, SFLC.in (Cosignatory)- represented by Prashanth Sugathan >>> >>> 4. Ms. Chinmayi Arun Co-moderated the meeting with me and Ms. Anja Kovacs >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ​ >>> >>> _ >>> >>> >>> >>> * >>> * >>> >>> *Interlinkages between all the authors of the India CS letter:*** >>> >>> >>> >>> Ms Anja Kovacs, IDP is a cosignatory & a CIS fellow and has also worked >>> for ITfC which is represented on this letter by Mr. Parminder Jeet >>> Singh, Ms. Chinmayi Arun from CCG (is a cosignatory & also a CIS >>> fellow), Mr. Sunil Abraham is the director of CIS, RishabBailey the >>> author of the CS letter has been associated with IDP, and with SFLC >>> (another co-signatory) and is now representing SKC which is currently >>> represented on this letter by Mr. Prabir Purkayastha (co-signatory) who >>> is also associated formally as an office bearer with the SFM represented >>> on the letter by Mr. Kiran Chandra (co-signatory). All these are >>> respected colleagues and have worked with me on the ITRs and many other >>> IG related workshops and panels as mentioned above. >>> >>> >>> >>> CIS’s director Mr. Sunil Abraham has also served with me on multiple >>> panels and bodies together and my interventions can be found online and >>> at the CIS website >>> >>> http://cis-india.org/@@search?SearchableText=subi+chaturvedi >>> >>> >>> They are all signatories to the letter. >>> >>> >>> >>> *Again, my heartfelt gratitude to all those who have written tome, or >>> supported me. We have a very important task at hand, thank you again >>> for reposing yourfaith and for believing in me. And I wish that at all >>> times the dignity of the caucus be preserved and upheld. * >>> >>> >>> Finally, I do not hold any grudges against those, including the >>> journalist who may have been involved in this unfortunate and >>> unwarranted personal attack. I continue to have the highest respect for >>> the work that my colleagues do. >>> >>> >>> I am look forward to working with all of you and will be available in >>> Sao Paulo from the 21st and over email. Do feel free to reach out with >>> any questions or comments you may have. I would be happy to participate >>> in any meeting or related discussion and will continue to work to the >>> best of my ability and do my utmost, towards the evolution of the IG >>> ecosphere so that we have an internet, which remains free and open, >>> which amplifies human rights and allows for permissionless innovation >>> and connects the unconnected. >>> >>> >>> More details about my IG interventions can be found on my blog here >>> http://subichaturvedi.blogspot.in/ >>> >>> >>> and *Contributions at the UN IGF : (Partial List) is available here for >>> ready reference* >>> >>> https://www.google.co.in/search?q=igf+MAG+Subi+Chaturvedi+site:www.intgovforum.org&es_sm=91 >>> >>> I am equally thrilled that our collective inputs and suggestions are >>> being taken on board. And I am also hopeful that the outcome document >>> will reflect truly, what will emerge from the floor. Our friends in >>> Brazil from the civil society and from across stakeholder groups have >>> also done commendable work to bring us here. Delighted that it will be a >>> multistakeholder panel, which will open Netmundial 2014 in Brazil. >>> >>> Many congratulations Nnenna, we are in great hands. Very proud to have >>> you representing us and your address at the IGF 2013, in Bali was both >>> profoundly evocative and stirring. I hope you will make time to >>> emphasize the role that the Internet is playing especially in peace >>> building and conflict transformation as well. Your tremendous and deeply >>> inspiring work in Côte d'Ivoire underscores the importance of national >>> and regional initiatives, along with intercessional work. We have a >>> fantastic ambassador in you. And it might be an uphill climb for all of >>> us but let's put our best foot forward. >>> >>> Looking forward to seeing you all in Sao Paulo soon. >>> >>> Safe travels, all. >>> >>> >>> Warmest, >>> >>> >>> Subi >>> ---- >>> >>> Subi Chaturvedi >>> >>> Assistant Prof. Journalism & Comm, >>> >>> Lady Shri Ram College for Women (LSR), >>> >>> Delhi University, India >>> >>> Twitter:@subichaturvedi >>> >>> http://subichaturvedi.blogspot.in/ >>> >>> >>> Member MAG, UN-IGF (Media & Civil Society) >>> >>> Member MAG, India-IGF (Civil Society) >>> Convenor WG-India IGF >>> Co-Chair, Netmundial (Civil Society) >>> >>> >>> Founder & Hon. Managing Trustee, >>> >>> Media For Change >>> >>> >>> Founder, Chief Mentor & Editor >>> >>> The Saltlist >>> >>> www.thesaltlist.org >>> >>> >>> Independent DocumentaryFilmmaker, Photographer, >>> >>> Curator, Media Critic & Scholar >>> >>> >>> PhD. Scholar, >>> >>> Indian Institute of Technology (IIT-D), New Delhi >>> >>> >>> >>> PS: >>> >>> >>> Global CS Community who may not aware of my contribution here’s snapshot >>> ABOUT me and my work specifically on internet /governances/ freedom of >>> speech and expression: >>> >>> * >>> * >>> >>> *IG specific Roles:* >>> >>> >>> >>> 1. Recipient of the NIXI (National Internet Exchange, India) >>> fellowship for IG 2014-2015 >>> >>> 2. Co-Chair Netmundial 2014 >>> >>> 3. Convenor Working group Indian IGF MAG >>> >>> 4. Member MAG UN IGF 2014 >>> >>> 5. Member MAG India IGF 2013 >>> >>> 6. Member MAG UN-IGF 2013 >>> >>> 7. Co-Lead Breakout group- Multistakeholderism & Enhance cooperation >>> IGF 2013 >>> >>> 8. Lead facilitator main focus session on principles of >>> Multistakeholderism IGF 2013 >>> >>> 9. Member MAG IIGC 2013 >>> >>> 10. Member MAG, IIGC 2012 >>> >>> *Made several noteworthy contributions to the IGF and other global and >>> national Internet governance processes and capacity building initiatives >>> on information and communication especially for under-represented >>> stakeholder groups in IG.* >>> >>> * >>> * >>> >>> I’d be happy to provide detailed reports of my interventions and my >>> contributions at each meeting attended or organised National or global. >>> >>> >>> https://www.google.co.in/search?q=igf+MAG+Subi+Chaturvedi+site:www.intgovforum.org&es_sm=91#q=igf+MAG+Subi+Chaturvedi+site%3Awww.intgovforum.org&start=0 >>> >>> >>> I have been teaching Journalism and Mass Communication including but not >>> limited to papers on New Media technology (including IG) and Media, Law >>> and Ethics, since the last 5 ½ years in the capcity of Assistant >>> Professor at India’s leading liberal arts college for Women, part of >>> Delhi University. >>> >>> I hold 3 gold medals in Anthropology, Psychology, and a gold medal in >>> mass communication from the AJK MCRC, Jamia Millia Islamia, cleared the >>> NET (which is a mandatory requirement for teaching at central >>> universities in India), while a final year student in my first attempt >>> and then hold a CGPA of 9.25/10 at the IIT-Das a part time registered >>> PhD student doing my course work without leave from LSR, while taking >>> full classes and contributing to the College immensely. >>> >>> My most recent article was published in the Hindu which is one of >>> India’s most respected news daily as the lead opinion commentary on the >>> 18^th of February- “for an unfettered internet”, and can be accessed here >>> >>> http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/for-an-unfettered-internet/article5699615.ece >>> >>> It calls for a review of the Indian government’s position on IG. >>> >>> An article for EPW (a prestigious journal) against Corporatisation of >>> Media in India and the loss of pluraity which I have co-authored and the >>> documentary film- Freedom Song on issues of Freedom of Speech and >>> expression in India for PSBT, co directed with Mr. Paranjoy Guha >>> Thakurta(an eminent journalist from India). >>> >>> http://www.epw.in/commentary/corporatisation-media.html >>> >>> The position that I often take isagainst corporatization and control of >>> the media including the Internet by a few,be they governments, private >>> sector including large small/corporate of any national origin, civil >>> society group All my interventions, which are quite a few and >>> substantive in their depth and coverage of issues are online on the IGF >>> website. >>> >>> *This is just a partial list of some of the work that I have done in >>> this academic year 2013-2014:* >>> >>> My article *“For an unfettered internet’, *was published as the lead >>> opinion commentary in The Hindu, India's most respected news daily on >>> why India needs to re-examine it's position on global Internet governance. >>> >>> _http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/for-an-unfettered-internet/article5700871.ece_ >>> >>> My co-directed critically acclaimed documentary FREEDOM SONG, a film on >>> freedom of Speech and expression in contemporary India for PSBT was >>> screened at theIIHS Bangalore City Campus this year and premiered at the >>> prestigious Open Frame. Two of my curated projects, The Many Moods and >>> Moments of Aung San Suu Kyi and ‘The Nobel Women for Peace Project’, >>> were exhibited as part of HH. The Dalai Lama’s visit at LSR. >>> >>> >>> In recognition of _my _*_contribution to Internet and society_*_,_I been >>> awarded: >>> >>> 1) The prestigious NIXI (National Internet Exchange of India, GOI), >>> >>> Fellowship for Internet Governance 2013-2014. >>> >>> 2) I have been appointed as the first Indian woman from two >>> stakeholdergroups ( civil society and media) on the United Nations –IGF >>> MAG, for the second consecutive term. >>> >>> 3) I have also been invited to Co-Chair the Global Multistakeholder >>> Meeting in Brazil on the Future of the Internet. >>> >>> 4) I have also been appointed as the convener of the working group of >>> the India Internet Governance Forum (IGF) by the Chair from DeitY, >>> Ministry of Communication & IT. And also been appointed on the MAG >>> (Multistakeholder Advisory Group) of the India IGF (Internet Governance >>> Forum) to be hosted by MOC&IT, India. >>> >>> 5) At the last Global IGF 2013, held at Bali, Indonesia. I contributed >>> on several panels on Access and diversity, Relating national and >>> regional IGFs, Broadband access and local content, emerging issues- >>> Surveillance and a enhance cooperation (I also the remote moderator for >>> it). And I also moderated and mentored DoT (MoC&IT), Government of >>> India’s Open forum “Connecting the next Billion”. Additionally I also >>> organized and spoke at the Main Focus session on Multistakeholderism as >>> a panelist. >>> >>> 6) I also co-organised a multistakeholder panel discussion on “Will >>> Internet and Social Media be a game changer for the next general >>> election 2014 with senior leaders and ministers from the government and >>> eminent journalists and editors at the India International Centre (IIC), >>> New Delhi. >>> >>> 7) I was also a panelist with sr. editors on the role of media in >>> promoting art at the global stage organized by exchange4media at IIC. >>> >>> 8) I was also a panelist at the National Convention on "Crisis of >>> Capitalism and brazen onslaught on DEMOCRACY" , organized by the INSAF >>> foundation at the constitution club for the session on SURVEILLANCE, >>> STATE AND PERILS OF DEMOCRACY. With Mr. Prabir who is a cosignatory of >>> the letter. >>> >>> 9) I was a panelist on IGF and the way forward organized by ORF, New >>> Delhi. Ms. Anja Kovacs was my co-panelist a basic online search would >>> reveal and expose the claims made in the letter. The ORF report is >>> online with our interventions and images together. >>> >>> 10) I was also the key note speaker on Internet –a >>> democratic space, at NALSAR along with eminent and sr. judges and >>> lawyers of the supreme court on Social Media and Hate speech. Both Ms. >>> Chinmayi Arun and Ms. Anja Kovacs were part of the same event. Ms. >>> Kovacs was,moreover on the same session as I was. >>> >>> 11) I also organized and moderated a multitsakeholder >>> panel discussion at the ITU-WSIS 2013, Geneva on, “ Ensuring Internet >>> Access and Better Governance by Deepening Multistakeholderism- A >>> Developing Nation Perspective with sr. ministers and heads of regional >>> and national Internet & ICT initiatives. >>> >>> 12) Held a capacity building Workshop for the youth >>> -"Towards a new Ethics of Cyberspace- Being a responsible online Digital >>> Citizen with sr. industry leaders as key resource persons. >>> >>> 13) I also appeared as a distinguished panelist on >>> national media on internet, new media regulation and social media, women >>> safety and empowerment related issues, through the year. >>> >>> 14) I also organised and moderated the MEDIA CONGRESS- >>> Panel on 'Government Surveillance vs Individual Privacy : Are they >>> mutually exclusive?' with distinguished speakers: Dr. Usha Rmanathan >>> eminent civil society activist, Dr. Govind, CEO NIXI, Mr. Pavan Duggal, >>> Prof. Vibodh Parthasarathi and Ms. Shalini Singh. >>> >>> 15) I was also a panelist at the IMDEC 2013, Panel on >>> “The Internet We Want: A Multistakeholder View” along with global >>> leaders from civil society, industry, government and the technical >>> community at FICCI. Mr. Sunil Abraham (CIS) was also an invited panelist. >>> >>> 16) I co-organised a multistakeholder dialogue on *The >>> Future of the Internet, who should govern it & what is at stake for >>> us*with sr. members of the government, industry, academia, technical >>> community, media at IIC. The youth were also invited as end users to >>> share their inputs and experiences. The background paper was jointly >>> prepared by me and Ms. Anja Kovacs. >>> >>> 17) I also organized a youth meet with over 700 youth >>> leaders from India on the Internet We Want- Conversation Series. >>> >>> 18) Another youth meet was organized by me at the >>> Aligarh Muslim University, a minority institutionwith over 300 youth >>> delegates from the minorities and the margins and sr. editors from the >>> media on the role of media and youth in election 2014particularly the >>> impact that social media and the internet can have in amplyfying >>> participation of the youth. >>> >>> 19) I was also invited to conduct a leadership training >>> workshop for the sr. management of TATA Sons and their group companies >>> on social media. >>> >>> 20) I also conducted a third youth meet over 700 young >>> leaders on the “Digital Agenda for the Youth and IG principals”. This >>> was part of the global #FightBack campaign against surveillance and held >>> on the world internet day. >>> >>> 21) I was also a invited to present my paper on >>> Cybersecurity a multistakeholder perspective by ORF New Delhi part of >>> the young voices policy forum. It was extremely well received. >>> >>> 22) I also led the new media outreach and supported the >>> on ground activation for the national Internet Safety campaign for the >>> youth in India in association with Data Security Council of India (A >>> NASSCOM initiative). >>> >>> 23) I am a member of the International Association for >>> Women in Radio and television (IAWRT) and the Internet Society (ISOC). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> warmest >>> >>> Subi >>> ---- >>> >>> Subi Chaturvedi >>> >>> Assistant Prof. Journalism & Comm, >>> >>> Lady Shri Ram College for Women (LSR), >>> >>> Delhi University, India >>> >>> Twitter:@subichaturvedi >>> >>> http://subichaturvedi.blogspot.in/ >>> >>> >>> Member MAG, UN-IGF (Media & Civil Society) >>> >>> Member MAG, India-IGF (Civil Society) >>> >>> Convenor WG-India IGF >>> >>> Co-Chair, Netmundial (Civil Society) >>> >>> >>> Founder & Hon. Managing Trustee, >>> >>> Media For Change >>> >>> >>> Founder, Chief Mentor & Editor >>> >>> The Saltlist >>> >>> www.thesaltlist.org >>> >>> >>> Independent DocumentaryFilmmaker, Photographer, >>> >>> Curator, Media Critic & Scholar >>> >>> >>> PhD. Scholar, >>> >>> Indian Institute of Technology (IIT-D), New Delhi >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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: From iza at anr.org Sun Apr 20 00:07:31 2014 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 13:07:31 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Breaking my silence on Netmundial related concerns raised by colleagues from India In-Reply-To: <5353209C.9060901@itforchange.net> References: <535127F4.8010604@cafonso.ca> <53531AC5.2050004@itforchange.net> <5353209C.9060901@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Frankly, I think this topic is far less important than the substantive topics. I understand how Parminder and other Indian CS friends feel. I also find Subi's message fairly reasonable. Beyond that, I hesitate to discuss or make judgement on which side is right. It is very difficult and sometimes inappropriate to get into "local" issues from outside. It is very difficult or impossible to find what is true inside India on this topic and I rather like to refrain from making judgement. Newspaper reporting is important, but I don't trust most big media per se. I don't know the reputation of HT. Making judgement of a person by 1 article seem to be not sufficient, and I don't have much time to read more ;-) If I have some problem within CS circle in Japan, or with other stakeholder in Japan on local issues, then I would not like to ask outsiders to support or understand the issue that much. Yes, this is somehow linked to the "global" multistakeholder governance, and NETMundial or IGF MAG (I am the member of MAG), but again, I am not in the position to make judgement. Finally, NETMundial itself is a two-day event and whoever is the Chair or Vice Chair, who represents from which stakeholder group is not pragmatically important. I do not deny that it is theoretically important for us all. I am taking the flight today, and need to read all the document. May have little time to make comments, though. Let's work together! izumi 2014-04-20 10:19 GMT+09:00 parminder : > > Subi's email says that there is no evidence that she is associated with > corporate interests and have been representing them... Well, this is the > crux of the issue - what or whom does she represent, and what is the basis > of her ascendency to representational positions in multi stakeholder > structures. > > It must be obvious that MetMundial Chair does not personally know Subi > and therefore obviously someone proposed her name for civil society co > chair... We know for sure that she did not go through any civil society > nominations process, some of which got organised.... I also dont think that > any civil society person or leader of any standing proposed her name to the > Chair. (I may be wrong but then that can be easily corrected by the Chair, > that civil society person(s) or Subi telling us the facts.) > > Now, if civil society did not recommend her to the Chair, then who did... > This is the simple question we are asking... I do not, for the moment, even > seek to challenge the Chair's right to act on any recommendation or not, or > the appropriateness of the recommending party.... I just want to know - as > a civil society person - who recommended her.... > > And of course, even Subi would know who recommended her, right?. Why does > she not share that name(s) with us, and the air will really clear, about > who pushed her into that position, and then it can be left to people to > draw inferences, or not, about whose interests she may be representing. > > Or does Subi want to tell us that she simply has no idea, and that she was > sitting at home with not the slightest premonition and the news suddenly > arrived that she has been selected as NetMudial's CS co-chair. > > The draft NetMundial draft says: > > > - > > Stakeholder representatives appointed to multistakeholder Internet > governance processes should be selected through open and transparent > processes. Different stakeholder groups should self-manage their processes > based on inclusive, publicly known, well defined and accountable mechanisms. > > > Therefore, we are not asking for something radical - let the organisers > and Subi herself tell us, who recommended her to the position of co-chair. > > A very similar thing happened a few months back, which makes a pattern > that cannot be ignored. We heard the news that Subi was made a MAG member. > Now, again we know that she did not come through any civil society process > whereas almost all other/earlier CS MAG members seem to have some through > such a process. I understand that the journalist who did the Hindustan > Times story sought this information from the MAG secretariat/ Chair but > drew a blank. > > Now, again, the report of the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, > stamped now with the authority of the UN General Assembly clearly seeks > transparency in the process of stakeholder representative selection and > self-management of the process by different groups. > > Then why does the MAG chair/ secretariat and also Subi not tell us who > recommended her to the MAG. Do we not have the right to know. > > Last point: There have been some concern here about public parading of > (proven) plagiarism charges against Subi. The fact is that I do not care > how people earn their degrees and do their PhDs... Everyone has skeletons > in the cupboard which are best left there.... But, here again this issue > comes up only with regard to the central question that we are seized of - > whom or what does Subi represent in the positions that she is holding. > There has been a certain slipperiness in her statements in this regard. If > she is pushed about her civil society credential, she often says that she > represents media, and at other times, that she represents the academic > community .... Now, if indeed it is on the credential of academic community > that she has come into these positions, then the current controversies > regarding her standing and conduct in the concerned academic institutions > is certainly of direct relevance to the issue of representation. That alone > is the context of the plagiarism charges, and thus they are not of a > personal nature but fully political. > > parminder > > PS: It is our job as civil society activists to oppose political > corruption, and be relentless about it. Such work gets done at enormous > personal costs, which I will not get into explaining here. But I think I > have said and done all that I would want to do. Let me now focus on other > important work. It is up to other civil society people now to do something > about this issue or not. I for one will go out of the room if and when Subi > speaks from the NetMundial stage as a civil society rep. > > > On Sunday 20 April 2014 06:24 AM, parminder wrote: > > > Dear Ian and Carlos, > > Perhaps it does not behove me to say this since I am quite junior to both > of you in the global IG civil society space - but then I feel that it is my > unhappy duty to say it: I am pained that you have put your considerable > reputation and goodwill in this space in service of defending what patently > is political corruption of the highest order, that too with regard to a > model of MSism which you both so vigorously promote. > > Yes, this particular instance is one of pure and simple political > corruption of the highest order, the kind which normally immediately > produces reactions of revulsion and outrage in civil society groups...It is > not personal. Thousands teach in colleges and have political and social > ambitions, and take various kinds of routes to pursue them; similarly > thousands work in NGOs like I do. I dont think any of the signatories of > the letter from Indian CS groups was in any kind of keen competition to be > in NetMundial organisational positions. So, it should not matter to us that > much who becomes the top CS reps to the MetMundial... In any case, such is > the diversity and structural dis-organisation of civil society that > different, often very unexpected, kinds of appointments from civil society > regularly takes place, and we may whisper and complain among ourselves but > always let it be... It is kind of part of being civil society. > > This present one is not such a case. And in my view, for anyone willing to > be on guard against such subversions, it is not difficult to see the nature > of the issue here. As said, it is a case of highest political corruption.. > Big business from the US, backed by some strong political interests in that > country, have been working in India for 2-3 years now to subvert India's > political processes around IG basically with the objective to keep its > voice silent on the global level... There have been much discussion inside > India lately on this phenomenon including some news reports. Will cut this > story short.... What I am coming to is, it is as a part of this political > strategy that Sub was picked up and promoted as a 'civil society voice' in > India. India has a proud culture of vibrant democracy and a rather mature > civil society, whereby it is of course absolutely unacceptable for us, > Indian civil society groups, that such a political subversion and > corruption takes place. This was and remains the cause of our strong > reaction. > > When, as they say in India, we saw the water go over the head, with Subi's > appointment as civil society co-chair of NetMundial, Indian civil society > groups took it as their responsibility to bring the facts to the table, and > make global actors cognizant about them. It is not an easy decision to take > - we all know that while one has to work hard and devote much time to such > kind of a thing, there will also always be considerable comebacks, because > we are dealing with actors who are extremely resourcefully (obvious, when a > completely unknown person can suddenly be placed at the CS head position > of a major global meeting), and therefore expectation of counter personal > attacks, as indeed have been happening. It perhaps is this reason that most > of the other signatories of the letter have not come out publicly on this > list to present and push the case. (BTW, I may disclose that I was neither > the party to initiate the collective letter nor the news item in Hindustan > Times; just so that you all know.) > > What was surprising is that, when practically all civil society groups in > India, who are engaged with IG work - and have extensive work relationships > with all other global actors, often stronger than they have among > themselves - came out to present the facts on the ground about the > inappropriateness of Subi's selections, practically no one from the global > civil society expressed real support. (Yes, a good quote from my email to > be used by Subi.) I see this as primarily the fault of the civil society > leadership. They cannot be doing this with their national CS partners, > especially of a country with one seventh of world's population and whose > general maturity of civil society processes cannot easily be questioned . > But the fact that this did happen points to serious structural flaws in the > form and role of civil society, especially its leadership, in MSist spaces. > No, it is not the civil society groups from India who lost here - it is the > global MSist civil society that has lost, and it may need to introspect > deeply about it, if it ever will... > > Apparently, the testimony of practically all the civil society groups > engaged with IG in India was not enough... Then came this investigative > report > from > one of the largest and most-respected dailies of India. A report which I > know was being worked for more than 2 months. With extensive interactions > inter alia with all people who have been named adversely in the > report... I also happen to know that the involved people personally met the > senior most editors of the newspaper... All opportunities for defence and > clarification were given, and all testimonies and material accepted. Senior > editors thoroughly went over all the details overs many days. Do not > under-estimate the difficulty and the extent of caution required with > regard to a news report like this one which implicates one of the most > powerful and entrenched lobbyist in the capital of India. For a long time > when the report did not appear, I actually thought, well the obvious has > happened! But the newspaper stood its ground and came out with a report > presenting just those facts about which it had absolute evidence, and which > met their very high reporting standards. > > So, you guys dont believe the statement of a full group of Indian civil > society organisations, and you do not believe even the investigative news > report in one of the most highly regarded newspapers of India, a report > which was researched for 2 months. Well, in that case, it really must take > something to make you believe - or perhaps, you have decided your position > already, which is not to rock the MS (multistakeholder) boat as the highest > priority, with all else paling in comparison. > > Anywhere else, a case of this kind, where first the whole civil society in > an area makes a case, which is then supported by a well- researched news > story, will be an open and shut case for global civil society to support. > But not on this occasion...This is something you all guys need to answer. > There is nothing more for us, of Indian civil society groups, to say... We > are proud that we did a very difficult civil society task of exposing > political corruption, took an 'insistent' public stand against it, and > refused to be cowed down by cat calls that have become customary on this > list whenever any issue implicating the power of big business or the US is > raised..... > > One last point, though I think it may be superfluous, because you all know > and understand it. People here have been saying that there is no evidence, > which is quite surprising because this is one of few rare cases (and thus > must be pushed hard and fully capitalised on) where there is actually > considerable evidence of political corruption. Now, this is not a court > proceeding, really. Think of when, say in our own countries, an appointment > of an industry watchdog is made, or for an anti- corruption body. What is > the standard of knowledge and evidence on which civil society will act on > what they may regard as complete inappropriateness of an appointment - and > perhaps write petitions, boycott proceedings, and so on... Just that level > of knowledge and evidence is needed in this case as well. And it is as > clear as daylight that such knowledge and evidence is indeed available. To > act or not, and whether to denounce or make light of those who indeed are > doing their civil society work, remains your own respective political > decisions. I see that you are inviting Subi to remain undeterred and > continue to engage with civil society here. We too are going to remain > undeterred in doing what we see as the real CS work. > > Best regards > > parminder > > PS: I will not respond to Subi's 'clarifications', and I can understand > her desperation as well the discomfort of those whose huge interests are > affected by this.... However, at one place in her recent email there is a > specific reference to my name, mentioning that her recent appointment to > some position in the WG on India IGF was with my consent; this is lie > typical of much of her statements ... There was no such consent, something > which is very easy to verify because the room had around 30 people from > gov, industry and CS, and there is also avaiable an official document > coming from the meeting. > > I do however see that the inference from the quote of Marilyn Cade was an > inadvertent error on the part of the journalist. > > > On Friday 18 April 2014 06:56 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > Absolutely agree with Ian, including the three wishes. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > On 04/18/2014 12:48 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > Subi, > > It would have taken a lot of courage to write that, and to engage here. > I am very glad you did,and thank you for doing so, because it will help > to eventually clear the air. > > My first wish is that, whatever the reactions are to your post, you will > continue to engage here with the rest of civil society interested in > internet governance. It’s not always a friendly space, as others have > discovered, but the interchange and dialogue among people with different > perspectives here is important, and leads to more constructive and > valuable inputs for civil society as a whole. Whatever the reactions to > your post are, I hope you continue to engage here. > > My second wish is that everyone involved in this dispute can find a way > to move past these issues. That’s not going to be easy, and perhaps not > immediate, but it is important we do so. > > My third and final wish is that my first and second wishes come to fruition! > > Ian Peter > > > > *From:* Subi Chaturvedi > *Sent:* Friday, April 18, 2014 7:56 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* [governance] Breaking my silence on Netmundial related > concerns raised by colleagues from India > > > Dear CS colleagues and friends, > > > This has reference to the article published in HT on 8^th April, 2014 > which has been shared and referred to on this mailing list, multiple times. > > At the outset I want to thank all of you who have written to me showing > solidarity against this vicious personal attack, based on wrong, > misleading and manipulated information, indicative of a perverse mind, > as you'd realize after, going through this post. > > I had chosen to maintain silence in the face of repeatedand grave > provocation but the attacks continue unabated, thwarting and disrupting > all attempts at having any civilized conversation about the key issues > that concern global CS, even on the eve of Netmundial. The reason why > we've invested our energy, faith and considerable amount of time > engaging with the process, in the first place. > > I am now also compelled to write this email, for it is unfair on those > who have shown solidarity with me by writing to me or defending me > publicly on this list and elsewhere, to be left in this position without > a minimal comment from me.I wish to assure global civil society that our > views are being shared, represented and recognised. I have made multiple > interventions on the calls as well as over emails and continue to work > across time zones to ensure that our views are reflected. Anriette, my > colleague from the MAG, has done a fairly balanced assessment of the > situation though, and I completely agree with her, we have real > challenges ahead of us. I think our time would be utilised better if we > focus on the issues at hand- in Netmundial, I see a significant > oppurtunity for change. > > In the internet, I see not just a source of knowledge but also an > amplifier of dissent and an enabler of human rights and permissionless > innovation. I have been a free speech activist and have fought for these > issues long and hard and therefore this is deeply painful. My > interventions are available publicly and a basic name search would > reveal my interventions at the global IGF as well on national media in > India. Many of these national meetings have been with my friends and > respected colleagues from civil society in India and remain on their > websites or any outreach platforms of communication. At the last India > IGF MAG meeting where three of the co-signatories, who are also on the > MAG, made interventions with me. Their interventions and mine > capturedare in the official minutes. In the same meeting I was also > appointed as the convenor of the Working group of the India IGF with the > knowledge and consent of Mr.Parmindar from ITfC and with consensus from > the floor. > > My work in the Internet Governance Space and related areas of media and > communication, deepening democracy and public policy can be found on my > blog *http://subichaturvedi.blogspot.in/* > > Now Iask all of you, who have been relentlessly subjected to the said > article and appeals by my respectable colleagues and collaborators from > Indian CS- was it appropriate toincludeme in this story related to > surveillance by a corporate? Is there any connection at all? Other than > to cause harm to me; in which they miserably failed.As identified in > Ian’s email, apart from being a vicious personal attack, the article is > manipulative on multiple levels and makesseveral inaccurate assertions. > > Notwithstanding this unfortunate exception, I want to assure all of you > that journalism in India is free, fair for the most part, and aharbinger > of truth and justice. I would urge you not to judge Indian media based > on this article. > > I submit the following for your consideration:the portions in italics > are direct quotes from the same article. > > . > > a. /“//Emails accessed by HT suggest that Bhatia championed > Chaturvedi's rise in Indian internet governance circles” ./ > > You would surely notice that while pdfs of all charges were hyperlinked, > this allegation conspicuously remains unsubstantiated and any proof to > the effect is missing fromthe story. I challenge anyone to put out any > evidence of anyone- either me or anyone, at all doing any advocacy for > me to be appointed as the co-chair of Netmundial or on the MAG. It is > quite unfortunate that my work and my merit should be called into > question. Undermining all multistakeholder processes. However malicious > even the article does not make this extrapolation that Mr. Parminder > Jeet singh repeatedly continuesto make. Despite a clarification on the > 4th of April, 2014 issued by the distinguished academician and General > Chair of the Meeting Minister Virgilio Almeida. > > > > b. “/Chaturvedi has also publicly acknowledged a former AT&T > official, Marylin Cade as a "coach and mentor”:/ > > > > / /I quote the same tweet: “frm (from) Ms. Marilyn Cade *_coach and > Mentor other proposals_*and IGF should limit it’s own”. > > Inline images 1 > > In plain violation of the most basic tenets of journalism concocting > evidence, he disingenuously parades my tweet about Ms. Cade’s comment at > the UN MAG to “coach and mentor other proposals and limit proposals from > the MAG itself” as my “public acknowledgement” of Ms. Cade being my > “coach and mentor”. > > c. “/She was also paid upwards of //Rs.// //2.3 lakh for her role at > a FICCI-led conference on internet governance. Subsequently, she also > received part-funding from FICCI to attend an international conference. > This raises a clear conflict of interest since she was on board as a > civil society representative, but accepted payments from industry and > corporate bodies”./ > > He knowingly suppressed the context of the Rs.2.3 lakh (3,814 USD), > payment by the industry association and presented it as “conflict of > interest”. The journalist knew fully well that the payment was a > reimbursement of costs incurred at the request of the conference > secretariat to produce professional videos, hire resources, material and > camera costs, still photography, new media activation and related > hardware and studio costs. He knew but purposefully left out my > extensive contribution to the conference as a speaker and session > organizer on a pro bono basis. He deliberately misrepresented in spite > of knowing that the travel assistance given by the industry association > was contributed by ISOC (Internet Society) and remaining by NIXI > (National Internet Exchange of India). He already knew but hid that > both organisations routinely provide travel assistance to scores of > civil society representatives, including to some who authored the said > letter. > > > This CANNOT under any circumstances be construed as accepting money for > advocacy from a corporate and presented as "conflict of interest". This > is the most absurd allegation which even seasoned propagandists would > shy away from. > > Further he deceitfully persisted with the false “conflict of interest”, > charge by suppressing scores of emails , tweets, posts, videos, film > and TV interviews given to him and easily available in the public > domain, as my firm stance against illegal surveillance, invasion of > privacy, and violation of freedom of speech and expression and human > rights. > > d. /Ph.D/: ** > > *Can a **mere research studentship**,**which I am still > pursuing**,****be**the basis on which I was appointed at any forum?*It > was used only to put an unsubstantiated charge of plagiarism for my > character assassination. I preferred to change my guide then to “say > sorry”, to her for the offenseI had not committed and continue with her. > > With a view to purposefully mislead the readers, the journalist grossly > manipulated the facts around my PhD by deliberately obfuscating that I > have steadfastly refuted “any academic wrong doing”. * > * > > *The IIT has never charged me with this offense, no show ca**use has > ever**been given to me and hence no action has been taken against > me,*detailed evidence was given to the journalist who chose to > deliberately ignore it in order to convey a premeditated message. IIT > has the highest ethical code of conduct and so do I.And my PhD. is well > underway.// > > // > > /*The letter of notable members of civil society.*/// > > The CS letter from Indiacarried the support of 10 individuals+1 author, > some of whom claim to represent different organisations. I have worked > with most who are in this space including Parminder, Prabir,Anja Kovacs, > Chinmayi Arun, Rishab Bailey, Mishi Choudhary, Sunil Abraham; 7 Out of > 10. Two of remaining 3 have attended a national conference on IG with me > where Parminder was present through out. It is full of > misrepresentation.Their claimsare absurd that: > > /1- They don’t know me/// > > /2. They haven’t worked with me and I am not active in this space./// > > /3. They don’t know how to reach me//./// > > /4. And I do not teach IG/ > > *My Response**:*** > > Ø *Not only do they know me quite well*** > > Ø *We have hosted joint events, *** > > Ø *We have served on organizational bodies together related to IG, *** > > Ø *We have appeared as panelists together on IG, *** > > Ø *We have traveled and worked together on IG, *** > > Ø *We have submitted joint inputs to government of India on IG, *** > > Ø *Prepared background papers together for multistakeholder dialogues > and events on IG, *** > > Ø *Co-moderated dialogues and multistakeholder panels on IG. *** > > Ø *I receive emails from them, respond to them, they have appreciated > and thanked me for my inputs and efforts. *** > > Ø *They have called me on my mobile phone *** > > Ø *They have visited me in person and with their teams to seek my > inputs on their drafts. *** > > I am happy to compare and contrast my interventions and my work in the > IG space with all of them individually or collectively. ** > > > The ITRs submission of CS was jointly made by > > Ø Society for Knowledge commons represented by Rishab Bailey (author of > the CS letter), > > Ø Internet Democracy Project (Anja Kovacs- co-signatory), > > Ø Free Software Movement of India (Kiran Chandra (General Secretary- > co-signatory), > > Ø Delhi Science Forum (Prabir – co-signatory), > > Ø Media For Change( represented by me) > > Ø SFLC.in (Mishi – co-signatory). > > Ø Ms. Chinmayi Arun was part of all the 4 day meetings and discussions > and is on all the emails but did not finally submit the ITRs formal > response. > > > > > ​ > > > > More evidence of Joint work (There’s a lot but I do not wish to burden > this list)- > > One of the recent multistakeholder meetingon IGthat I co-organized > including drafting the background paper with Ms. Anja Kovacs from the > Internet democracy project (yes we have worked together and collaborated > on many occasions and oftentake same positions publicly), was on the > 29^th January, 2014. > > > > Where I worked with > > > > 1. Anja Kovacs, IDP (co-signatory) > > 2. Sunil Abraham , CIS (cosignatory)- represented by Snehashish Ghosh > > 3. Mishi Chowdhary, SFLC.in (Cosignatory)- represented by Prashanth Sugathan > > 4. Ms. Chinmayi Arun Co-moderated the meeting with me and Ms. Anja Kovacs > > > > > ​ > > _ > > > > * > * > > *Interlinkages between all the authors of the India CS letter:*** > > > > Ms Anja Kovacs, IDP is a cosignatory & a CIS fellow and has also worked > for ITfC which is represented on this letter by Mr. Parminder Jeet > Singh, Ms. Chinmayi Arun from CCG (is a cosignatory & also a CIS > fellow), Mr. Sunil Abraham is the director of CIS, RishabBailey the > author of the CS letter has been associated with IDP, and with SFLC > (another co-signatory) and is now representing SKC which is currently > represented on this letter by Mr. Prabir Purkayastha (co-signatory) who > is also associated formally as an office bearer with the SFM represented > on the letter by Mr. Kiran Chandra (co-signatory). All these are > respected colleagues and have worked with me on the ITRs and many other > IG related workshops and panels as mentioned above. > > > > CIS’s director Mr. Sunil Abraham has also served with me on multiple > panels and bodies together and my interventions can be found online and > at the CIS website > http://cis-india.org/@@search?SearchableText=subi+chaturvedi > > > They are all signatories to the letter. > > > > *Again, my heartfelt gratitude to all those who have written tome, or > supported me. We have a very important task at hand, thank you again > for reposing yourfaith and for believing in me. And I wish that at all > times the dignity of the caucus be preserved and upheld. * > > > Finally, I do not hold any grudges against those, including the > journalist who may have been involved in this unfortunate and > unwarranted personal attack. I continue to have the highest respect for > the work that my colleagues do. > > > I am look forward to working with all of you and will be available in > Sao Paulo from the 21st and over email. Do feel free to reach out with > any questions or comments you may have. I would be happy to participate > in any meeting or related discussion and will continue to work to the > best of my ability and do my utmost, towards the evolution of the IG > ecosphere so that we have an internet, which remains free and open, > which amplifies human rights and allows for permissionless innovation > and connects the unconnected. > > > More details about my IG interventions can be found on my blog herehttp://subichaturvedi.blogspot.in/ > > > and *Contributions at the UN IGF : (Partial List) is available here for > ready reference* > https://www.google.co.in/search?q=igf+MAG+Subi+Chaturvedi+site:www.intgovforum.org&es_sm=91 > > I am equally thrilled that our collective inputs and suggestions are > being taken on board. And I am also hopeful that the outcome document > will reflect truly, what will emerge from the floor. Our friends in > Brazil from the civil society and from across stakeholder groups have > also done commendable work to bring us here. Delighted that it will be a > multistakeholder panel, which will open Netmundial 2014 in Brazil. > > Many congratulations Nnenna, we are in great hands. Very proud to have > you representing us and your address at the IGF 2013, in Bali was both > profoundly evocative and stirring. I hope you will make time to > emphasize the role that the Internet is playing especially in peace > building and conflict transformation as well. Your tremendous and deeply > inspiring work in Côte d'Ivoire underscores the importance of national > and regional initiatives, along with intercessional work. We have a > fantastic ambassador in you. And it might be an uphill climb for all of > us but let's put our best foot forward. > > Looking forward to seeing you all in Sao Paulo soon. > > Safe travels, all. > > > Warmest, > > > Subi > ---- > > Subi Chaturvedi > > Assistant Prof. Journalism & Comm, > > Lady Shri Ram College for Women (LSR), > > Delhi University, India > > Twitter:@subichaturvedi > http://subichaturvedi.blogspot.in/ > > > Member MAG, UN-IGF (Media & Civil Society) > > Member MAG, India-IGF (Civil Society) > Convenor WG-India IGF > Co-Chair, Netmundial (Civil Society) > > > Founder & Hon. Managing Trustee, > > Media For Change > > > Founder, Chief Mentor & Editor > > The Saltlist > www.thesaltlist.org > > > Independent DocumentaryFilmmaker, Photographer, > > Curator, Media Critic & Scholar > > > PhD. Scholar, > > Indian Institute of Technology (IIT-D), New Delhi > > > > PS: > > > Global CS Community who may not aware of my contribution here’s snapshot > ABOUT me and my work specifically on internet /governances/ freedom of > speech and expression: > > * > * > > *IG specific Roles:* > > > > 1. Recipient of the NIXI (National Internet Exchange, India) > fellowship for IG 2014-2015 > > 2. Co-Chair Netmundial 2014 > > 3. Convenor Working group Indian IGF MAG > > 4. Member MAG UN IGF 2014 > > 5. Member MAG India IGF 2013 > > 6. Member MAG UN-IGF 2013 > > 7. Co-Lead Breakout group- Multistakeholderism & Enhance cooperation > IGF 2013 > > 8. Lead facilitator main focus session on principles of > Multistakeholderism IGF 2013 > > 9. Member MAG IIGC 2013 > > 10. Member MAG, IIGC 2012 > > *Made several noteworthy contributions to the IGF and other global and > national Internet governance processes and capacity building initiatives > on information and communication especially for under-represented > stakeholder groups in IG.* > > * > * > > I’d be happy to provide detailed reports of my interventions and my > contributions at each meeting attended or organised National or global. > > https://www.google.co.in/search?q=igf+MAG+Subi+Chaturvedi+site:www.intgovforum.org&es_sm=91#q=igf+MAG+Subi+Chaturvedi+site%3Awww.intgovforum.org&start=0 > > > I have been teaching Journalism and Mass Communication including but not > limited to papers on New Media technology (including IG) and Media, Law > and Ethics, since the last 5 ½ years in the capcity of Assistant > Professor at India’s leading liberal arts college for Women, part of > Delhi University. > > I hold 3 gold medals in Anthropology, Psychology, and a gold medal in > mass communication from the AJK MCRC, Jamia Millia Islamia, cleared the > NET (which is a mandatory requirement for teaching at central > universities in India), while a final year student in my first attempt > and then hold a CGPA of 9.25/10 at the IIT-Das a part time registered > PhD student doing my course work without leave from LSR, while taking > full classes and contributing to the College immensely. > > My most recent article was published in the Hindu which is one of > India’s most respected news daily as the lead opinion commentary on the > 18^th of February- “for an unfettered internet”, and can be accessed here > http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/for-an-unfettered-internet/article5699615.ece > > It calls for a review of the Indian government’s position on IG. > > An article for EPW (a prestigious journal) against Corporatisation of > Media in India and the loss of pluraity which I have co-authored and the > documentary film- Freedom Song on issues of Freedom of Speech and > expression in India for PSBT, co directed with Mr. Paranjoy Guha > Thakurta(an eminent journalist from India). > http://www.epw.in/commentary/corporatisation-media.html > > The position that I often take isagainst corporatization and control of > the media including the Internet by a few,be they governments, private > sector including large small/corporate of any national origin, civil > society group All my interventions, which are quite a few and > substantive in their depth and coverage of issues are online on the IGF > website. > > *This is just a partial list of some of the work that I have done in > this academic year 2013-2014:* > > My article *“For an unfettered internet’, *was published as the lead > opinion commentary in The Hindu, India's most respected news daily on > why India needs to re-examine it's position on global Internet governance. > > _http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/for-an-unfettered-internet/article5700871.ece_ > > My co-directed critically acclaimed documentary FREEDOM SONG, a film on > freedom of Speech and expression in contemporary India for PSBT was > screened at theIIHS Bangalore City Campus this year and premiered at the > prestigious Open Frame. Two of my curated projects, The Many Moods and > Moments of Aung San Suu Kyi and ‘The Nobel Women for Peace Project’, > were exhibited as part of HH. The Dalai Lama’s visit at LSR. > > > In recognition of _my _*_contribution to Internet and society_*_,_I been > awarded: > > 1) The prestigious NIXI (National Internet Exchange of India, GOI), > > Fellowship for Internet Governance 2013-2014. > > 2) I have been appointed as the first Indian woman from two > stakeholdergroups ( civil society and media) on the United Nations –IGF > MAG, for the second consecutive term. > > 3) I have also been invited to Co-Chair the Global Multistakeholder > Meeting in Brazil on the Future of the Internet. > > 4) I have also been appointed as the convener of the working group of > the India Internet Governance Forum (IGF) by the Chair from DeitY, > Ministry of Communication & IT. And also been appointed on the MAG > (Multistakeholder Advisory Group) of the India IGF (Internet Governance > Forum) to be hosted by MOC&IT, India. > > 5) At the last Global IGF 2013, held at Bali, Indonesia. I contributed > on several panels on Access and diversity, Relating national and > regional IGFs, Broadband access and local content, emerging issues- > Surveillance and a enhance cooperation (I also the remote moderator for > it). And I also moderated and mentored DoT (MoC&IT), Government of > India’s Open forum “Connecting the next Billion”. Additionally I also > organized and spoke at the Main Focus session on Multistakeholderism as > a panelist. > > 6) I also co-organised a multistakeholder panel discussion on “Will > Internet and Social Media be a game changer for the next general > election 2014 with senior leaders and ministers from the government and > eminent journalists and editors at the India International Centre (IIC), > New Delhi. > > 7) I was also a panelist with sr. editors on the role of media in > promoting art at the global stage organized by exchange4media at IIC. > > 8) I was also a panelist at the National Convention on "Crisis of > Capitalism and brazen onslaught on DEMOCRACY" , organized by the INSAF > foundation at the constitution club for the session on SURVEILLANCE, > STATE AND PERILS OF DEMOCRACY. With Mr. Prabir who is a cosignatory of > the letter. > > 9) I was a panelist on IGF and the way forward organized by ORF, New > Delhi. Ms. Anja Kovacs was my co-panelist a basic online search would > reveal and expose the claims made in the letter. The ORF report is > online with our interventions and images together. > > 10) I was also the key note speaker on Internet –a > democratic space, at NALSAR along with eminent and sr. judges and > lawyers of the supreme court on Social Media and Hate speech. Both Ms. > Chinmayi Arun and Ms. Anja Kovacs were part of the same event. Ms. > Kovacs was,moreover on the same session as I was. > > 11) I also organized and moderated a multitsakeholder > panel discussion at the ITU-WSIS 2013, Geneva on, “ Ensuring Internet > Access and Better Governance by Deepening Multistakeholderism- A > Developing Nation Perspective with sr. ministers and heads of regional > and national Internet & ICT initiatives. > > 12) Held a capacity building Workshop for the youth > -"Towards a new Ethics of Cyberspace- Being a responsible online Digital > Citizen with sr. industry leaders as key resource persons. > > 13) I also appeared as a distinguished panelist on > national media on internet, new media regulation and social media, women > safety and empowerment related issues, through the year. > > 14) I also organised and moderated the MEDIA CONGRESS- > Panel on 'Government Surveillance vs Individual Privacy : Are they > mutually exclusive?' with distinguished speakers: Dr. Usha Rmanathan > eminent civil society activist, Dr. Govind, CEO NIXI, Mr. Pavan Duggal, > Prof. Vibodh Parthasarathi and Ms. Shalini Singh. > > 15) I was also a panelist at the IMDEC 2013, Panel on > “The Internet We Want: A Multistakeholder View” along with global > leaders from civil society, industry, government and the technical > community at FICCI. Mr. Sunil Abraham (CIS) was also an invited panelist. > > 16) I co-organised a multistakeholder dialogue on *The > Future of the Internet, who should govern it & what is at stake for > us*with sr. members of the government, industry, academia, technical > community, media at IIC. The youth were also invited as end users to > share their inputs and experiences. The background paper was jointly > prepared by me and Ms. Anja Kovacs. > > 17) I also organized a youth meet with over 700 youth > leaders from India on the Internet We Want- Conversation Series. > > 18) Another youth meet was organized by me at the > Aligarh Muslim University, a minority institutionwith over 300 youth > delegates from the minorities and the margins and sr. editors from the > media on the role of media and youth in election 2014particularly the > impact that social media and the internet can have in amplyfying > participation of the youth. > > 19) I was also invited to conduct a leadership training > workshop for the sr. management of TATA Sons and their group companies > on social media. > > 20) I also conducted a third youth meet over 700 young > leaders on the “Digital Agenda for the Youth and IG principals”. This > was part of the global #FightBack campaign against surveillance and held > on the world internet day. > > 21) I was also a invited to present my paper on > Cybersecurity a multistakeholder perspective by ORF New Delhi part of > the young voices policy forum. It was extremely well received. > > 22) I also led the new media outreach and supported the > on ground activation for the national Internet Safety campaign for the > youth in India in association with Data Security Council of India (A > NASSCOM initiative). > > 23) I am a member of the International Association for > Women in Radio and television (IAWRT) and the Internet Society (ISOC). > > > > > warmest > > Subi > ---- > > Subi Chaturvedi > > Assistant Prof. Journalism & Comm, > > Lady Shri Ram College for Women (LSR), > > Delhi University, India > > Twitter:@subichaturvedi > http://subichaturvedi.blogspot.in/ > > > Member MAG, UN-IGF (Media & Civil Society) > > Member MAG, India-IGF (Civil Society) > > Convenor WG-India IGF > > Co-Chair, Netmundial (Civil Society) > > > Founder & Hon. Managing Trustee, > > Media For Change > > > Founder, Chief Mentor & Editor > > The Saltlist > www.thesaltlist.org > > > Independent DocumentaryFilmmaker, Photographer, > > Curator, Media Critic & Scholar > > > PhD. Scholar, > > Indian Institute of Technology (IIT-D), New Delhi > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arbih2002us at yahoo.com Sun Apr 20 02:30:24 2014 From: arbih2002us at yahoo.com (arbih2002us at yahoo.com) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 07:30:24 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Breaking my silence on Netmundial related concerns raised by colleagues from India Message-ID: Dear all, I am quite new to this list and believe that a lot has gone on before me. However I have followed this discussion and it is my believe that it constitutes a major distraction to the important and urgent matter at hand.  My question is this: how will this contribute to the shaping up of the future of the Internet? What people friendly principles will this bring?  DR LORIN.  Sent from Samsung Mobile -------- Original message -------- From: parminder Date: 20/04/2014 01:54 (GMT+01:00) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"<,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>," Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Breaking my silence on Netmundial related concerns raised by colleagues from India Dear Ian and Carlos, Perhaps it does not behove me to say this since I am quite junior to both of you in the global IG civil society space - but then I feel that it is my unhappy duty to say it: I am pained that you have put your considerable reputation and goodwill in this space in service of defending what patently is political corruption of the highest order, that too with regard to a model of MSism which you both so vigorously promote. Yes, this particular instance is one of pure and simple political corruption of the highest order, the kind which normally immediately produces reactions of revulsion and outrage in civil society groups...It is not personal. Thousands teach in colleges and have political and social ambitions, and take various kinds of routes to pursue them; similarly thousands work in NGOs like I do. I dont think any of the signatories of the letter from Indian CS groups was in any kind of keen competition to be in NetMundial organisational positions. So, it should not matter to us that much who becomes the top CS reps to the MetMundial... In any case, such is the diversity and structural dis-organisation of civil society that  different, often very unexpected, kinds of appointments from civil society regularly takes place, and we may whisper and complain among ourselves but always let it be... It is kind of part of being civil society. This present one is not such a case. And in my view, for anyone willing to be on guard against such subversions, it is not difficult to see the nature of the issue here. As said, it is a case of highest political corruption.. Big business from the US, backed by some strong political interests in that country, have been working in India for 2-3 years now to subvert India's political processes around IG basically with the objective to keep its voice silent on the global level... There have been much discussion inside India lately on this phenomenon including some news reports. Will cut this story short.... What I am coming to is, it is as  a part of this political strategy that Sub was picked up  and promoted as a 'civil society voice' in India. India has a proud culture of vibrant democracy and a rather mature civil society, whereby it is of course absolutely unacceptable for us, Indian civil society groups, that such a political subversion and corruption takes place. This was and remains the cause of our strong reaction. When, as they say in India, we saw the water go over the head, with Subi's appointment as civil society co-chair of NetMundial, Indian civil society groups took it as their responsibility to bring the facts to the table, and make global actors cognizant about them. It is not an easy decision to take - we all know that while one has to work hard and devote much time to such kind of a thing, there will also always be considerable comebacks, because we are dealing with actors who are extremely resourcefully (obvious, when a completely unknown person can suddenly be placed at the CS head position of  a major global meeting), and therefore expectation of counter personal attacks, as indeed have been happening. It perhaps is this reason that most of the other signatories of the letter have not come out publicly on this list to present and push the case. (BTW, I may disclose that I was neither the party to initiate the collective letter nor the news item in Hindustan Times; just so that you all know.) What was surprising is that, when practically all civil society groups in India, who are engaged with IG work - and have extensive work relationships with all other global actors, often stronger than they have among themselves - came out to present the facts on the ground about the inappropriateness of Subi's selections, practically no one from the global civil society expressed real support. (Yes, a good quote from my email to be used by Subi.) I see this as primarily the fault of the civil society leadership. They cannot be doing this with their national CS partners, especially of a country with one seventh of world's population and whose general maturity of civil society processes cannot easily be questioned . But the fact that this did happen points to serious structural flaws in the form and role of civil society, especially its leadership, in MSist spaces. No, it is not the civil society groups from India who lost here - it is the global MSist civil society that has lost, and it may need to introspect deeply about it, if it ever will... Apparently, the testimony of practically all the civil society groups engaged with IG in India was not enough... Then came this investigative report from one of the largest and most-respected dailies of India. A report which I know was being worked for more than 2 months. With extensive interactions inter alia with all people who have been  named adversely in the report... I also happen to know that the involved people personally met the senior most editors of the newspaper... All opportunities for defence and clarification were given, and all testimonies and material accepted. Senior editors thoroughly went over all the details overs many days. Do not under-estimate the  difficulty and the extent of caution required with regard to a news report like this one which implicates one of the most powerful and entrenched lobbyist in the capital of India. For a long time when the report did not appear, I actually thought, well the obvious has happened! But the newspaper stood its ground and came out with a report presenting just those facts about which it had absolute evidence, and which met their very high reporting standards. So, you guys dont believe the statement of a full group of Indian civil society organisations, and you do not believe even the investigative news report in one of the most highly regarded newspapers of India, a report which was researched for 2 months. Well, in that case, it really must take something to make you believe - or perhaps, you have decided your position already, which is not to rock the MS (multistakeholder) boat as the highest priority, with all else paling in comparison. Anywhere else, a case of this kind, where first the whole civil society in an area makes a case, which is then supported by a well- researched news story, will be an open and shut case for global civil society to support. But not on this occasion...This is something you all guys need to answer. There is nothing more for us, of Indian civil society groups, to say... We are proud that we did a very difficult civil society task of exposing political corruption, took an 'insistent' public stand against it, and refused to be cowed down by cat calls that have become customary on this list whenever any issue implicating the power of big business or the US is raised..... One last point, though I think it may be superfluous, because you all know and understand it. People here have been saying that there is no evidence, which is quite surprising because this is one of few rare cases (and thus must be pushed hard and fully capitalised on) where there is actually considerable evidence of political corruption. Now, this is not a court proceeding, really. Think of when, say in our own countries, an appointment of an industry watchdog is made, or for an anti- corruption body. What is the standard of knowledge and evidence on which civil society will act on what they may regard as complete inappropriateness of an appointment - and perhaps write petitions, boycott proceedings, and so on... Just that level of knowledge and evidence is needed in this case as well. And it is as clear as daylight that such knowledge and evidence is indeed available. To act or not, and whether to denounce or make light of those who indeed are doing their civil society work, remains your own respective political decisions. I see that you are inviting Subi to remain undeterred and continue to engage with civil society here. We too are going to remain undeterred in doing what we see as the real CS work.  Best regards parminder PS: I will not respond to Subi's 'clarifications', and I can understand her desperation as well the discomfort of those whose huge interests are affected by this.... However, at one place in her recent email there is a specific reference to my name, mentioning that her recent appointment to some position in the WG on India IGF was with my consent; this is lie typical of much of her statements ... There was no such consent, something which is very easy to verify because the room had around 30 people from gov, industry and CS, and there is also avaiable an official document coming from the meeting. I do however see that the inference from the quote of Marilyn Cade was an inadvertent error on the part of the journalist. On Friday 18 April 2014 06:56 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: Absolutely agree with Ian, including the three wishes. fraternal regards --c.a. On 04/18/2014 12:48 AM, Ian Peter wrote: Subi, It would have taken a lot of courage to write that, and to engage here. I am very glad you did,and thank you for doing so, because it will help to eventually clear the air. My first wish is that, whatever the reactions are to your post, you will continue to engage here with the rest of civil society interested in internet governance. It’s not always a friendly space, as others have discovered, but the interchange and dialogue among people with different perspectives here is important, and leads to more constructive and valuable inputs for civil society as a whole. Whatever the reactions to your post are, I hope you continue to engage here. My second wish is that everyone involved in this dispute can find a way to move past these issues. That’s not going to be easy, and perhaps not immediate, but it is important we do so. My third and final wish is that my first and second wishes come to fruition! Ian Peter *From:* Subi Chaturvedi *Sent:* Friday, April 18, 2014 7:56 AM *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net *Subject:* [governance] Breaking my silence on Netmundial related concerns raised by colleagues from India Dear CS colleagues and friends, This has reference to the article published in HT on 8^th April, 2014 which has been shared and referred to on this mailing list, multiple times. At the outset I want to thank all of you who have written to me showing solidarity against this vicious personal attack, based on wrong, misleading and manipulated information, indicative of a perverse mind, as you'd realize after, going through this post. I had chosen to maintain silence in the face of repeatedand grave provocation but the attacks continue unabated, thwarting and disrupting all attempts at having any civilized conversation about the key issues that concern global CS, even on the eve of Netmundial. The reason why we've invested our energy, faith and considerable amount of time engaging with the process, in the first place. I am now also compelled to write this email, for it is unfair on those who have shown solidarity with me by writing to me or defending me publicly on this list and elsewhere, to be left in this position without a minimal comment from me.I wish to assure global civil society that our views are being shared, represented and recognised. I have made multiple interventions on the calls as well as over emails and continue to work across time zones to ensure that our views are reflected. Anriette, my colleague from the MAG, has done a fairly balanced assessment of the situation though, and I completely agree with her, we have real challenges ahead of us. I think our time would be utilised better if we focus on the issues at hand- in Netmundial, I see a significant oppurtunity for change. In the internet, I see not just a source of knowledge but also an amplifier of dissent and an enabler of human rights and permissionless innovation. I have been a free speech activist and have fought for these issues long and hard and therefore this is deeply painful. My interventions are available publicly and a basic name search would reveal my interventions at the global IGF as well on national media in India. Many of these national meetings have been with my friends and respected colleagues from civil society in India and remain on their websites or any outreach platforms of communication. At the last India IGF MAG meeting where three of the co-signatories, who are also on the MAG, made interventions with me. Their interventions and mine capturedare in the official minutes. In the same meeting I was also appointed as the convenor of the Working group of the India IGF with the knowledge and consent of Mr.Parmindar from ITfC and with consensus from the floor. My work in the Internet Governance Space and related areas of media and communication, deepening democracy and public policy can be found on my blog *http://subichaturvedi.blogspot.in/* Now Iask all of you, who have been relentlessly subjected to the said article and appeals by my respectable colleagues and collaborators from Indian CS- was it appropriate toincludeme in this story related to surveillance by a corporate? Is there any connection at all? Other than to cause harm to me; in which they miserably failed.As identified in Ian’s email, apart from being a vicious personal attack, the article is manipulative on multiple levels and makesseveral inaccurate assertions. Notwithstanding this unfortunate exception, I want to assure all of you that journalism in India is free, fair for the most part, and aharbinger of truth and justice. I would urge you not to judge Indian media based on this article. I submit the following for your consideration:the portions in italics are direct quotes from the same article. . a. /“//Emails accessed by HT suggest that Bhatia championed Chaturvedi's rise in Indian internet governance circles” ./ You would surely notice that while pdfs of all charges were hyperlinked, this allegation conspicuously remains unsubstantiated and any proof to the effect is missing fromthe story. I challenge anyone to put out any evidence of anyone- either me or anyone, at all doing any advocacy for me to be appointed as the co-chair of Netmundial or on the MAG. It is quite unfortunate that my work and my merit should be called into question. Undermining all multistakeholder processes. However malicious even the article does not make this extrapolation that Mr. Parminder Jeet singh repeatedly continuesto make. Despite a clarification on the 4th of April, 2014 issued by the distinguished academician and General Chair of the Meeting Minister Virgilio Almeida. b. “/Chaturvedi has also publicly acknowledged a former AT&T official, Marylin Cade as a "coach and mentor”:/ / /I quote the same tweet: “frm (from) Ms. Marilyn Cade *_coach and Mentor other proposals_*and IGF should limit it’s own”. Inline images 1 In plain violation of the most basic tenets of journalism concocting evidence, he disingenuously parades my tweet about Ms. Cade’s comment at the UN MAG to “coach and mentor other proposals and limit proposals from the MAG itself” as my “public acknowledgement” of Ms. Cade being my “coach and mentor”. c. “/She was also paid upwards of //Rs.// //2.3 lakh for her role at a FICCI-led conference on internet governance. Subsequently, she also received part-funding from FICCI to attend an international conference. This raises a clear conflict of interest since she was on board as a civil society representative, but accepted payments from industry and corporate bodies”./ He knowingly suppressed the context of the Rs.2.3 lakh (3,814 USD), payment by the industry association and presented it as “conflict of interest”. The journalist knew fully well that the payment was a reimbursement of costs incurred at the request of the conference secretariat to produce professional videos, hire resources, material and camera costs, still photography, new media activation and related hardware and studio costs. He knew but purposefully left out my extensive contribution to the conference as a speaker and session organizer on a pro bono basis. He deliberately misrepresented in spite of knowing that the travel assistance given by the industry association was contributed by ISOC (Internet Society) and remaining by NIXI (National Internet Exchange of India). He already knew but hid that both organisations routinely provide travel assistance to scores of civil society representatives, including to some who authored the said letter. This CANNOT under any circumstances be construed as accepting money for advocacy from a corporate and presented as "conflict of interest". This is the most absurd allegation which even seasoned propagandists would shy away from. Further he deceitfully persisted with the false “conflict of interest”, charge by suppressing scores of emails , tweets, posts, videos, film and TV interviews given to him and easily available in the public domain, as my firm stance against illegal surveillance, invasion of privacy, and violation of freedom of speech and expression and human rights. d. /Ph.D/: ** *Can a **mere research studentship**,**which I am still pursuing**,****be**the basis on which I was appointed at any forum?*It was used only to put an unsubstantiated charge of plagiarism for my character assassination. I preferred to change my guide then to “say sorry”, to her for the offenseI had not committed and continue with her. With a view to purposefully mislead the readers, the journalist grossly manipulated the facts around my PhD by deliberately obfuscating that I have steadfastly refuted “any academic wrong doing”. * * *The IIT has never charged me with this offense, no show ca**use has ever**been given to me and hence no action has been taken against me,*detailed evidence was given to the journalist who chose to deliberately ignore it in order to convey a premeditated message. IIT has the highest ethical code of conduct and so do I.And my PhD. is well underway.// // /*The letter of notable members of civil society.*/// The CS letter from Indiacarried the support of 10 individuals+1 author, some of whom claim to represent different organisations. I have worked with most who are in this space including Parminder, Prabir,Anja Kovacs, Chinmayi Arun, Rishab Bailey, Mishi Choudhary, Sunil Abraham; 7 Out of 10. Two of remaining 3 have attended a national conference on IG with me where Parminder was present through out. It is full of misrepresentation.Their claimsare absurd that: /1- They don’t know me/// /2. They haven’t worked with me and I am not active in this space./// /3. They don’t know how to reach me//./// /4. And I do not teach IG/ *My Response**:*** Ø *Not only do they know me quite well*** Ø *We have hosted joint events, *** Ø *We have served on organizational bodies together related to IG, *** Ø *We have appeared as panelists together on IG, *** Ø *We have traveled and worked together on IG, *** Ø *We have submitted joint inputs to government of India on IG, *** Ø *Prepared background papers together for multistakeholder dialogues and events on IG, *** Ø *Co-moderated dialogues and multistakeholder panels on IG. *** Ø *I receive emails from them, respond to them, they have appreciated and thanked me for my inputs and efforts. *** Ø *They have called me on my mobile phone *** Ø *They have visited me in person and with their teams to seek my inputs on their drafts. *** I am happy to compare and contrast my interventions and my work in the IG space with all of them individually or collectively. ** The ITRs submission of CS was jointly made by Ø Society for Knowledge commons represented by Rishab Bailey (author of the CS letter), Ø Internet Democracy Project (Anja Kovacs- co-signatory), Ø Free Software Movement of India (Kiran Chandra (General Secretary- co-signatory), Ø Delhi Science Forum (Prabir – co-signatory), Ø Media For Change( represented by me) Ø SFLC.in (Mishi – co-signatory). Ø Ms. Chinmayi Arun was part of all the 4 day meetings and discussions and is on all the emails but did not finally submit the ITRs formal response. ​ More evidence of Joint work (There’s a lot but I do not wish to burden this list)- One of the recent multistakeholder meetingon IGthat I co-organized including drafting the background paper with Ms. Anja Kovacs from the Internet democracy project (yes we have worked together and collaborated on many occasions and oftentake same positions publicly), was on the 29^th January, 2014. Where I worked with 1. Anja Kovacs, IDP (co-signatory) 2. Sunil Abraham , CIS (cosignatory)- represented by Snehashish Ghosh 3. Mishi Chowdhary, SFLC.in (Cosignatory)- represented by Prashanth Sugathan 4. Ms. Chinmayi Arun Co-moderated the meeting with me and Ms. Anja Kovacs ​ _ * * *Interlinkages between all the authors of the India CS letter:*** Ms Anja Kovacs, IDP is a cosignatory & a CIS fellow and has also worked for ITfC which is represented on this letter by Mr. Parminder Jeet Singh, Ms. Chinmayi Arun from CCG (is a cosignatory & also a CIS fellow), Mr. Sunil Abraham is the director of CIS, RishabBailey the author of the CS letter has been associated with IDP, and with SFLC (another co-signatory) and is now representing SKC which is currently represented on this letter by Mr. Prabir Purkayastha (co-signatory) who is also associated formally as an office bearer with the SFM represented on the letter by Mr. Kiran Chandra (co-signatory). All these are respected colleagues and have worked with me on the ITRs and many other IG related workshops and panels as mentioned above. CIS’s director Mr. Sunil Abraham has also served with me on multiple panels and bodies together and my interventions can be found online and at the CIS website http://cis-india.org/@@search?SearchableText=subi+chaturvedi They are all signatories to the letter. *Again, my heartfelt gratitude to all those who have written tome, or supported me. We have a very important task at hand, thank you again for reposing yourfaith and for believing in me. And I wish that at all times the dignity of the caucus be preserved and upheld. * Finally, I do not hold any grudges against those, including the journalist who may have been involved in this unfortunate and unwarranted personal attack. I continue to have the highest respect for the work that my colleagues do. I am look forward to working with all of you and will be available in Sao Paulo from the 21st and over email. Do feel free to reach out with any questions or comments you may have. I would be happy to participate in any meeting or related discussion and will continue to work to the best of my ability and do my utmost, towards the evolution of the IG ecosphere so that we have an internet, which remains free and open, which amplifies human rights and allows for permissionless innovation and connects the unconnected. More details about my IG interventions can be found on my blog here http://subichaturvedi.blogspot.in/ and *Contributions at the UN IGF : (Partial List) is available here for ready reference* https://www.google.co.in/search?q=igf+MAG+Subi+Chaturvedi+site:www.intgovforum.org&es_sm=91 I am equally thrilled that our collective inputs and suggestions are being taken on board. And I am also hopeful that the outcome document will reflect truly, what will emerge from the floor. Our friends in Brazil from the civil society and from across stakeholder groups have also done commendable work to bring us here. Delighted that it will be a multistakeholder panel, which will open Netmundial 2014 in Brazil. Many congratulations Nnenna, we are in great hands. Very proud to have you representing us and your address at the IGF 2013, in Bali was both profoundly evocative and stirring. I hope you will make time to emphasize the role that the Internet is playing especially in peace building and conflict transformation as well. Your tremendous and deeply inspiring work in Côte d'Ivoire underscores the importance of national and regional initiatives, along with intercessional work. We have a fantastic ambassador in you. And it might be an uphill climb for all of us but let's put our best foot forward. Looking forward to seeing you all in Sao Paulo soon. Safe travels, all. Warmest, Subi ---- Subi Chaturvedi Assistant Prof. Journalism & Comm, Lady Shri Ram College for Women (LSR), Delhi University, India Twitter:@subichaturvedi http://subichaturvedi.blogspot.in/ Member MAG, UN-IGF (Media & Civil Society) Member MAG, India-IGF (Civil Society) Convenor WG-India IGF Co-Chair, Netmundial (Civil Society) Founder & Hon. Managing Trustee, Media For Change Founder, Chief Mentor & Editor The Saltlist www.thesaltlist.org Independent DocumentaryFilmmaker, Photographer, Curator, Media Critic & Scholar PhD. Scholar, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT-D), New Delhi PS: Global CS Community who may not aware of my contribution here’s snapshot ABOUT me and my work specifically on internet /governances/ freedom of speech and expression: * * *IG specific Roles:* 1. Recipient of the NIXI (National Internet Exchange, India) fellowship for IG 2014-2015 2. Co-Chair Netmundial 2014 3. Convenor Working group Indian IGF MAG 4. Member MAG UN IGF 2014 5. Member MAG India IGF 2013 6. Member MAG UN-IGF 2013 7. Co-Lead Breakout group- Multistakeholderism & Enhance cooperation IGF 2013 8. Lead facilitator main focus session on principles of Multistakeholderism IGF 2013 9. Member MAG IIGC 2013 10. Member MAG, IIGC 2012 *Made several noteworthy contributions to the IGF and other global and national Internet governance processes and capacity building initiatives on information and communication especially for under-represented stakeholder groups in IG.* * * I’d be happy to provide detailed reports of my interventions and my contributions at each meeting attended or organised National or global. https://www.google.co.in/search?q=igf+MAG+Subi+Chaturvedi+site:www.intgovforum.org&es_sm=91#q=igf+MAG+Subi+Chaturvedi+site%3Awww.intgovforum.org&start=0 I have been teaching Journalism and Mass Communication including but not limited to papers on New Media technology (including IG) and Media, Law and Ethics, since the last 5 ½ years in the capcity of Assistant Professor at India’s leading liberal arts college for Women, part of Delhi University. I hold 3 gold medals in Anthropology, Psychology, and a gold medal in mass communication from the AJK MCRC, Jamia Millia Islamia, cleared the NET (which is a mandatory requirement for teaching at central universities in India), while a final year student in my first attempt and then hold a CGPA of 9.25/10 at the IIT-Das a part time registered PhD student doing my course work without leave from LSR, while taking full classes and contributing to the College immensely. My most recent article was published in the Hindu which is one of India’s most respected news daily as the lead opinion commentary on the 18^th of February- “for an unfettered internet”, and can be accessed here http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/for-an-unfettered-internet/article5699615.ece It calls for a review of the Indian government’s position on IG. An article for EPW (a prestigious journal) against Corporatisation of Media in India and the loss of pluraity which I have co-authored and the documentary film- Freedom Song on issues of Freedom of Speech and expression in India for PSBT, co directed with Mr. Paranjoy Guha Thakurta(an eminent journalist from India). http://www.epw.in/commentary/corporatisation-media.html The position that I often take isagainst corporatization and control of the media including the Internet by a few,be they governments, private sector including large small/corporate of any national origin, civil society group All my interventions, which are quite a few and substantive in their depth and coverage of issues are online on the IGF website. *This is just a partial list of some of the work that I have done in this academic year 2013-2014:* My article *“For an unfettered internet’, *was published as the lead opinion commentary in The Hindu, India's most respected news daily on why India needs to re-examine it's position on global Internet governance. _http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/for-an-unfettered-internet/article5700871.ece_ My co-directed critically acclaimed documentary FREEDOM SONG, a film on freedom of Speech and expression in contemporary India for PSBT was screened at theIIHS Bangalore City Campus this year and premiered at the prestigious Open Frame. Two of my curated projects, The Many Moods and Moments of Aung San Suu Kyi and ‘The Nobel Women for Peace Project’, were exhibited as part of HH. The Dalai Lama’s visit at LSR. In recognition of _my _*_contribution to Internet and society_*_,_I been awarded: 1) The prestigious NIXI (National Internet Exchange of India, GOI), Fellowship for Internet Governance 2013-2014. 2) I have been appointed as the first Indian woman from two stakeholdergroups ( civil society and media) on the United Nations –IGF MAG, for the second consecutive term. 3) I have also been invited to Co-Chair the Global Multistakeholder Meeting in Brazil on the Future of the Internet. 4) I have also been appointed as the convener of the working group of the India Internet Governance Forum (IGF) by the Chair from DeitY, Ministry of Communication & IT. And also been appointed on the MAG (Multistakeholder Advisory Group) of the India IGF (Internet Governance Forum) to be hosted by MOC&IT, India. 5) At the last Global IGF 2013, held at Bali, Indonesia. I contributed on several panels on Access and diversity, Relating national and regional IGFs, Broadband access and local content, emerging issues- Surveillance and a enhance cooperation (I also the remote moderator for it). And I also moderated and mentored DoT (MoC&IT), Government of India’s Open forum “Connecting the next Billion”. Additionally I also organized and spoke at the Main Focus session on Multistakeholderism as a panelist. 6) I also co-organised a multistakeholder panel discussion on “Will Internet and Social Media be a game changer for the next general election 2014 with senior leaders and ministers from the government and eminent journalists and editors at the India International Centre (IIC), New Delhi. 7) I was also a panelist with sr. editors on the role of media in promoting art at the global stage organized by exchange4media at IIC. 8) I was also a panelist at the National Convention on "Crisis of Capitalism and brazen onslaught on DEMOCRACY" , organized by the INSAF foundation at the constitution club for the session on SURVEILLANCE, STATE AND PERILS OF DEMOCRACY. With Mr. Prabir who is a cosignatory of the letter. 9) I was a panelist on IGF and the way forward organized by ORF, New Delhi. Ms. Anja Kovacs was my co-panelist a basic online search would reveal and expose the claims made in the letter. The ORF report is online with our interventions and images together. 10) I was also the key note speaker on Internet –a democratic space, at NALSAR along with eminent and sr. judges and lawyers of the supreme court on Social Media and Hate speech. Both Ms. Chinmayi Arun and Ms. Anja Kovacs were part of the same event. Ms. Kovacs was,moreover on the same session as I was. 11) I also organized and moderated a multitsakeholder panel discussion at the ITU-WSIS 2013, Geneva on, “ Ensuring Internet Access and Better Governance by Deepening Multistakeholderism- A Developing Nation Perspective with sr. ministers and heads of regional and national Internet & ICT initiatives. 12) Held a capacity building Workshop for the youth -"Towards a new Ethics of Cyberspace- Being a responsible online Digital Citizen with sr. industry leaders as key resource persons. 13) I also appeared as a distinguished panelist on national media on internet, new media regulation and social media, women safety and empowerment related issues, through the year. 14) I also organised and moderated the MEDIA CONGRESS- Panel on 'Government Surveillance vs Individual Privacy : Are they mutually exclusive?' with distinguished speakers: Dr. Usha Rmanathan eminent civil society activist, Dr. Govind, CEO NIXI, Mr. Pavan Duggal, Prof. Vibodh Parthasarathi and Ms. Shalini Singh. 15) I was also a panelist at the IMDEC 2013, Panel on “The Internet We Want: A Multistakeholder View” along with global leaders from civil society, industry, government and the technical community at FICCI. Mr. Sunil Abraham (CIS) was also an invited panelist. 16) I co-organised a multistakeholder dialogue on *The Future of the Internet, who should govern it & what is at stake for us*with sr. members of the government, industry, academia, technical community, media at IIC. The youth were also invited as end users to share their inputs and experiences. The background paper was jointly prepared by me and Ms. Anja Kovacs. 17) I also organized a youth meet with over 700 youth leaders from India on the Internet We Want- Conversation Series. 18) Another youth meet was organized by me at the Aligarh Muslim University, a minority institutionwith over 300 youth delegates from the minorities and the margins and sr. editors from the media on the role of media and youth in election 2014particularly the impact that social media and the internet can have in amplyfying participation of the youth. 19) I was also invited to conduct a leadership training workshop for the sr. management of TATA Sons and their group companies on social media. 20) I also conducted a third youth meet over 700 young leaders on the “Digital Agenda for the Youth and IG principals”. This was part of the global #FightBack campaign against surveillance and held on the world internet day. 21) I was also a invited to present my paper on Cybersecurity a multistakeholder perspective by ORF New Delhi part of the young voices policy forum. It was extremely well received. 22) I also led the new media outreach and supported the on ground activation for the national Internet Safety campaign for the youth in India in association with Data Security Council of India (A NASSCOM initiative). 23) I am a member of the International Association for Women in Radio and television (IAWRT) and the Internet Society (ISOC). warmest Subi ---- Subi Chaturvedi Assistant Prof. Journalism & Comm, Lady Shri Ram College for Women (LSR), Delhi University, India Twitter:@subichaturvedi http://subichaturvedi.blogspot.in/ Member MAG, UN-IGF (Media & Civil Society) Member MAG, India-IGF (Civil Society) Convenor WG-India IGF Co-Chair, Netmundial (Civil Society) Founder & Hon. Managing Trustee, Media For Change Founder, Chief Mentor & Editor The Saltlist www.thesaltlist.org Independent DocumentaryFilmmaker, Photographer, Curator, Media Critic & Scholar PhD. Scholar, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT-D), New Delhi ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ 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: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Apr 20 14:27:33 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 04:27:33 +1000 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Breaking my silence on Netmundial related concerns raised by colleagues from India In-Reply-To: <53531AC5.2050004@itforchange.net> References: <535127F4.8010604@cafonso.ca> <53531AC5.2050004@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <722684BE90904264AB276B51CDD300A1@Toshiba> Dear Parminder, My understanding, as of today, is that the Co-Chairs will now have no formal role during the meeting, and their formal involvement in that capacity will end before the meeting starts. So I think in those circumstances there is nothing more we need to or should do at this stage. We need to focus our immediate intention on getting the best result from the meeting we can. This particular matter (along with a few other less than perfect process issues in the lead up to this conference) will be best addressed in a post meeting evaluation process, where we can look at all the ways that civil society can work more effectively together on any such future event. There are quite a few lessons to learn, I think. With all the benefit of hindsight, things may have been better if this had been discussed thoroughly on our lists at the time of the original letter sent by your group of Indian civil society organisations to Prof Almeida. A good discussion could have been about having a diplomatically worded letter drafted by the whole of civil society, in support of the matters your group raised about the appointment. It would have been best if the matter was fully discussed and dealt with then. However, if you remember the circumstances, IGC had been reduced to one co-ordinator who was about to retire, and this list was at its divisive best on any matter, be it policy on process. I would personally have supported a diplomatically worded letter if it had been discussed and agreed to, and so would many others. I am sorry that did not happen. Ian From: parminder Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2014 10:54 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Breaking my silence on Netmundial related concerns raised by colleagues from India Dear Ian and Carlos, Perhaps it does not behove me to say this since I am quite junior to both of you in the global IG civil society space - but then I feel that it is my unhappy duty to say it: I am pained that you have put your considerable reputation and goodwill in this space in service of defending what patently is political corruption of the highest order, that too with regard to a model of MSism which you both so vigorously promote. Yes, this particular instance is one of pure and simple political corruption of the highest order, the kind which normally immediately produces reactions of revulsion and outrage in civil society groups...It is not personal. Thousands teach in colleges and have political and social ambitions, and take various kinds of routes to pursue them; similarly thousands work in NGOs like I do. I dont think any of the signatories of the letter from Indian CS groups was in any kind of keen competition to be in NetMundial organisational positions. So, it should not matter to us that much who becomes the top CS reps to the MetMundial... In any case, such is the diversity and structural dis-organisation of civil society that different, often very unexpected, kinds of appointments from civil society regularly takes place, and we may whisper and complain among ourselves but always let it be... It is kind of part of being civil society. This present one is not such a case. And in my view, for anyone willing to be on guard against such subversions, it is not difficult to see the nature of the issue here. As said, it is a case of highest political corruption.. Big business from the US, backed by some strong political interests in that country, have been working in India for 2-3 years now to subvert India's political processes around IG basically with the objective to keep its voice silent on the global level... There have been much discussion inside India lately on this phenomenon including some news reports. Will cut this story short.... What I am coming to is, it is as a part of this political strategy that Sub was picked up and promoted as a 'civil society voice' in India. India has a proud culture of vibrant democracy and a rather mature civil society, whereby it is of course absolutely unacceptable for us, Indian civil society groups, that such a political subversion and corruption takes place. This was and remains the cause of our strong reaction. When, as they say in India, we saw the water go over the head, with Subi's appointment as civil society co-chair of NetMundial, Indian civil society groups took it as their responsibility to bring the facts to the table, and make global actors cognizant about them. It is not an easy decision to take - we all know that while one has to work hard and devote much time to such kind of a thing, there will also always be considerable comebacks, because we are dealing with actors who are extremely resourcefully (obvious, when a completely unknown person can suddenly be placed at the CS head position of a major global meeting), and therefore expectation of counter personal attacks, as indeed have been happening. It perhaps is this reason that most of the other signatories of the letter have not come out publicly on this list to present and push the case. (BTW, I may disclose that I was neither the party to initiate the collective letter nor the news item in Hindustan Times; just so that you all know.) What was surprising is that, when practically all civil society groups in India, who are engaged with IG work - and have extensive work relationships with all other global actors, often stronger than they have among themselves - came out to present the facts on the ground about the inappropriateness of Subi's selections, practically no one from the global civil society expressed real support. (Yes, a good quote from my email to be used by Subi.) I see this as primarily the fault of the civil society leadership. They cannot be doing this with their national CS partners, especially of a country with one seventh of world's population and whose general maturity of civil society processes cannot easily be questioned . But the fact that this did happen points to serious structural flaws in the form and role of civil society, especially its leadership, in MSist spaces. No, it is not the civil society groups from India who lost here - it is the global MSist civil society that has lost, and it may need to introspect deeply about it, if it ever will... Apparently, the testimony of practically all the civil society groups engaged with IG in India was not enough... Then came this investigative report from one of the largest and most-respected dailies of India. A report which I know was being worked for more than 2 months. With extensive interactions inter alia with all people who have been named adversely in the report... I also happen to know that the involved people personally met the senior most editors of the newspaper... All opportunities for defence and clarification were given, and all testimonies and material accepted. Senior editors thoroughly went over all the details overs many days. Do not under-estimate the difficulty and the extent of caution required with regard to a news report like this one which implicates one of the most powerful and entrenched lobbyist in the capital of India. For a long time when the report did not appear, I actually thought, well the obvious has happened! But the newspaper stood its ground and came out with a report presenting just those facts about which it had absolute evidence, and which met their very high reporting standards. So, you guys dont believe the statement of a full group of Indian civil society organisations, and you do not believe even the investigative news report in one of the most highly regarded newspapers of India, a report which was researched for 2 months. Well, in that case, it really must take something to make you believe - or perhaps, you have decided your position already, which is not to rock the MS (multistakeholder) boat as the highest priority, with all else paling in comparison. Anywhere else, a case of this kind, where first the whole civil society in an area makes a case, which is then supported by a well- researched news story, will be an open and shut case for global civil society to support. But not on this occasion...This is something you all guys need to answer. There is nothing more for us, of Indian civil society groups, to say... We are proud that we did a very difficult civil society task of exposing political corruption, took an 'insistent' public stand against it, and refused to be cowed down by cat calls that have become customary on this list whenever any issue implicating the power of big business or the US is raised..... One last point, though I think it may be superfluous, because you all know and understand it. People here have been saying that there is no evidence, which is quite surprising because this is one of few rare cases (and thus must be pushed hard and fully capitalised on) where there is actually considerable evidence of political corruption. Now, this is not a court proceeding, really. Think of when, say in our own countries, an appointment of an industry watchdog is made, or for an anti- corruption body. What is the standard of knowledge and evidence on which civil society will act on what they may regard as complete inappropriateness of an appointment - and perhaps write petitions, boycott proceedings, and so on... Just that level of knowledge and evidence is needed in this case as well. And it is as clear as daylight that such knowledge and evidence is indeed available. To act or not, and whether to denounce or make light of those who indeed are doing their civil society work, remains your own respective political decisions. I see that you are inviting Subi to remain undeterred and continue to engage with civil society here. We too are going to remain undeterred in doing what we see as the real CS work. Best regards parminder PS: I will not respond to Subi's 'clarifications', and I can understand her desperation as well the discomfort of those whose huge interests are affected by this.... However, at one place in her recent email there is a specific reference to my name, mentioning that her recent appointment to some position in the WG on India IGF was with my consent; this is lie typical of much of her statements ... There was no such consent, something which is very easy to verify because the room had around 30 people from gov, industry and CS, and there is also avaiable an official document coming from the meeting. I do however see that the inference from the quote of Marilyn Cade was an inadvertent error on the part of the journalist. On Friday 18 April 2014 06:56 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: Absolutely agree with Ian, including the three wishes. fraternal regards --c.a. On 04/18/2014 12:48 AM, Ian Peter wrote: Subi, It would have taken a lot of courage to write that, and to engage here. I am very glad you did,and thank you for doing so, because it will help to eventually clear the air. My first wish is that, whatever the reactions are to your post, you will continue to engage here with the rest of civil society interested in internet governance. It’s not always a friendly space, as others have discovered, but the interchange and dialogue among people with different perspectives here is important, and leads to more constructive and valuable inputs for civil society as a whole. Whatever the reactions to your post are, I hope you continue to engage here. My second wish is that everyone involved in this dispute can find a way to move past these issues. That’s not going to be easy, and perhaps not immediate, but it is important we do so. My third and final wish is that my first and second wishes come to fruition! Ian Peter *From:* Subi Chaturvedi mailto:subi.igp at gmail.com *Sent:* Friday, April 18, 2014 7:56 AM *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net *Subject:* [governance] Breaking my silence on Netmundial related concerns raised by colleagues from India Dear CS colleagues and friends, This has reference to the article published in HT on 8^th April, 2014 which has been shared and referred to on this mailing list, multiple times. At the outset I want to thank all of you who have written to me showing solidarity against this vicious personal attack, based on wrong, misleading and manipulated information, indicative of a perverse mind, as you'd realize after, going through this post. I had chosen to maintain silence in the face of repeatedand grave provocation but the attacks continue unabated, thwarting and disrupting all attempts at having any civilized conversation about the key issues that concern global CS, even on the eve of Netmundial. The reason why we've invested our energy, faith and considerable amount of time engaging with the process, in the first place. I am now also compelled to write this email, for it is unfair on those who have shown solidarity with me by writing to me or defending me publicly on this list and elsewhere, to be left in this position without a minimal comment from me.I wish to assure global civil society that our views are being shared, represented and recognised. I have made multiple interventions on the calls as well as over emails and continue to work across time zones to ensure that our views are reflected. Anriette, my colleague from the MAG, has done a fairly balanced assessment of the situation though, and I completely agree with her, we have real challenges ahead of us. I think our time would be utilised better if we focus on the issues at hand- in Netmundial, I see a significant oppurtunity for change. In the internet, I see not just a source of knowledge but also an amplifier of dissent and an enabler of human rights and permissionless innovation. I have been a free speech activist and have fought for these issues long and hard and therefore this is deeply painful. My interventions are available publicly and a basic name search would reveal my interventions at the global IGF as well on national media in India. Many of these national meetings have been with my friends and respected colleagues from civil society in India and remain on their websites or any outreach platforms of communication. At the last India IGF MAG meeting where three of the co-signatories, who are also on the MAG, made interventions with me. Their interventions and mine capturedare in the official minutes. In the same meeting I was also appointed as the convenor of the Working group of the India IGF with the knowledge and consent of Mr.Parmindar from ITfC and with consensus from the floor. My work in the Internet Governance Space and related areas of media and communication, deepening democracy and public policy can be found on my blog *http://subichaturvedi.blogspot.in/* Now Iask all of you, who have been relentlessly subjected to the said article and appeals by my respectable colleagues and collaborators from Indian CS- was it appropriate toincludeme in this story related to surveillance by a corporate? Is there any connection at all? Other than to cause harm to me; in which they miserably failed.As identified in Ian’s email, apart from being a vicious personal attack, the article is manipulative on multiple levels and makesseveral inaccurate assertions. Notwithstanding this unfortunate exception, I want to assure all of you that journalism in India is free, fair for the most part, and aharbinger of truth and justice. I would urge you not to judge Indian media based on this article. I submit the following for your consideration:the portions in italics are direct quotes from the same article. . a. /“//Emails accessed by HT suggest that Bhatia championed Chaturvedi's rise in Indian internet governance circles” ./ You would surely notice that while pdfs of all charges were hyperlinked, this allegation conspicuously remains unsubstantiated and any proof to the effect is missing fromthe story. I challenge anyone to put out any evidence of anyone- either me or anyone, at all doing any advocacy for me to be appointed as the co-chair of Netmundial or on the MAG. It is quite unfortunate that my work and my merit should be called into question. Undermining all multistakeholder processes. However malicious even the article does not make this extrapolation that Mr. Parminder Jeet singh repeatedly continuesto make. Despite a clarification on the 4th of April, 2014 issued by the distinguished academician and General Chair of the Meeting Minister Virgilio Almeida. b. “/Chaturvedi has also publicly acknowledged a former AT&T official, Marylin Cade as a "coach and mentor”:/ / /I quote the same tweet: “frm (from) Ms. Marilyn Cade *_coach and Mentor other proposals_*and IGF should limit it’s own”. Inline images 1 In plain violation of the most basic tenets of journalism concocting evidence, he disingenuously parades my tweet about Ms. Cade’s comment at the UN MAG to “coach and mentor other proposals and limit proposals from the MAG itself” as my “public acknowledgement” of Ms. Cade being my “coach and mentor”. c. “/She was also paid upwards of //Rs.// //2.3 lakh for her role at a FICCI-led conference on internet governance. Subsequently, she also received part-funding from FICCI to attend an international conference. This raises a clear conflict of interest since she was on board as a civil society representative, but accepted payments from industry and corporate bodies”./ He knowingly suppressed the context of the Rs.2.3 lakh (3,814 USD), payment by the industry association and presented it as “conflict of interest”. The journalist knew fully well that the payment was a reimbursement of costs incurred at the request of the conference secretariat to produce professional videos, hire resources, material and camera costs, still photography, new media activation and related hardware and studio costs. He knew but purposefully left out my extensive contribution to the conference as a speaker and session organizer on a pro bono basis. He deliberately misrepresented in spite of knowing that the travel assistance given by the industry association was contributed by ISOC (Internet Society) and remaining by NIXI (National Internet Exchange of India). He already knew but hid that both organisations routinely provide travel assistance to scores of civil society representatives, including to some who authored the said letter. This CANNOT under any circumstances be construed as accepting money for advocacy from a corporate and presented as "conflict of interest". This is the most absurd allegation which even seasoned propagandists would shy away from. Further he deceitfully persisted with the false “conflict of interest”, charge by suppressing scores of emails , tweets, posts, videos, film and TV interviews given to him and easily available in the public domain, as my firm stance against illegal surveillance, invasion of privacy, and violation of freedom of speech and expression and human rights. d. /Ph.D/: ** *Can a **mere research studentship**,**which I am still pursuing**,****be**the basis on which I was appointed at any forum?*It was used only to put an unsubstantiated charge of plagiarism for my character assassination. I preferred to change my guide then to “say sorry”, to her for the offenseI had not committed and continue with her. With a view to purposefully mislead the readers, the journalist grossly manipulated the facts around my PhD by deliberately obfuscating that I have steadfastly refuted “any academic wrong doing”. * * *The IIT has never charged me with this offense, no show ca**use has ever**been given to me and hence no action has been taken against me,*detailed evidence was given to the journalist who chose to deliberately ignore it in order to convey a premeditated message. IIT has the highest ethical code of conduct and so do I.And my PhD. is well underway.// // /*The letter of notable members of civil society.*/// The CS letter from Indiacarried the support of 10 individuals+1 author, some of whom claim to represent different organisations. I have worked with most who are in this space including Parminder, Prabir,Anja Kovacs, Chinmayi Arun, Rishab Bailey, Mishi Choudhary, Sunil Abraham; 7 Out of 10. Two of remaining 3 have attended a national conference on IG with me where Parminder was present through out. It is full of misrepresentation.Their claimsare absurd that: /1- They don’t know me/// /2. They haven’t worked with me and I am not active in this space./// /3. They don’t know how to reach me//./// /4. And I do not teach IG/ *My Response**:*** Ø *Not only do they know me quite well*** Ø *We have hosted joint events, *** Ø *We have served on organizational bodies together related to IG, *** Ø *We have appeared as panelists together on IG, *** Ø *We have traveled and worked together on IG, *** Ø *We have submitted joint inputs to government of India on IG, *** Ø *Prepared background papers together for multistakeholder dialogues and events on IG, *** Ø *Co-moderated dialogues and multistakeholder panels on IG. *** Ø *I receive emails from them, respond to them, they have appreciated and thanked me for my inputs and efforts. *** Ø *They have called me on my mobile phone *** Ø *They have visited me in person and with their teams to seek my inputs on their drafts. *** I am happy to compare and contrast my interventions and my work in the IG space with all of them individually or collectively. ** The ITRs submission of CS was jointly made by Ø Society for Knowledge commons represented by Rishab Bailey (author of the CS letter), Ø Internet Democracy Project (Anja Kovacs- co-signatory), Ø Free Software Movement of India (Kiran Chandra (General Secretary- co-signatory), Ø Delhi Science Forum (Prabir – co-signatory), Ø Media For Change( represented by me) Ø SFLC.in (Mishi – co-signatory). Ø Ms. Chinmayi Arun was part of all the 4 day meetings and discussions and is on all the emails but did not finally submit the ITRs formal response. ​ More evidence of Joint work (There’s a lot but I do not wish to burden this list)- One of the recent multistakeholder meetingon IGthat I co-organized including drafting the background paper with Ms. Anja Kovacs from the Internet democracy project (yes we have worked together and collaborated on many occasions and oftentake same positions publicly), was on the 29^th January, 2014. Where I worked with 1. Anja Kovacs, IDP (co-signatory) 2. Sunil Abraham , CIS (cosignatory)- represented by Snehashish Ghosh 3. Mishi Chowdhary, SFLC.in (Cosignatory)- represented by Prashanth Sugathan 4. Ms. Chinmayi Arun Co-moderated the meeting with me and Ms. Anja Kovacs ​ _ * * *Interlinkages between all the authors of the India CS letter:*** Ms Anja Kovacs, IDP is a cosignatory & a CIS fellow and has also worked for ITfC which is represented on this letter by Mr. Parminder Jeet Singh, Ms. Chinmayi Arun from CCG (is a cosignatory & also a CIS fellow), Mr. Sunil Abraham is the director of CIS, RishabBailey the author of the CS letter has been associated with IDP, and with SFLC (another co-signatory) and is now representing SKC which is currently represented on this letter by Mr. Prabir Purkayastha (co-signatory) who is also associated formally as an office bearer with the SFM represented on the letter by Mr. Kiran Chandra (co-signatory). All these are respected colleagues and have worked with me on the ITRs and many other IG related workshops and panels as mentioned above. CIS’s director Mr. Sunil Abraham has also served with me on multiple panels and bodies together and my interventions can be found online and at the CIS website http://cis-india.org/@@search?SearchableText=subi+chaturvedi They are all signatories to the letter. *Again, my heartfelt gratitude to all those who have written tome, or supported me. We have a very important task at hand, thank you again for reposing yourfaith and for believing in me. And I wish that at all times the dignity of the caucus be preserved and upheld. * Finally, I do not hold any grudges against those, including the journalist who may have been involved in this unfortunate and unwarranted personal attack. I continue to have the highest respect for the work that my colleagues do. I am look forward to working with all of you and will be available in Sao Paulo from the 21st and over email. Do feel free to reach out with any questions or comments you may have. I would be happy to participate in any meeting or related discussion and will continue to work to the best of my ability and do my utmost, towards the evolution of the IG ecosphere so that we have an internet, which remains free and open, which amplifies human rights and allows for permissionless innovation and connects the unconnected. More details about my IG interventions can be found on my blog here http://subichaturvedi.blogspot.in/ and *Contributions at the UN IGF : (Partial List) is available here for ready reference* https://www.google.co.in/search?q=igf+MAG+Subi+Chaturvedi+site:www.intgovforum.org&es_sm=91 I am equally thrilled that our collective inputs and suggestions are being taken on board. And I am also hopeful that the outcome document will reflect truly, what will emerge from the floor. Our friends in Brazil from the civil society and from across stakeholder groups have also done commendable work to bring us here. Delighted that it will be a multistakeholder panel, which will open Netmundial 2014 in Brazil. Many congratulations Nnenna, we are in great hands. Very proud to have you representing us and your address at the IGF 2013, in Bali was both profoundly evocative and stirring. I hope you will make time to emphasize the role that the Internet is playing especially in peace building and conflict transformation as well. Your tremendous and deeply inspiring work in Côte d'Ivoire underscores the importance of national and regional initiatives, along with intercessional work. We have a fantastic ambassador in you. And it might be an uphill climb for all of us but let's put our best foot forward. Looking forward to seeing you all in Sao Paulo soon. Safe travels, all. Warmest, Subi ---- Subi Chaturvedi Assistant Prof. Journalism & Comm, Lady Shri Ram College for Women (LSR), Delhi University, India Twitter:@subichaturvedi http://subichaturvedi.blogspot.in/ Member MAG, UN-IGF (Media & Civil Society) Member MAG, India-IGF (Civil Society) Convenor WG-India IGF Co-Chair, Netmundial (Civil Society) Founder & Hon. Managing Trustee, Media For Change Founder, Chief Mentor & Editor The Saltlist www.thesaltlist.org Independent DocumentaryFilmmaker, Photographer, Curator, Media Critic & Scholar PhD. Scholar, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT-D), New Delhi PS: Global CS Community who may not aware of my contribution here’s snapshot ABOUT me and my work specifically on internet /governances/ freedom of speech and expression: * * *IG specific Roles:* 1. Recipient of the NIXI (National Internet Exchange, India) fellowship for IG 2014-2015 2. Co-Chair Netmundial 2014 3. Convenor Working group Indian IGF MAG 4. Member MAG UN IGF 2014 5. Member MAG India IGF 2013 6. Member MAG UN-IGF 2013 7. Co-Lead Breakout group- Multistakeholderism & Enhance cooperation IGF 2013 8. Lead facilitator main focus session on principles of Multistakeholderism IGF 2013 9. Member MAG IIGC 2013 10. Member MAG, IIGC 2012 *Made several noteworthy contributions to the IGF and other global and national Internet governance processes and capacity building initiatives on information and communication especially for under-represented stakeholder groups in IG.* * * I’d be happy to provide detailed reports of my interventions and my contributions at each meeting attended or organised National or global. https://www.google.co.in/search?q=igf+MAG+Subi+Chaturvedi+site:www.intgovforum.org&es_sm=91#q=igf+MAG+Subi+Chaturvedi+site%3Awww.intgovforum.org&start=0 I have been teaching Journalism and Mass Communication including but not limited to papers on New Media technology (including IG) and Media, Law and Ethics, since the last 5 ½ years in the capcity of Assistant Professor at India’s leading liberal arts college for Women, part of Delhi University. I hold 3 gold medals in Anthropology, Psychology, and a gold medal in mass communication from the AJK MCRC, Jamia Millia Islamia, cleared the NET (which is a mandatory requirement for teaching at central universities in India), while a final year student in my first attempt and then hold a CGPA of 9.25/10 at the IIT-Das a part time registered PhD student doing my course work without leave from LSR, while taking full classes and contributing to the College immensely. My most recent article was published in the Hindu which is one of India’s most respected news daily as the lead opinion commentary on the 18^th of February- “for an unfettered internet”, and can be accessed here http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/for-an-unfettered-internet/article5699615.ece It calls for a review of the Indian government’s position on IG. An article for EPW (a prestigious journal) against Corporatisation of Media in India and the loss of pluraity which I have co-authored and the documentary film- Freedom Song on issues of Freedom of Speech and expression in India for PSBT, co directed with Mr. Paranjoy Guha Thakurta(an eminent journalist from India). http://www.epw.in/commentary/corporatisation-media.html The position that I often take isagainst corporatization and control of the media including the Internet by a few,be they governments, private sector including large small/corporate of any national origin, civil society group All my interventions, which are quite a few and substantive in their depth and coverage of issues are online on the IGF website. *This is just a partial list of some of the work that I have done in this academic year 2013-2014:* My article *“For an unfettered internet’, *was published as the lead opinion commentary in The Hindu, India's most respected news daily on why India needs to re-examine it's position on global Internet governance. _http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/for-an-unfettered-internet/article5700871.ece_ My co-directed critically acclaimed documentary FREEDOM SONG, a film on freedom of Speech and expression in contemporary India for PSBT was screened at theIIHS Bangalore City Campus this year and premiered at the prestigious Open Frame. Two of my curated projects, The Many Moods and Moments of Aung San Suu Kyi and ‘The Nobel Women for Peace Project’, were exhibited as part of HH. The Dalai Lama’s visit at LSR. In recognition of _my _*_contribution to Internet and society_*_,_I been awarded: 1) The prestigious NIXI (National Internet Exchange of India, GOI), Fellowship for Internet Governance 2013-2014. 2) I have been appointed as the first Indian woman from two stakeholdergroups ( civil society and media) on the United Nations –IGF MAG, for the second consecutive term. 3) I have also been invited to Co-Chair the Global Multistakeholder Meeting in Brazil on the Future of the Internet. 4) I have also been appointed as the convener of the working group of the India Internet Governance Forum (IGF) by the Chair from DeitY, Ministry of Communication & IT. And also been appointed on the MAG (Multistakeholder Advisory Group) of the India IGF (Internet Governance Forum) to be hosted by MOC&IT, India. 5) At the last Global IGF 2013, held at Bali, Indonesia. I contributed on several panels on Access and diversity, Relating national and regional IGFs, Broadband access and local content, emerging issues- Surveillance and a enhance cooperation (I also the remote moderator for it). And I also moderated and mentored DoT (MoC&IT), Government of India’s Open forum “Connecting the next Billion”. Additionally I also organized and spoke at the Main Focus session on Multistakeholderism as a panelist. 6) I also co-organised a multistakeholder panel discussion on “Will Internet and Social Media be a game changer for the next general election 2014 with senior leaders and ministers from the government and eminent journalists and editors at the India International Centre (IIC), New Delhi. 7) I was also a panelist with sr. editors on the role of media in promoting art at the global stage organized by exchange4media at IIC. 8) I was also a panelist at the National Convention on "Crisis of Capitalism and brazen onslaught on DEMOCRACY" , organized by the INSAF foundation at the constitution club for the session on SURVEILLANCE, STATE AND PERILS OF DEMOCRACY. With Mr. Prabir who is a cosignatory of the letter. 9) I was a panelist on IGF and the way forward organized by ORF, New Delhi. Ms. Anja Kovacs was my co-panelist a basic online search would reveal and expose the claims made in the letter. The ORF report is online with our interventions and images together. 10) I was also the key note speaker on Internet –a democratic space, at NALSAR along with eminent and sr. judges and lawyers of the supreme court on Social Media and Hate speech. Both Ms. Chinmayi Arun and Ms. Anja Kovacs were part of the same event. Ms. Kovacs was,moreover on the same session as I was. 11) I also organized and moderated a multitsakeholder panel discussion at the ITU-WSIS 2013, Geneva on, “ Ensuring Internet Access and Better Governance by Deepening Multistakeholderism- A Developing Nation Perspective with sr. ministers and heads of regional and national Internet & ICT initiatives. 12) Held a capacity building Workshop for the youth -"Towards a new Ethics of Cyberspace- Being a responsible online Digital Citizen with sr. industry leaders as key resource persons. 13) I also appeared as a distinguished panelist on national media on internet, new media regulation and social media, women safety and empowerment related issues, through the year. 14) I also organised and moderated the MEDIA CONGRESS- Panel on 'Government Surveillance vs Individual Privacy : Are they mutually exclusive?' with distinguished speakers: Dr. Usha Rmanathan eminent civil society activist, Dr. Govind, CEO NIXI, Mr. Pavan Duggal, Prof. Vibodh Parthasarathi and Ms. Shalini Singh. 15) I was also a panelist at the IMDEC 2013, Panel on “The Internet We Want: A Multistakeholder View” along with global leaders from civil society, industry, government and the technical community at FICCI. Mr. Sunil Abraham (CIS) was also an invited panelist. 16) I co-organised a multistakeholder dialogue on *The Future of the Internet, who should govern it & what is at stake for us*with sr. members of the government, industry, academia, technical community, media at IIC. The youth were also invited as end users to share their inputs and experiences. The background paper was jointly prepared by me and Ms. Anja Kovacs. 17) I also organized a youth meet with over 700 youth leaders from India on the Internet We Want- Conversation Series. 18) Another youth meet was organized by me at the Aligarh Muslim University, a minority institutionwith over 300 youth delegates from the minorities and the margins and sr. editors from the media on the role of media and youth in election 2014particularly the impact that social media and the internet can have in amplyfying participation of the youth. 19) I was also invited to conduct a leadership training workshop for the sr. management of TATA Sons and their group companies on social media. 20) I also conducted a third youth meet over 700 young leaders on the “Digital Agenda for the Youth and IG principals”. This was part of the global #FightBack campaign against surveillance and held on the world internet day. 21) I was also a invited to present my paper on Cybersecurity a multistakeholder perspective by ORF New Delhi part of the young voices policy forum. It was extremely well received. 22) I also led the new media outreach and supported the on ground activation for the national Internet Safety campaign for the youth in India in association with Data Security Council of India (A NASSCOM initiative). 23) I am a member of the International Association for Women in Radio and television (IAWRT) and the Internet Society (ISOC). warmest Subi ---- Subi Chaturvedi Assistant Prof. Journalism & Comm, Lady Shri Ram College for Women (LSR), Delhi University, India Twitter:@subichaturvedi http://subichaturvedi.blogspot.in/ Member MAG, UN-IGF (Media & Civil Society) Member MAG, India-IGF (Civil Society) Convenor WG-India IGF Co-Chair, Netmundial (Civil Society) Founder & Hon. Managing Trustee, Media For Change Founder, Chief Mentor & Editor The Saltlist www.thesaltlist.org Independent DocumentaryFilmmaker, Photographer, Curator, Media Critic & Scholar PhD. Scholar, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT-D), New Delhi ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ 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: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nb at bollow.ch Mon Apr 21 05:40:10 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 11:40:10 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Breaking my silence on Netmundial related concerns raised by colleagues from India In-Reply-To: <53531AC5.2050004@itforchange.net> References: <535127F4.8010604@cafonso.ca> <53531AC5.2050004@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20140421114010.447b8f20@quill> Parminder wrote: > What was surprising is that, when practically all civil society > groups in India, who are engaged with IG work - and have extensive > work relationships with all other global actors, often stronger than > they have among themselves - came out to present the facts on the > ground about the inappropriateness of Subi's selections, practically > no one from the global civil society expressed real support. (Yes, a > good quote from my email to be used by Subi.) I see this as primarily > the fault of the civil society leadership. They cannot be doing this > with their national CS partners, especially of a country with one > seventh of world's population and whose general maturity of civil > society processes cannot easily be questioned. But the fact that this > did happen points to serious structural flaws in the form and role of > civil society, especially its leadership, in MSist spaces. No, it is > not the civil society groups from India who lost here - it is the > global MSist civil society that has lost, and it may need to > introspect deeply about it, if it ever will... My perspective here is different in that I wasn't surprised, having quite recently experienced similarly lackluster and even hostile reactions when I called for transparency in a context where I think that fundamentally the same conflict also manifested itself. For example I was accused of wanting to line up people against a wall and shoot them, and the posting which contained that absolutely over-the-top statement got a remarkable degree of support. I definitely agree with the strong words about global civil society in Internet governance as a whole. We absolutely need to introspect deeply about what civil society is supposed to stand for, and then re-organize accordingly. Greetings, Norbert From chinmayiarun at gmail.com Mon Apr 21 02:57:52 2014 From: chinmayiarun at gmail.com (Chinmayi Arun) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 12:27:52 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] NetMundial and Indian CS: Discussing Transparency and Conflict of Interest Message-ID: Dear All, I signed the Indian Civil Society letterbecause I thought that a meeting as significant as NetMundial should be especially careful about the process it follows. Multi-stakeholder dialogue is and will always be an enterprise that will need to be handled with a great deal of care. If we seek to replace some inter-governmental processes with MS processes, surely we need to build the same safeguards into the multi-stakeholder mechanisms that exist in government functioning. It is therefore of the utmost importance that transparency and accountability be a part of multi stakeholder dialogue. I found it problematic that these did not feature in the appointments of the Chair, and considered an obligation to point this out. This is of course while maintaing my very high regard for all the people who worked so hard to put NetMundial together - it cannot have been easy to achieve so much so fast. I am sorry that the conversation intended to be about the process by which the Chairpersons were appointed has turned personal. It was not meant to. If it helps, had I been appointed a Chair for this conference by the same process, I would have considered that problematic too. The heart of this is that the process should have been consultative and transparent, regardless of who eventually gets appointed. From aprabhala at gmail.com Mon Apr 21 12:29:38 2014 From: aprabhala at gmail.com (Achal Prabhala) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 13:29:38 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] multistakeholderism: a quick survey In-Reply-To: <5353209C.9060901@itforchange.net> References: <535127F4.8010604@cafonso.ca> <53531AC5.2050004@itforchange.net> <5353209C.9060901@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <53554772.9060907@gmail.com> Hello, I'm Achal Prabhala and I am attending NetMundial on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore (www.cis-india.org). Given the several different interpretations of what multistakeholderism means, CIS is interested in a short vox pop on what you think the term means. We'll run responses on the CIS website on a daily basis once NetMundial starts. If you have a minute, and have an opinion on what this means (a couple of lines will do) - I would appreciate that. You can simply email me directly, aprabhala at gmail dot com. Please include your designation as you would like it to be noted. Many thanks; I'll also be asking as many people at NetMundial who will speak to me from different sectors - esp government, business and the technical community - and we'll be similarly recording and relaying their answers. I appreciate your time. Good wishes, -Achal From nnenna75 at gmail.com Mon Apr 21 12:07:17 2014 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 16:07:17 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] NetMundial opening ceremony address (Civil Society) Draft speech plan Message-ID: Dear all I have received some 100+ feedback on the request for issues to be included. Here are a few remarks from my end: 1. It is not possible to bring all our issues to fore. We have a choice of either rolling out most issues and getting them drowned, or picking out 2-3 key issues and building them up. I'm choosing the later. 2. NetMundial is dealing with two key challenges: Principles and Road Map for the future of Internet Governance. In as much as it might be important to decry most ongoings, I believe it is far more valuable to step into the future, anticipate and advance leading thoughts. 3. I only have 8 minutes and in reality, the speech needs to be constrained to 7. So below is a brief outline: === Draft minute by minute: 1. Intro of Nnenna: Africa, Best Bits and Internet Governance Caucus 2. Intro of the Web Foundation: Mission, and key activities 3. On principles: a) Access b) social change and justice 4. On principles c) Human Rights and Freedoms 5. On Roadmap: a) Participation b) resources 6. On Roadmap: c) Change (accountability, transparency) 7. Overarching issue: Trust and positive agenda 8. Thanks === All for now Nnenna -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Mon Apr 21 18:41:54 2014 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 18:41:54 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] NetMundial opening ceremony address (Civil Society) Draft speech plan In-Reply-To: References: <2F099E79-E3FD-4238-BFBF-523C2F76CA8A@noos.fr> Message-ID: <20140421224154.5873815.1229.41135@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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 nnenna75 at gmail.com Mon Apr 21 17:13:03 2014 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 21:13:03 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] NetMundial opening ceremony address (Civil Society) Draft speech plan In-Reply-To: <2F099E79-E3FD-4238-BFBF-523C2F76CA8A@noos.fr> References: <2F099E79-E3FD-4238-BFBF-523C2F76CA8A@noos.fr> Message-ID: Hi Marie, all I hope I will. Trust is one that is a principle as well as a road map. And I am convinced that it is key. And like many colleagues have noted, all actions that destroy trust destroy the Internet (non acceptance of Net neutrality, unwarranted surveillance, threats of cyberwar etc) I know it is a challenge to build, as stakeholders enlarge and the stakes get higher... But build it, we must All for now Nnenna On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Marie GEORGES wrote: > Many thanks Nnema, > > Hope you will make clear that *point 7 on trust became 1st priority * > > after Snowden's revelations on mass surveillance and on how some States > managed to keep or introduce back door in equipments and poor > cryptographical tools, > THAT, for the sake of ITC and development, it is all the more urgent > Governments concerned make clear to the world that they STOP mass > surveillance and that they STOP using internet as a new armed battle field > while more and more the world depends daily on that infrastructure. > > Best regards > Marie > > Le 21 avr. 2014 à 18:07, Nnenna Nwakanma a écrit : > > Dear all > > I have received some 100+ feedback on the request for issues to be > included. Here are a few remarks from my end: > > 1. It is not possible to bring all our issues to fore. We have a choice of > either rolling out most issues and getting them drowned, or picking out 2-3 > key issues and building them up. I'm choosing the later. > > 2. NetMundial is dealing with two key challenges: Principles and Road Map > for the future of Internet Governance. In as much as it might be important > to decry most ongoings, I believe it is far more valuable to step into the > future, anticipate and advance leading thoughts. > > 3. I only have 8 minutes and in reality, the speech needs to be > constrained to 7. So below is a brief outline: > > === > Draft minute by minute: > > 1. Intro of Nnenna: Africa, Best Bits and Internet Governance Caucus > 2. Intro of the Web Foundation: Mission, and key activities > 3. On principles: a) Access b) social change and justice > 4. On principles c) Human Rights and Freedoms > 5. On Roadmap: a) Participation b) resources > 6. On Roadmap: c) Change (accountability, transparency) > 7. Overarching issue: Trust and positive agenda > 8. Thanks > > === > > All for now > > Nnenna > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: From g.astbrink at gsa.com.au Mon Apr 21 22:01:05 2014 From: g.astbrink at gsa.com.au (Gunela Astbrink) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 12:01:05 +1000 Subject: [bestbits] NetMundial opening ceremony address (Civil Society) Draft speech plan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5355CD61.7090800@gsa.com.au> Dear Nnenna, You are covering the key topics in a very short time. I agree with your approach. I will make a request however. Could you mention the one billion people with disability in the world (80% of whom live in developing countries) in one sentence please under points 3 or 4? I recall you mentioned disability at the IGF in Bali and that was very welcome. Kind regards, Gunela Astbrink Nnenna Nwakanma said the following on 22/04/14 02:07 : > Dear all > > I have received some 100+ feedback on the request for issues to be > included. Here are a few remarks from my end: > > 1. It is not possible to bring all our issues to fore. We have a choice > of either rolling out most issues and getting them drowned, or picking > out 2-3 key issues and building them up. I'm choosing the later. > > 2. NetMundial is dealing with two key challenges: Principles and Road > Map for the future of Internet Governance. In as much as it might be > important to decry most ongoings, I believe it is far more valuable to > step into the future, anticipate and advance leading thoughts. > > 3. I only have 8 minutes and in reality, the speech needs to be > constrained to 7. So below is a brief outline: > > === > Draft minute by minute: > > 1. Intro of Nnenna: Africa, Best Bits and Internet Governance Caucus > 2. Intro of the Web Foundation: Mission, and key activities > 3. On principles: a) Access b) social change and justice > 4. On principles c) Human Rights and Freedoms > 5. On Roadmap: a) Participation b) resources > 6. On Roadmap: c) Change (accountability, transparency) > 7. Overarching issue: Trust and positive agenda > 8. Thanks > > === > > All for now > > Nnenna > > -- Gunela Astbrink GSA InfoComm PO Box 600 Ballina NSW 2478 Australia Mobile: +61 417 715738 Email: g.astbrink at gsa.com.au www.gsa.com.au From mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG Mon Apr 21 22:44:17 2014 From: mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG (Mike Godwin (mgodwin@INTERNEWS.ORG)) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 22:44:17 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] NetMundial opening ceremony address (Civil Society) Draft speech plan In-Reply-To: References: <2F099E79-E3FD-4238-BFBF-523C2F76CA8A@noos.fr> Message-ID: Nnenna, I think it can’t be overstressed how central trust is. Historically, the internet we have come to love has been built on trusted individuals, institutions, and processes — sometimes informal institutions and processes — and if we can keep the tradition alive going forward, that would be one of the highest things we could achieve. It also seems to me to be a good basis on which to build trust with regard to empowering individuals through the internet, which I think is a central democratic goal in this century. So, definitely +1. —Mike -- Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project mgodwin at internews.org | Mobile 415-793-4446 Skype mnemonic1026 Address 1640 Rhode Island Ave., 7th Floor, Washington, DC 20036 USA INTERNEWS | Local Voices. Global Change. www.internews.org | @internews | facebook.com/internews From: Nnenna Nwakanma > Reply-To: Nnenna Nwakanma > Date: Monday, April 21, 2014 at 5:13 PM To: Marie GEORGES > Cc: Governance >, ">" >, Discussion List on African Internet Governance Forum > Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] NetMundial opening ceremony address (Civil Society) Draft speech plan Hi Marie, all I hope I will. Trust is one that is a principle as well as a road map. And I am convinced that it is key. And like many colleagues have noted, all actions that destroy trust destroy the Internet (non acceptance of Net neutrality, unwarranted surveillance, threats of cyberwar etc) I know it is a challenge to build, as stakeholders enlarge and the stakes get higher... But build it, we must All for now Nnenna On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Marie GEORGES > wrote: Many thanks Nnema, Hope you will make clear that point 7 on trust became 1st priority after Snowden's revelations on mass surveillance and on how some States managed to keep or introduce back door in equipments and poor cryptographical tools, THAT, for the sake of ITC and development, it is all the more urgent Governments concerned make clear to the world that they STOP mass surveillance and that they STOP using internet as a new armed battle field while more and more the world depends daily on that infrastructure. Best regards Marie Le 21 avr. 2014 à 18:07, Nnenna Nwakanma a écrit : Dear all I have received some 100+ feedback on the request for issues to be included. Here are a few remarks from my end: 1. It is not possible to bring all our issues to fore. We have a choice of either rolling out most issues and getting them drowned, or picking out 2-3 key issues and building them up. I'm choosing the later. 2. NetMundial is dealing with two key challenges: Principles and Road Map for the future of Internet Governance. In as much as it might be important to decry most ongoings, I believe it is far more valuable to step into the future, anticipate and advance leading thoughts. 3. I only have 8 minutes and in reality, the speech needs to be constrained to 7. So below is a brief outline: === Draft minute by minute: 1. Intro of Nnenna: Africa, Best Bits and Internet Governance Caucus 2. Intro of the Web Foundation: Mission, and key activities 3. On principles: a) Access b) social change and justice 4. On principles c) Human Rights and Freedoms 5. On Roadmap: a) Participation b) resources 6. On Roadmap: c) Change (accountability, transparency) 7. Overarching issue: Trust and positive agenda 8. Thanks === All for now Nnenna ____________________________________________________________ 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 Click here to report this email as spam. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG Mon Apr 21 23:38:41 2014 From: mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG (Mike Godwin (mgodwin@INTERNEWS.ORG)) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 23:38:41 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] multistakeholderism: a quick survey In-Reply-To: <53554772.9060907@gmail.com> References: <535127F4.8010604@cafonso.ca> <53531AC5.2050004@itforchange.net> <5353209C.9060901@itforchange.net> <53554772.9060907@gmail.com> Message-ID: <55C58F39-F13A-4F02-9FCD-8161770E1FE5@internews.org> Perhaps ask not just what it means to everyone, but what it should mean, most constructively interpreted? —Mike On Apr 21, 2014, at 12:29 PM, Achal Prabhala wrote: > Hello, I'm Achal Prabhala and I am attending NetMundial on behalf of the > Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore (www.cis-india.org). > > Given the several different interpretations of what multistakeholderism > means, CIS is interested in a short vox pop on what you think the term > means. We'll run responses on the CIS website on a daily basis once > NetMundial starts. > > If you have a minute, and have an opinion on what this means (a couple > of lines will do) - I would appreciate that. You can simply email me > directly, aprabhala at gmail dot com. Please include your designation as > you would like it to be noted. > > Many thanks; I'll also be asking as many people at NetMundial who will > speak to me from different sectors - esp government, business and the > technical community - and we'll be similarly recording and relaying > their answers. > > I appreciate your time. Good wishes, > -Achal > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 495 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu Tue Apr 22 01:55:27 2014 From: erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu (JOSEFSSON Erik) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 05:55:27 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] multistakeholderism: a quick survey In-Reply-To: <55C58F39-F13A-4F02-9FCD-8161770E1FE5@internews.org> References: <535127F4.8010604@cafonso.ca> <53531AC5.2050004@itforchange.net> <5353209C.9060901@itforchange.net> <53554772.9060907@gmail.com>,<55C58F39-F13A-4F02-9FCD-8161770E1FE5@internews.org> Message-ID: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A069B24EB@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> Maybe a listing of what multistakeholderism is *not* is easier to work with and agree on? //Erik ________________________________________ From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) [mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG] Sent: Tuesday 22 April 2014 05:38 To: Achal Prabhala Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] multistakeholderism: a quick survey Perhaps ask not just what it means to everyone, but what it should mean, most constructively interpreted? —Mike On Apr 21, 2014, at 12:29 PM, Achal Prabhala wrote: > Hello, I'm Achal Prabhala and I am attending NetMundial on behalf of the > Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore (www.cis-india.org). > > Given the several different interpretations of what multistakeholderism > means, CIS is interested in a short vox pop on what you think the term > means. We'll run responses on the CIS website on a daily basis once > NetMundial starts. > > If you have a minute, and have an opinion on what this means (a couple > of lines will do) - I would appreciate that. You can simply email me > directly, aprabhala at gmail dot com. Please include your designation as > you would like it to be noted. > > Many thanks; I'll also be asking as many people at NetMundial who will > speak to me from different sectors - esp government, business and the > technical community - and we'll be similarly recording and relaying > their answers. > > I appreciate your time. Good wishes, > -Achal > From ceo at bnnrc.net Tue Apr 22 05:04:21 2014 From: ceo at bnnrc.net (AHM Bazlur Rahman) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 15:04:21 +0600 Subject: [bestbits] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bangladesh_Delegation_on_NETmundial_now?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_in_S=E3o_Paulo=2C_Brazil?= Message-ID: *Bangladesh Delegation on NETmundial now in São Paulo* *H E Hasanul Haq Inu, MP*, Information Minister, Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh with other 4 member delegation now in *São Paulo* for join ing a global meeting on the future of the Internet Governance NETmundial Hasanul Haq Inu will deliver welcome remarks to opening ceremony of NETmundial. He also the chairperson of Bangladesh Internet Governance Forum (BIGF) in conjunction with United Nations Internet Governance Forum (UN IGF) established in 2006 and he has already join a member of the Council of Governmental Advisors of Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance . The minister will lead a five-member high level delegation from Bangladesh; the delegation comprises one representative private sector, civil society, policy expert and technical community in Bangladesh. The four other delegation members are deputy head of the delegation *Dr Akram Hossain Chowdhury*, Chairperson, Center for E -Parliament Research, *Ms. Afroza Haq,* Member of Bangladesh Association of Software & Information Services (BASIS), *Abdul Haque, *Secretary General of Bangladesh Internet Governance Forum (BIGF), and *AHM. Bazlur Rahman*, Member of Multi-Stakeholder Steering Group of Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum (APrIGF) & Chief Executive Officer, Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) Bangladesh Internet Governance Forum (BIGF) in conjunction with United Nations Internet Governance Forum (UN IGF) has already initiated to develop people's charter on Internet governance for Bangladesh in consultation with multistakeholder like government, civil society, private sector, academia and media. Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication is part of people's charter on Internet governance process in line with community media. Bazlu ______ _______________ AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR *| *Chief Executive Officer *|* Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) *[NGO in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social Council]* House: 13/3, Road: 2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207*|* Bangladesh*|* Phone: +88-02-9130750| 9101479 | Cell: +88 01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501 *|* E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net* |* bnnr cbd at gmail.com *|* www.bnnrc.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aprabhala at gmail.com Tue Apr 22 05:43:25 2014 From: aprabhala at gmail.com (Achal Prabhala) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 06:43:25 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] multistakeholderism: a quick survey In-Reply-To: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A069B24EB@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> References: <535127F4.8010604@cafonso.ca> <53531AC5.2050004@itforchange.net> <5353209C.9060901@itforchange.net> <53554772.9060907@gmail.com>,<55C58F39-F13A-4F02-9FCD-8161770E1FE5@internews.org> <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A069B24EB@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> Message-ID: <535639BD.2000403@gmail.com> Hello Erik (and Mike - long time), The point of our exercise is not to "agree" on anything - as yet. The point is to understand what individuals on this list think multistakeholderim is/ should be. That meaning could even well be what it is not. But it is for an individual to say as she/he pleases. Mike, absolutely, we're asking for what multistakeholderism means in *this* context, in the context of NetMundial, IANA, and any other part of the Internet Governance universe which employs the term. Erik, Mike, can I ask you two to be the first to respond to the CIS call and send me an email with a few lines explaining *your* view of it? I'd appreciate that, as I would hearing from any others here who would like to share a few words on the subject. I don't want to clutter up this list or have a discussion around different meanings here, because consensus isn't the immediate point of the exercise. Good wishes, -Achal On Tuesday 22 April 2014 02:55 AM, JOSEFSSON Erik wrote: > Maybe a listing of what multistakeholderism is *not* is easier to work with and agree on? > > //Erik > > ________________________________________ > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) [mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG] > Sent: Tuesday 22 April 2014 05:38 > To: Achal Prabhala > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] multistakeholderism: a quick survey > > Perhaps ask not just what it means to everyone, but what it should mean, most constructively interpreted? > > > —Mike > > > > On Apr 21, 2014, at 12:29 PM, Achal Prabhala wrote: > >> Hello, I'm Achal Prabhala and I am attending NetMundial on behalf of the >> Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore (www.cis-india.org). >> >> Given the several different interpretations of what multistakeholderism >> means, CIS is interested in a short vox pop on what you think the term >> means. We'll run responses on the CIS website on a daily basis once >> NetMundial starts. >> >> If you have a minute, and have an opinion on what this means (a couple >> of lines will do) - I would appreciate that. You can simply email me >> directly, aprabhala at gmail dot com. Please include your designation as >> you would like it to be noted. >> >> Many thanks; I'll also be asking as many people at NetMundial who will >> speak to me from different sectors - esp government, business and the >> technical community - and we'll be similarly recording and relaying >> their answers. >> >> I appreciate your time. Good wishes, >> -Achal >> > From lorena at collaboratory.de Tue Apr 22 05:57:34 2014 From: lorena at collaboratory.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 11:57:34 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] NetMundial opening ceremony address (Civil Society) Draft speech plan In-Reply-To: References: <2F099E79-E3FD-4238-BFBF-523C2F76CA8A@noos.fr> <20140421224154.5873815.1229.41135@gmail.com> Message-ID: +1 Am 22.04.2014 11:56 schrieb "Oksana Prykhodko" : > > Dear Nnenna, excellent points with trust as a priority. > best regards, > Oksana > On Tuesday, April 22, 2014, Sonigitu Ekpe wrote: > > Trust Nnenna on STAGE! > > Sonigitu Ekpe > > > > Mobile +234 805 0232 469 Office + 234 802 751 0179 > > "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving" > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 11:41 PM, Tracy Hackshaw @ Google < > tracyhackshaw at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Excellent approach Nnenna! > > Use the platform well. > > /t > > Sent from BlackBerry Q10 > > From: Nnenna Nwakanma > > Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 5:13 PM > > To: Marie GEORGES > > Reply To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > Cc: Governance; ; Discussion List on > African Internet Governance Forum > > Subject: Re: [governance] NetMundial opening ceremony address (Civil > Society) Draft speech plan > > Hi Marie, all > > > > I hope I will. Trust is one that is a principle as well as a road map. > And I am convinced that it is key. And like many colleagues have noted, > all actions that destroy trust destroy the Internet (non acceptance of Net > neutrality, unwarranted surveillance, threats of cyberwar etc) > > > > I know it is a challenge to build, as stakeholders enlarge and the > stakes get higher... > > > > But build it, we must > > > > All for now > > > > Nnenna > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Marie GEORGES > wrote: > > > > Many thanks Nnema, > > Hope you will make clear that point 7 on trust became 1st priority > > after Snowden's revelations on mass surveillance and on how some States > managed to keep or introduce back door in equipments and poor > cryptographical tools, > > THAT, for the sake of ITC and development, it is all the more urgent > Governments concerned make clear to the world that they STOP mass > surveillance and that they STOP using internet as a new armed battle field > while more and more the world depends daily on that infrastructure. > > Best regards > > Marie > > Le 21 avr. 2014 à 18:07, Nnenna Nwakanma a écrit : > > > > Dear all > > > > I have received some 100+ feedback on the request for issues to be > included. Here are a few remarks from my end: > > > > 1. It is not possible to bring all our issues to fore. We have a choice > of either rolling out most issues and getting them drowned, or picking out > 2-3 key issues and building them up. I'm choosing the later. > > > > 2. NetMundial is d > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: From nb at bollow.ch Tue Apr 22 06:04:58 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 12:04:58 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Just Net Coalition Response to NetMundial Outcome Document Message-ID: <20140422120458.2e69032c@quill> Dear all, please find below and attached the Just Net Coalition's response to the draft NetMundial Outcome Document. Greetings, Norbert co-convenor, Just Net Coalition * Just Net Coalition Response to NetMundial Outcome Document * President Dilma's Speech in the UN General assembly last September, resonated throughout the world. It expressed the outrage of the people on the "grave violation of human rights and of civil liberties", the threat of "cyberspace being used as a weapon of war" and violation sovereign rights of countries including Brazil. She expressed the global discontent in the way the Internet is being currently governed. She called for protection of data as it travels on the web and multilateral mechanisms (or UN mechanisms) for the Internet to ensure democratic governance, cultural diversity, inclusive and non discriminatory societies, and responsible regulation. It is in this context within which the NetMundial conference -- on April 23rd-24th -- is taking place in Sao Paulo for which Brazil has taken the initiative. Unfortunately, all the above issues that President Dilma highlighted in her UN speech, are missing from the current draft that is being placed before the conference. The document fails to mention the word 'democracy' at all - and instead talks only about the multistakeholder model and governance on the basis of consensus. This, even though such systems have failed in protecting the global citizens from drag-net surveillance, the threat of cyber war and the emergence of global monopolies. Such a model also completely ignores the concept of public interest in Internet governance. If we take the pharmaceutical example, a multistakeholder governance would have meant deciding /by consensus/-- between global pharma, AIDS patients in the global south and global governments -- what should be the cost of such lifesaving drugs, without addressing or identifying where public good lies. Brazil and other countries rejected such an approach and that iswhy people in the global south today can afford to buy drugs for their treatment. And who would accept that pharmaceutical companies have equal rights with respect to decisions on safety and effectiveness of their products? A model that gives equal rights for public policy to governments, and corporations, is giving global corporations, a veto to prevent any meaningful reform and regulation. This is a violation of all democratic norms and the rights of the people -- their political, economic, social and cultural rights, essentially surrendering global public interest to private, unelected, rich and powerful global corporations. How could, for instance, network neutrality ever be imposed in such a model? Governments are answerable to their people; corporations to their shareholders. People and profits cannot be equated through a specific model of governance. This is what NetMundial must address; not an endorsement of the status quo but a new beginning in Internet governance; an Internet governance that must place public good over private profit, protect global citizens from mass surveillance and the threat of cyber weapons. This is the leadership role that we would expect President Dilma and Brazil to play in NetMundial. This is what all countries and groups who believe in democracy, advancing human rights and social justice and a peaceful world must strive for in the final outcome document. The Just Net Coalition has submitted a detailed clause-by-clause amendment to the Draft of the NetMundial document. We believe that the draft should be significantly revised to include the following: 1. A democratic and multistakeholder Internet governance model with different roles and responsibilities for different stakeholders; recognising that corporations and governments cannot be placed on an equal footing in governing the Internet. 2. Restoring the reference to the necessary and proportionate principle and therefore countering the continuation of mass surveillance. 3. Restoring reference to the need for a global compact on prohibition of cyberwar and cyber weapons. 4. Adding a clear reference to net neutrality principles (the current reference is too vague and ambiguous, permitting practices such as tiered access and differential pricing). 5. Addressing emerging increased power of monopolies in the Internet space with respect to cultural and language diversity, and profiteering, and the need for regulating such monopolies. 6. Addressing the issue of appropriation and monetisation of data of the people by corporations. 7. Recognizing the concept of global commons or public good in internet governance. 8. Rejecting unilateral preconditions on the IANA transition discussions. We expect that the final outcome document will explicitly foster a decentralized, free and open, non-hierarchical network of networks, and not implicitly favour the current trends of Internet governance which are leading us more and more towards monolithic, centralized walled gardens. NetMundial must dedicate itself to a roadmap to for an open, robust and resilient Internet -- acceptable to everyone including the 70 per cent unconnected majority. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Just_Net_Coalition_Response_NetMundial_2014-04-22.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 34852 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Apr 22 06:04:38 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 11:04:38 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Just Net Coalition Response to the Draft NetMundial Outcome Document In-Reply-To: <031f01cf5e11$48b3ed80$da1bc880$@gmail.com> References: <031f01cf5e11$48b3ed80$da1bc880$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <036001cf5e12$4e03fc20$ea0bf460$@gmail.com> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Just Net Coalition Response to the Draft NetMundial Outcome Document São Paulo, Brazil April 21, 2014 NetMundial Draft Outcome Document Misses Out All Key issues from Dilma's UN Speech President Dilma's Speech in the UN General assembly last September, resonated throughout the world. It expressed the outrage of the people on the “grave violation of human rights and of civil liberties”, the threat of “cyberspace being used as a weapon of war” and violation sovereign rights of countries including Brazil. She expressed the global discontent in the way the Internet is being currently governed. She called for protection of data as it travels on the web and multilateral mechanisms (or UN mechanisms) for the Internet to ensure democratic governance, cultural diversity, inclusive and non discriminatory societies, and responsible regulation. It is in this context within which the NetMundial conference – on April 23rd-24th – is taking place in Sao Paulo for which Brazil has taken the initiative. Unfortunately, all the above issues that President Dilma highlighted in her UN speech, are missing from the current draft that is being placed before the conference. The document fails to mention the word ‘democracy’ at all - and instead talks only about the multistakeholder model and governance on the basis of consensus. This, even though such systems have failed in protecting the global citizens from drag-net surveillance, the threat of cyber war and the emergence of global monopolies. Such a model also completely ignores the concept of public interest in Internet governance. If we take the pharmaceutical example, a multistakeholder governance would have meant deciding by consensus – between global pharma, AIDS patients in the global south and global governments – what should be the cost of such lifesaving drugs, without addressing or identifying where public good lies. Brazil and other countries rejected such an approach and that is why people in the global south today can afford to buy drugs for their treatment. And who would accept that pharmaceutical companies have equal rights with respect to decisions on safety and effectiveness of their products? A model that gives equal rights for public policy to governments, and corporations, is giving global corporations, a veto to prevent any meaningful reform and regulation. This is a violation of all democratic norms and the rights of the people – their political, economic, social and cultural rights, essentially surrendering global public interest to private, unelected, rich and powerful global corporations. How could, for instance, network neutrality ever be imposed in such a model? Governments are answerable to their people; corporations to their shareholders. People and profits cannot be equated through a specific model of governance. This is what NetMundial must address; not an endorsement of the status quo but a new beginning in Internet governance; an Internet governance that must place public good over private profit, protect global citizens from mass surveillance and the threat of cyber weapons. This is the leadership role that we would expect President Dilma and Brazil to play in NetMundial. This is what all countries and groups who believe in democracy, advancing human rights and social justice and a peaceful world must strive for in the final outcome document. The Just Net Coalition has submitted a detailed clause-by-clause amendment to the Draft of the NetMundial document. We believe that the draft should be significantly revised to include the following: 1. A democratic and multistakeholder Internet governance model with different roles and responsibilities for different stakeholders; recognising that corporations and governments cannot be placed on an equal footing in governing the Internet 2. Restoring the reference to the necessary and proportionate principle and therefore countering the continuation of mass surveillance 3. Restoring reference to the need for a global compact on prohibition of cyberwar and cyber weapons 4. Adding a clear reference to net neutrality principles (the current reference is too vague and ambiguous, permitting practices such as tiered access and differential pricing) 5. Addressing emerging increased power of monopolies in the Internet space with respect to cultural and language diversity, and profiteering, and the need for regulating such monopolies 6. Addressing the issue of appropriation and monetisation of data of the people by corporations 7. Recognizing the concept of global commons or public good in internet governance 8. Rejecting unilateral preconditions on the IANA transition discussions We expect that the final outcome document will explicitly foster a decentralized, free and open, non-hierarchical network of networks, and not implicitly favour the current trends of Internet governance which are leading us more and more towards monolithic, centralized walled gardens. NetMundial must dedicate itself to a roadmap to for an open, robust and resilient Internet -- acceptable to everyone including the 70 per cent unconnected majority. Just Net Coalition A coalition of civil society groups from different regions globally concerned with Internet governance, human rights and social justice www.justnetcoalition.org Please write to prabirp at gmail.com for further information -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: JNC Press statement .doc Type: application/msword Size: 21504 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Tue Apr 22 06:11:28 2014 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 07:11:28 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] NetMundial opening ceremony address (Civil Society) Draft speech plan In-Reply-To: References: <2F099E79-E3FD-4238-BFBF-523C2F76CA8A@noos.fr> <20140421224154.5873815.1229.41135@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20140422101126.GB13609@tarvainen.info> Agreed, although I can't help observing that "trust" can be (and has been) abused to imply citizens *should* trust the government and that it's their fault if they don't and create an atmosphere of distrust. But I trust (!) Nnenna makes it clear that what we want is the opposite: it's up to governments (and other big actors like corporations) to prove themselves trustworthy. -- Tapani Tarvainen On Apr 22 12:55, Oksana Prykhodko (sana.pryhod at gmail.com) wrote: > Dear Nnenna, excellent points with trust as a priority. > best regards, > Oksana > On Tuesday, April 22, 2014, Sonigitu Ekpe wrote: > > Trust Nnenna on STAGE! > > Sonigitu Ekpe > > > > Mobile +234 805 0232 469 Office + 234 802 751 0179 > > "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving" > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 11:41 PM, Tracy Hackshaw @ Google < > tracyhackshaw at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Excellent approach Nnenna! > > Use the platform well. > > /t > > Sent from BlackBerry Q10 > > From: Nnenna Nwakanma > > Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 5:13 PM > > To: Marie GEORGES > > Reply To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > Cc: Governance; ; Discussion List on African > Internet Governance Forum > > Subject: Re: [governance] NetMundial opening ceremony address (Civil > Society) Draft speech plan > > Hi Marie, all > > > > I hope I will. Trust is one that is a principle as well as a road map. > And I am convinced that it is key. And like many colleagues have noted, > all actions that destroy trust destroy the Internet (non acceptance of Net > neutrality, unwarranted surveillance, threats of cyberwar etc) > > > > I know it is a challenge to build, as stakeholders enlarge and the stakes > get higher... > > > > But build it, we must > > > > All for now > > > > Nnenna > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Marie GEORGES > wrote: > > > > Many thanks Nnema, > > Hope you will make clear that point 7 on trust became 1st priority > > after Snowden's revelations on mass surveillance and on how some States > managed to keep or introduce back door in equipments and poor > cryptographical tools, > > THAT, for the sake of ITC and development, it is all the more urgent > Governments concerned make clear to the world that they STOP mass > surveillance and that they STOP using internet as a new armed battle field > while more and more the world depends daily on that infrastructure. > > Best regards > > Marie > > Le 21 avr. 2014 à 18:07, Nnenna Nwakanma a écrit : > > > > Dear all > > > > I have received some 100+ feedback on the request for issues to be > included. Here are a few remarks from my end: > > > > 1. It is not possible to bring all our issues to fore. We have a choice > of either rolling out most issues and getting them drowned, or picking out > 2-3 key issues and building them up. I'm choosing the later. > > > > 2. NetMundial is d From nb at bollow.ch Tue Apr 22 07:00:21 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 13:00:21 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Just Net Coalition publication: Delhi declaration and related articles Message-ID: <20140422130021.1f3fd72b@quill> Dear all Compiled on the occasion of NETmundial, here is a Just Net Coalition publication containing the complete text of the 'Delhi Declaration on a Just and Equitable Internet' and a collection of articles by some members of the Just Net Coalition. It closes with an interview with Robert McChesney, who also endorses the Delhi Declaration. Foreword by Louis Pouzin, one of the founding fathers of the internet. http://justnetcoalition.org/sites/default/files/JNC-PUBLICATION.pdf Greetings, Norbert co-convenor, Just Net Coalition From nlalinx at gmail.com Tue Apr 22 08:57:51 2014 From: nlalinx at gmail.com (Nico Z) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 14:57:51 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Agenda for Civil Society pre-NetMundial Coordination Meeting In-Reply-To: References: <3B978AD6-7A77-4CEF-AA81-6F420D6EAF30@Malcolm.id.au> <2E333DCE-0233-439B-8FF3-3970E425D185@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: Dear all, following up on the question raised by Seth below, which was left unaddressed: is it possible to participate remotely? I did register on the website, but I have not received any instructions on how to tune in. Thanks! Nicolo On Apr 19, 2014, at 10:15 AM, Seth Johnson wrote: > > Hi folks -- I will be in town though I understand the registration is now closed for this prep session for civil society sector reps. I had planned to spend the day prepping on my own, but now wonder if there's a chance I can set up in my hostel and confab with you all by remote login. > > > Seth Johnson > > > On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 16 Apr 2014, at 7:38 pm, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > >> Hi Jeremy, >> >> Do we have to register to participate in this meeting ? > > Yes, by clicking "RSVP" at http://bestbits.net/events/netmundial-coordination. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Tue Apr 22 09:03:08 2014 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 10:03:08 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Agenda for Civil Society pre-NetMundial Coordination Meeting In-Reply-To: References: <3B978AD6-7A77-4CEF-AA81-6F420D6EAF30@Malcolm.id.au> <2E333DCE-0233-439B-8FF3-3970E425D185@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <06640DE1-C312-43E7-9935-9DE123FE2945@Malcolm.id.au> Sorry we are not offering a public webcast for this session because it is a private strategy session for civil society during the morning. Individuals who are here can however link outsiders in via chat or other means. -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp. > On 22 Apr 2014, at 9:57 am, Nico Z wrote: > > Dear all, > > following up on the question raised by Seth below, which was left unaddressed: is it possible to participate remotely? > I did register on the website, but I have not received any instructions on how to tune in. > > Thanks! > Nicolo > > >> On Apr 19, 2014, at 10:15 AM, Seth Johnson wrote: >> >> >> Hi folks -- I will be in town though I understand the registration is now closed for this prep session for civil society sector reps. I had planned to spend the day prepping on my own, but now wonder if there's a chance I can set up in my hostel and confab with you all by remote login. >> >> >> Seth Johnson >> >> >>> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>> On 16 Apr 2014, at 7:38 pm, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Jeremy, >>>> >>>> Do we have to register to participate in this meeting ? >>> >>> Yes, by clicking "RSVP" at http://bestbits.net/events/netmundial-coordination. >>> >>> -- >>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com >>> Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp. >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nnenna75 at gmail.com Tue Apr 22 09:16:47 2014 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 13:16:47 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Agenda for Civil Society pre-NetMundial Coordination Meeting In-Reply-To: <06640DE1-C312-43E7-9935-9DE123FE2945@Malcolm.id.au> References: <3B978AD6-7A77-4CEF-AA81-6F420D6EAF30@Malcolm.id.au> <2E333DCE-0233-439B-8FF3-3970E425D185@Malcolm.id.au> <06640DE1-C312-43E7-9935-9DE123FE2945@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: I have tweeted the link to the draft text that CS is using as a basis for its brainstorming. That is the best I can do http://bestbits.net/civil-society-key-points/ N On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Sorry we are not offering a public webcast for this session because it is > a private strategy session for civil society during the morning. > Individuals who are here can however link outsiders in via chat or other > means. > > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see > http://jere.my/l/pgp. > > On 22 Apr 2014, at 9:57 am, Nico Z wrote: > > Dear all, > > following up on the question raised by Seth below, which was left > unaddressed: is it possible to participate remotely? > I did register on the website, but I have not received any instructions on > how to tune in. > > Thanks! > Nicolo > > > On Apr 19, 2014, at 10:15 AM, Seth Johnson wrote: > > > Hi folks -- I will be in town though I understand the registration is now > closed for this prep session for civil society sector reps. I had planned > to spend the day prepping on my own, but now wonder if there's a chance I > can set up in my hostel and confab with you all by remote login. > > > Seth Johnson > > > On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> On 16 Apr 2014, at 7:38 pm, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: >> >> Hi Jeremy, >> >> Do we have to register to participate in this meeting ? >> >> >> Yes, by clicking "RSVP" at >> http://bestbits.net/events/netmundial-coordination. >> >> -- >> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com >> Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see >> http://jere.my/l/pgp. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aprabhala at gmail.com Tue Apr 22 13:44:14 2014 From: aprabhala at gmail.com (Achal Prabhala) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 14:44:14 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] ford seeks global internet rights officer Message-ID: <5356AA6E.5080103@gmail.com> I'm sorry if you've already seen this, but if you haven't: http://www.fordfoundation.org/careers/jobs/415 Good wishes, -A From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Apr 22 14:19:08 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 03:19:08 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Summary of comments - NETmundial secretariat Message-ID: The secretariat has produced a summary of comments. Final report on comments of the Draft Outcome Document is available W3Chttp://netmundial.br/blog/2014/04/22/final-report-on-comments-of-the-draft-outcome-document-is-available/April 22, 2014 NETmundial Executive Secretariat consolidated 1.370 comments received, between April 15th and 21st, in one single report that now is available for public consultation. The total of these remarks were shared in Introduction (40), Principles (832) and Roapmap (498). During seven days, commenters were invited to provide their name, their preferred email address and the sector to which they thought they belonged to in the capacity of commenting. NETmundial used no validation system to verify the identity of the commenter. This report and, most importantly, the comments themselves, should be read in light of this information. The comment system was locked down on 12:00pm UTC. After that, NETmundial’s Data Team took the final snapshot of the database with all the comments and their relevant information and produced the summary report, available in .pdf format for download through the link below. From kichango at gmail.com Tue Apr 22 20:10:01 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 00:10:01 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Marco Civil passed In-Reply-To: References: <30CBFE1F-B769-41D5-8095-3F2817538EBF@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: That's what happens when a President throws her/his political weight in the mix... tipping the momentum created by civil society over the finish line ;) Yes, congratulations to Brazil across the board. Mawaki On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 11:46 PM, JFC Morfin wrote: > At 00:56 23/04/2014, Adam Peake wrote: > >> Senate passed Marco Civil. >> Congratulations Brazil! >> > > Bravo!! > Just in time. > Would there be an English translation of it? > > M G > > > Adam >> >> >> 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nnenna75 at gmail.com Tue Apr 22 19:27:06 2014 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 23:27:06 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Marco Civil passed In-Reply-To: <30CBFE1F-B769-41D5-8095-3F2817538EBF@glocom.ac.jp> References: <30CBFE1F-B769-41D5-8095-3F2817538EBF@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: If my sources are correct, Dilma Rousseff will sign it tomorrow during the opening of NetMundial... N On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:56 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Senate passed Marco Civil. > > Congratulations Brazil! > > Adam > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: From jefsey at jefsey.com Tue Apr 22 19:46:21 2014 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 01:46:21 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Marco Civil passed In-Reply-To: <30CBFE1F-B769-41D5-8095-3F2817538EBF@glocom.ac.jp> References: <30CBFE1F-B769-41D5-8095-3F2817538EBF@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: At 00:56 23/04/2014, Adam Peake wrote: >Senate passed Marco Civil. >Congratulations Brazil! Bravo!! Just in time. Would there be an English translation of it? M G >Adam > > >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 From iza at anr.org Tue Apr 22 20:09:55 2014 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 09:09:55 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Marco Civil passed In-Reply-To: <30CBFE1F-B769-41D5-8095-3F2817538EBF@glocom.ac.jp> References: <30CBFE1F-B769-41D5-8095-3F2817538EBF@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: Congratulations to all who worked so hard to materialize this as the first country on the globe to implement this. And Adam, thank you for sharing this in the middle of so busy schedule to prepare the NET Mundial mtg. Izumi 2014年4月22日火曜日、Adam Peakeさんは書きました: > Senate passed Marco Civil. > > Congratulations Brazil! > > Adam > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Apr 22 18:56:30 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 07:56:30 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Marco Civil passed Message-ID: <30CBFE1F-B769-41D5-8095-3F2817538EBF@glocom.ac.jp> Senate passed Marco Civil. Congratulations Brazil! Adam From m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk Tue Apr 22 20:24:30 2014 From: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk (Marianne Franklin) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 12:24:30 +1200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Marco Civil passed In-Reply-To: References: <30CBFE1F-B769-41D5-8095-3F2817538EBF@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <5357083E.3050606@gold.ac.uk> Congratulations all! MF On 23/04/2014 12:10, Mawaki Chango wrote: > That's what happens when a President throws her/his political weight > in the mix... tipping the momentum created by civil society over the > finish line ;) Yes, congratulations to Brazil across the board. > > Mawaki > > > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 11:46 PM, JFC Morfin > wrote: > > At 00:56 23/04/2014, Adam Peake wrote: > > Senate passed Marco Civil. > Congratulations Brazil! > > > Bravo!! > Just in time. > Would there be an English translation of it? > > M G > > > Adam > > > 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 > > -- Dr Marianne Franklin Professor of Global Media and Politics Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program Goldsmiths (University of London) Department of Media & Communications New Cross, London SE14 6NW Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 @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/ Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) www.internetrightsandprinciples.org @netrights -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Apr 22 20:30:19 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:30:19 +1000 Subject: [bestbits] Resource People for CS speaking slots Message-ID: <47C3D39AD6974D8298B1B8BB09DEA4C6@Toshiba> Hi everyone, This message is mainly for the people selected during todays civil society meeting to work together as the resource people for our inputs during sessions tomorrow – I dont have an email list for everyone, but those involved please note: We should meet at 0830 – I suggest just inside the registration area to work further on our strategy and approach – we can continue somewhere with morning coffee before the main session. My list of names (probably not complete) is II Human Rights - Gabrielle Guillemin, Robin Gross, Mishi Choudhary, Mariana Diaz, Stephanie Perrin III NetNeutrality: Explicitly address Net Neutrality - Veridiana, Jeremy Zimmerman, Joao Caribe IV Security, stability and resilience of the Internet (add cyberpeace) – Valeria Betancourt, David Cake, Ola Bini V. Enabling environment for innovation and creativity - Renata Avilla, Claudio Ruiz, Jeremy Malcolm Reinforce right to access to knowledge and the right to share VI. Internet governance process principles - Anja Kovacs, Prabir, Nnenna, Joana Varon, Parminder Singh Roadmap I IANA transition & ICANN - Milton Mueller, Mwaki Chango, Niels ten Oever, Matthew Shears II Surveillance - Jakob Appelbaum, Ian Peter Please note this is indicative only as regards subjects – other subjects may well be raised, but we will choose from the above group for our inputs depending on what is needed from us. Please note also that everyone chosen has undertaken to speak for civil society as a whole and crossover of subjects will happen. For everyone else – I am sure there will be an update on what we achieved together today, but the way cs representatives worked together all day, and in meetings with other stakeholders, was absolutely fantastic. Great foundation for out inputs over next two days and congratulations to the organisers. PS Expect a few surprises as well! Ian Peter -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Apr 22 20:41:55 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:41:55 +1000 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Resource People for CS speaking slots In-Reply-To: <47C3D39AD6974D8298B1B8BB09DEA4C6@Toshiba> References: <47C3D39AD6974D8298B1B8BB09DEA4C6@Toshiba> Message-ID: <9B2D65E4770348F7B4284735F8307C2B@Toshiba> I know Robin Gross should be in there somewhere as well – if your name was left out inadvertently, pls just join in. Ian From: Ian Peter Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 10:30 AM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Resource People for CS speaking slots Hi everyone, This message is mainly for the people selected during todays civil society meeting to work together as the resource people for our inputs during sessions tomorrow – I dont have an email list for everyone, but those involved please note: We should meet at 0830 – I suggest just inside the registration area to work further on our strategy and approach – we can continue somewhere with morning coffee before the main session. My list of names (probably not complete) is II Human Rights - Gabrielle Guillemin, Robin Gross, Mishi Choudhary, Mariana Diaz, Stephanie Perrin III NetNeutrality: Explicitly address Net Neutrality - Veridiana, Jeremy Zimmerman, Joao Caribe IV Security, stability and resilience of the Internet (add cyberpeace) – Valeria Betancourt, David Cake, Ola Bini V. Enabling environment for innovation and creativity - Renata Avilla, Claudio Ruiz, Jeremy Malcolm Reinforce right to access to knowledge and the right to share VI. Internet governance process principles - Anja Kovacs, Prabir, Nnenna, Joana Varon, Parminder Singh Roadmap I IANA transition & ICANN - Milton Mueller, Mwaki Chango, Niels ten Oever, Matthew Shears II Surveillance - Jakob Appelbaum, Ian Peter Please note this is indicative only as regards subjects – other subjects may well be raised, but we will choose from the above group for our inputs depending on what is needed from us. Please note also that everyone chosen has undertaken to speak for civil society as a whole and crossover of subjects will happen. For everyone else – I am sure there will be an update on what we achieved together today, but the way cs representatives worked together all day, and in meetings with other stakeholders, was absolutely fantastic. Great foundation for out inputs over next two days and congratulations to the organisers. PS Expect a few surprises as well! 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Apr 22 21:36:31 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 21:36:31 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Resource People for CS speaking slots In-Reply-To: <47C3D39AD6974D8298B1B8BB09DEA4C6@Toshiba> References: <47C3D39AD6974D8298B1B8BB09DEA4C6@Toshiba> Message-ID: I will be there as well and as agreed discussed a long time ago I can serve as a resource person both to principles and NN On Apr 22, 2014 9:30 PM, "Ian Peter" wrote: > Hi everyone, > > This message is mainly for the people selected during todays civil society > meeting to work together as the resource people for our inputs during > sessions tomorrow – I dont have an email list for everyone, but those > involved please note: > > We should meet at 0830 – I suggest just inside the registration area to > work further on our strategy and approach – we can continue somewhere with > morning coffee before the main session. My list of names (probably not > complete) is > > II Human Rights - Gabrielle Guillemin, Robin Gross, Mishi Choudhary, > Mariana Diaz, Stephanie Perrin > > III NetNeutrality: Explicitly address Net Neutrality - Veridiana, Jeremy > Zimmerman, Joao Caribe > > IV Security, stability and resilience of the Internet (add cyberpeace) – > Valeria Betancourt, David Cake, Ola Bini > > V. Enabling environment for innovation and creativity - Renata Avilla, > Claudio Ruiz, Jeremy Malcolm > Reinforce right to access to knowledge and the right to share > > VI. Internet governance process principles - Anja Kovacs, Prabir, Nnenna, > Joana Varon, Parminder Singh > > *Roadmap* > > I IANA transition & ICANN - Milton Mueller, Mwaki Chango, Niels ten Oever, > Matthew Shears > II Surveillance - Jakob Appelbaum, Ian Peter > > Please note this is indicative only as regards subjects – other subjects > may well be raised, but we will choose from the above group for our inputs > depending on what is needed from us. Please note also that everyone chosen > has undertaken to speak for civil society as a whole and crossover of > subjects will happen. > > For everyone else – I am sure there will be an update on what we achieved > together today, but the way cs representatives worked together all day, and > in meetings with other stakeholders, was absolutely fantastic. Great > foundation for out inputs over next two days and congratulations to the > organisers. > > > PS Expect a few surprises as well! > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Apr 22 21:36:44 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:36:44 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Marco Civil passed In-Reply-To: References: <30CBFE1F-B769-41D5-8095-3F2817538EBF@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: On Apr 23, 2014, at 8:27 AM, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > If my sources are correct, Dilma Rousseff will sign it tomorrow during the opening of NetMundial... > Yes, hope she sign during the meeting. Adam > N > > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:56 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Senate passed Marco Civil. > > Congratulations Brazil! > > Adam > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG Tue Apr 22 21:01:11 2014 From: mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG (Mike Godwin (mgodwin@INTERNEWS.ORG)) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 21:01:11 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Marco Civil passed In-Reply-To: <30CBFE1F-B769-41D5-8095-3F2817538EBF@glocom.ac.jp> References: <30CBFE1F-B769-41D5-8095-3F2817538EBF@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: Such exciting and encouraging news. This link should work for anglophones: http://tinyurl.com/mj3hb9h —Mike -- Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project mgodwin at internews.org | Mobile 415-793-4446 Skype mnemonic1026 Address 1640 Rhode Island Ave., 7th Floor, Washington, DC 20036 USA INTERNEWS | Local Voices. Global Change. www.internews.org | @internews | facebook.com/internews From: Adam Peake > Reply-To: Adam Peake > Date: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 at 6:56 PM To: Best Bits >, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org IGC" > Subject: [bestbits] Marco Civil passed Senate passed Marco Civil. Congratulations Brazil! Adam ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From desiree at relax.co.uk Tue Apr 22 21:40:22 2014 From: desiree at relax.co.uk (Desiree) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 02:40:22 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Marco Civil passed In-Reply-To: References: <30CBFE1F-B769-41D5-8095-3F2817538EBF@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: +1 Thank you Mike Thank you Brasil. Desiree -- On 23 Apr 2014, at 02:01, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) wrote: > > Such exciting and encouraging news. > > This link should work for anglophones: > > http://tinyurl.com/mj3hb9h > > —Mike > > > > -- > Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project > mgodwin at internews.org | Mobile 415-793-4446 > Skype mnemonic1026 > Address 1640 Rhode Island Ave., 7th Floor, Washington, DC 20036 USA > > INTERNEWS | Local Voices. Global Change. > www.internews.org | @internews | facebook.com/internews > > From: Adam Peake > Reply-To: Adam Peake > Date: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 at 6:56 PM > To: Best Bits , "governance at lists.igcaucus.org IGC" > Subject: [bestbits] Marco Civil passed > > Senate passed Marco Civil. > > Congratulations Brazil! > > Adam > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 495 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Wed Apr 23 02:32:58 2014 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 23:32:58 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] RE: [governance] Marco Civil passed Message-ID: <-4804014517729229376@unknownmsgid> Wonderful news. New world, here we come! Chaitanya Dhareshwar Mobile: +91.9820760253 From: Adam Peake Sent: 4/23/2014 4:27 To: Best Bits; governance at lists.igcaucus.org IGC Subject: [governance] Marco Civil passed Senate passed Marco Civil. Congratulations Brazil! Adam From squ24n at gmail.com Wed Apr 23 02:50:37 2014 From: squ24n at gmail.com (Borami Kim) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 15:50:37 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Marco Civil passed In-Reply-To: <9083710C-8995-4844-A969-95725B51FB61@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <30CBFE1F-B769-41D5-8095-3F2817538EBF@glocom.ac.jp> <9083710C-8995-4844-A969-95725B51FB61@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Conagratulations to all and many thanks !!! Borami Kim 2014. 4. 22. 오후 10:24에 "Stephanie Perrin" 님이 작성: > Congratulations to all, timing was excellent too! > Stephanie Perrin > On Apr 22, 2014, at 6:56 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > > > Senate passed Marco Civil. > > > > Congratulations Brazil! > > > > Adam > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Stuart.Hamilton at ifla.org Wed Apr 23 07:17:47 2014 From: Stuart.Hamilton at ifla.org (Stuart Hamilton) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 11:17:47 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Libraries_highlight_=93The_Right_to_e?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?-Read=94_on_World_Book_and_Copyright_Day?= References: <4C7056044022974EBF0132E21CCA4482E2389B@MFP02.IFLA.lan> Message-ID: <32EC53BA-712F-42A3-A66D-43728BF60E75@ifla.org> Dear Colleagues Apologies for any cross-posting. Please see below - this is important for libraries, do consider signing! If anyone is a NetMundial and wishes to hear more, please do email me. Kind regards, Stuart Stuart Hamilton IFLA Director, Policy and Advocacy IFLA Headquarters The Hague Netherlands 00 31 70 314 0884 stuart.hamilton at ifla.org Begin forwarded message: From: Julia Brungs Subject: [IFLA-L] EBLIDA highlights “The Right to e-Read” on World Book and Copyright Day Date: 23 April 2014 04:16:23 GMT-3 To: Undisclosed recipients:; Dear all, Today, to coincide with the United Nations’ World Book Day and World Copyright Day, the European Bureau of Library Information and Documentation Associations (EBLIDA) is rallying the European community to its “Right to e-Read” campaign. EBLIDA’s campaign aims to raise awareness among policy makers and the general public of the difficulties facing libraries trying to provide access to eBooks and other digital content. During the day, EBLIDA will hold two press conferences to draw attention to these issues: one in Brussels in the EU Parliament Library from 11am – 12 noon, and one in the Hague from 17.30 – 18.30. You can find out more details about the press conferences here. The eLending challenges facing libraries has been a major focus of concern for IFLA and its members for the past few years. In 2011, the IFLA Governing Board appointed a working group to draft a comprehensive Background Paper on eLending, which examined the eLending issues for libraries in different geographical regions, difficult negotiations with publishers and shortcomings in the legal context for eLending. This led in turn to the development of the IFLA Principles for eLending, launched at the World Library & Information Congress (WLIC) in August 2013, to assist library professionals negotiating eBook licences with publishers and resellers. A newly reconstituted eLending Working Group is currently pursuing an update of the 2011 Background Paper. IFLA believes that it’s necessary for libraries and publishers/authors to agree to reasonable terms and conditions for the library acquisition of eBooks, so that libraries are able to continue to provide access to knowledge and information for their communities.Currently, libraries are grappling with restrictive terms and conditions to provide access to eBooks, and in some instances the withholding of eBook titles from libraries altogether. IFLA believes that if these issues cannot be resolved by negotiations with publishers, legislative reform is needed to ensure eBooks are made available to libraries and archives in all countries under reasonable terms and conditions. To support EBLIDA’s Right to e-Read campaign on World Book Day and World Copyright day, see their petition and promotional materials here. You can follow the conversation on Twitter at hashtag #eread. You can also view the webversion. Julia Brungs Policy and Projects Officer International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) P.O. Box 95312 2509 CH The Hague Netherlands Phone: 0031703140884 Email: Julia.brungs at ifla.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From veridiana at idec.org.br Wed Apr 23 07:58:01 2014 From: veridiana at idec.org.br (Veridiana Alimonti) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 08:58:01 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Resource People for CS speaking slots In-Reply-To: References: <47C3D39AD6974D8298B1B8BB09DEA4C6@Toshiba> Message-ID: Where are you? Em 22/04/2014 22:36, "Carolina Rossini" escreveu: > I will be there as well and as agreed discussed a long time ago I can > serve as a resource person both to principles and NN > On Apr 22, 2014 9:30 PM, "Ian Peter" wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> This message is mainly for the people selected during todays civil >> society meeting to work together as the resource people for our inputs >> during sessions tomorrow – I dont have an email list for everyone, but >> those involved please note: >> >> We should meet at 0830 – I suggest just inside the registration area to >> work further on our strategy and approach – we can continue somewhere with >> morning coffee before the main session. My list of names (probably not >> complete) is >> >> II Human Rights - Gabrielle Guillemin, Robin Gross, Mishi Choudhary, >> Mariana Diaz, Stephanie Perrin >> >> III NetNeutrality: Explicitly address Net Neutrality - Veridiana, >> Jeremy Zimmerman, Joao Caribe >> >> IV Security, stability and resilience of the Internet (add cyberpeace) >> – Valeria Betancourt, David Cake, Ola Bini >> >> V. Enabling environment for innovation and creativity - Renata Avilla, >> Claudio Ruiz, Jeremy Malcolm >> Reinforce right to access to knowledge and the right to share >> >> VI. Internet governance process principles - Anja Kovacs, Prabir, Nnenna, >> Joana Varon, Parminder Singh >> >> *Roadmap* >> >> I IANA transition & ICANN - Milton Mueller, Mwaki Chango, Niels ten >> Oever, Matthew Shears >> II Surveillance - Jakob Appelbaum, Ian Peter >> >> Please note this is indicative only as regards subjects – other subjects >> may well be raised, but we will choose from the above group for our inputs >> depending on what is needed from us. Please note also that everyone chosen >> has undertaken to speak for civil society as a whole and crossover of >> subjects will happen. >> >> For everyone else – I am sure there will be an update on what we achieved >> together today, but the way cs representatives worked together all day, and >> in meetings with other stakeholders, was absolutely fantastic. Great >> foundation for out inputs over next two days and congratulations to the >> organisers. >> >> >> PS Expect a few surprises as well! >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Wed Apr 23 08:08:21 2014 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 09:08:21 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Resource People for CS speaking slots In-Reply-To: References: <47C3D39AD6974D8298B1B8BB09DEA4C6@Toshiba> Message-ID: <022D7CD2-C97C-4D8D-A695-801545AB6B71@Malcolm.id.au> On 23 Apr 2014, at 8:58 am, Veridiana Alimonti wrote: > Where are you? > In the main room, huddled on the left. -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From lorena at collaboratory.de Wed Apr 23 09:50:08 2014 From: lorena at collaboratory.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 15:50:08 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Just Net Coalition Response to NetMundial Outcome Document In-Reply-To: <5357178F.1030603@gmx.net> References: <20140422121251.5e7126ce@quill> <53566E5F.6080302@gmx.net> <5357178F.1030603@gmx.net> Message-ID: Dear all, sorry for crospposting. FYI www.intgovforum.de/uploads/2/6/6/6/26664635/messages_from_the_german_igf.prep-meeting.pdf Recommendations of the German IGF-D for the NETMundial Meeting The following messages and recommendations resulted from the briefing and discussion of the proposal of the German government delegation for the NETmundial conference held at the German IGF preparatory meeting: PP1 Acknowledging the reinforcement of the multistakeholder model as a manifestation of democracy and the governance principle on internet issues; PP2 Noting the importance of addressing technical aspects since infrastructure has a crucial role to enable and warrant human rights online; PP3 Endorsing the emphasis of the German government delegation on privacy issues as one of the human rights being at stake in the current digital landscape; PP4 Recalling that mass surveillance was one of the motives leading to the NETmundial conference, PP5 Remarking that the mass surveillance issues revealed by the leaks of Edward Snowden are not regulated by data protection principles but by regulation on national security, The participants of the German IGF pre-event on NETmundial (1) call upon all conference participants and decision makers: - To define and precise the roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders in accordance with democratic rules; - To include mechanisms to foster the participation of civil society and youth by including them in the early stages of dialogue and enhancing transparency and information access at a regional, national and international level; - To provide for checks and balances mechanisms in the envisioned roadmap; - To provide for alternative and additional implementation mechanisms to national enforcement and interpretation; (2) Request the explicit inclusion of principles to counter mass surveillance, (3) Affirm the importance of setting a balance between the rights of privacy and freedom of expression, (4) Call for programs to strengthening citizens capability in digital media literacy and interpretation of today's policies (5) Request the explicit inclusion of the principle of net neutrality, (6) Recommend the continuance of the work started at NETmundial in the IGF fora. www.intgovforum.de/uploads/2/6/6/6/26664635/messages_from_the_german_igf.prep-meeting.pdf Kind regards, Lorena Jaume-Palasí Member of the organizing German IGF Team -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lorena at collaboratory.de Wed Apr 23 09:52:22 2014 From: lorena at collaboratory.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 15:52:22 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] German IGF messages for the NETmundial conference Message-ID: Apologies, I forgot to open a new thread. Kind regards, Lorena 2014-04-23 15:50 GMT+02:00 Lorena Jaume-Palasi : > Dear all, > sorry for crospposting. > FYI > > www.intgovforum.de/uploads/2/6/6/6/26664635/messages_from_the_german_igf.prep-meeting.pdf > > Recommendations of the German IGF-D for the NETMundial Meeting > > The following messages and recommendations resulted from the briefing and > discussion of the proposal of the German government delegation for the > NETmundial conference held at the German IGF preparatory meeting: > > PP1 Acknowledging the reinforcement of the multistakeholder model as a > manifestation of democracy and the governance principle on internet issues; > > PP2 Noting the importance of addressing technical aspects since > infrastructure has a crucial role to enable and warrant human rights online; > > PP3 Endorsing the emphasis of the German government delegation on privacy > issues as one of the human rights being at stake in the current digital > landscape; > > PP4 Recalling that mass surveillance was one of the motives leading to the > NETmundial conference, > > PP5 Remarking that the mass surveillance issues revealed by the leaks of > Edward Snowden are not regulated by data protection principles but by > regulation on national security, > > The participants of the German IGF pre-event on NETmundial > > (1) call upon all conference participants and decision makers: > > - To define and precise the roles and responsibilities of all > stakeholders in accordance with democratic rules; > > - To include mechanisms to foster the participation of civil > society and youth by including them in the early stages of dialogue and > enhancing transparency and information access at a regional, national and > international level; > > - To provide for checks and balances mechanisms in the envisioned > roadmap; > > - To provide for alternative and additional implementation > mechanisms to national enforcement and interpretation; > > (2) Request the explicit inclusion of principles to counter mass > surveillance, > > (3) Affirm the importance of setting a balance between the rights of > privacy and freedom of expression, > > (4) Call for programs to strengthening citizens capability in digital media > literacy and interpretation of today's policies > > (5) Request the explicit inclusion of the principle of net neutrality, > > (6) Recommend the continuance of the work started at NETmundial in the > IGF fora. > > > > > www.intgovforum.de/uploads/2/6/6/6/26664635/messages_from_the_german_igf.prep-meeting.pdf > > Kind regards, > Lorena Jaume-Palasí > Member of the organizing German IGF Team > > -- Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. ∙ Coordinator of the Global Internet Governance (GIG) Ohu Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ Youtube -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From iza at anr.org Wed Apr 23 10:23:11 2014 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 23:23:11 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Nenna's speech In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: What a powerful message you delivered on behalf of the Civil Society.this morning at NETMundial. I think your message had got the best reactions and applause from all the participants and demonstrated the quality of the Civil Society discourse on Internet Governance. SO well done. I liked your making the analogy of Football game with Internet governance. I am really proud of you being our voice. izumi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Wed Apr 23 10:30:09 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 15:30:09 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Nenna's speech In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > What a powerful message you delivered on behalf of the Civil Society.this > morning at > NETMundial. > > I think your message had got the best reactions and applause from all the > participants > and demonstrated the quality of the Civil Society discourse on Internet > Governance. > SO well done. > > I liked your making the analogy of Football game with Internet governance. > > I am really proud of you being our voice. > > izumi > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Wed Apr 23 10:41:41 2014 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 11:41:41 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] NETmundial / Neelie Kroes: "The Internet needs better governance, starting now" (speech at NETmundial, Sao Paulo, 23 April 2014) Message-ID: [ Apologies if you receive this email multiple times. Please share among your contacts, as appropriate ] Dear all, For your information, please find at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-14-333_en.htm and reproduced below the *speech* (as prepared for delivery) of Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the European Commission, at the Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance or NETmundial (Sao Paulo, 23-24 April 2014). Please also note that an *extended version* of Vice-President Kroes' remarks ("*Global governance for a global, common, public resource*") is available at http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/kroes/en/content/global-governance-global-common-public-resource. I'd like to also refer you to the *press release* of the European Commission of 23 April 2014, concerning our priorities for the NETmundial meeting (http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-14-315_en.htm) as well as the *two open letters* of Vice-President Kroes of 11 April 2014 ( http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/kroes/en/content/my-thoughts-netmundial-and-future-internet-governance) and 16 April 2014 ( http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/kroes/en/content/netmundial-lets-get-work), in which the six priority areas of the European Commission for this conference are outlined: · Improvements to the multi-stakeholder model of governance (and resistance to calls for greater government-control) model · Strengthening the Internet Governance Forum · Providing tools and mechanisms for better information sharing and capacity building, so that a truly global debate and governance is possible · Globalising IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority) · Globalisation of ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) · Jurisdictional issues on the Internet +++ The Internet needs better governance, starting now European Commission - SPEECH/14/333 23/04/2014 [Check Against Delivery] Neelie KROES Vice-President of the European Commission responsible for the Digital Agenda *The Internet needs better governance, starting now *Opening remarks, NETMundial *Sao Paulo, Brazil, 23 April 2014* *To add your comment to this speech, see the social version of the speech **here * *This could be an historic gathering.* *So ask yourself: are we here to make a change, and live up to the call made by President Rousseff in New York, or are we here to waste time?* *The Internet is more disruptive than the printing press, electrification and industrialisation combined.* *The Internet is the quickest, biggest revolution in history. * *The Internet is now a global, common, public resource and its governance must be truly global, transparent and accountable.* *That means we all have to change. No existing organisation or nation is exempt.* *This puts a huge responsibility on us in this room. * *This week we must move forward.* *If we simply do more talking, use more nice words, we will have wasted the opportunity and failed the global community.* *What should we do?* *First: we can only create positive change based on what we agree on, not what divides us. * *Let’s admit our recent work has produced a large degree of consensus. We can get excited about a word here or there, but let us not lose sight of the bigger picture.* *In most cases we want the same things. We agree on: * *(1) An improved multi-stakeholder model: transparent, democratic, based on human rights; and a roadmap to get there;* *(2) A process for the transition of the IANA functions involving all the stakeholder community;* *(3) Strengthening the Internet Governance Forum;* *(4) Capacity building through information sharing and Internet observatories; * *(5) We must address jurisdictional issues on the Internet with transparent systems. * *In summary: we agree on more than we disagree on.* *While I do not want to trivialise the challenges, I believe we can meet them. * ***** *We need to decide where we want to be, by the end of 2014.* *During these next two days I will be breathing down everybody's neck until we have a discussion on concrete actions.* *So two days of dialogue please, not a string of monologues. * *This is what open and democratic debate should be: we listen, we discuss, and then we reach real decisions.* *I'm looking forward to that.* *Thank you*. +++ Best regards, -- Andrea Glorioso (Mr) European Commission - DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology Unit D1 (International relations) + Task Force on Internet Policy Development Avenue de Beaulieu 25 (4/64) / B-1049 / Brussels / Belgium T: +32-2-29-97682 M: +32-460-797-682 E: Andrea.Glorioso at ec.europa.eu Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro The views expressed above are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission. Les opinions exprimées ci-dessus n'engagent que leur auteur et ne sauraient en aucun cas être assimilées à une position officielle de la Commission européenne. Be transparent - Sign up to the European Commission's Register of Interest Representatives http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regrin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From katitza at eff.org Wed Apr 23 10:50:23 2014 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 07:50:23 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Marco Civil passed In-Reply-To: <28C0FFDD-7CBE-4F89-87EB-0FCC594F915F@noos.fr> References: <30CBFE1F-B769-41D5-8095-3F2817538EBF@glocom.ac.jp> <9083710C-8995-4844-A969-95725B51FB61@mail.utoronto.ca> <28C0FFDD-7CBE-4F89-87EB-0FCC594F915F@noos.fr> Message-ID: <5357D32F.6040101@eff.org> That's the same feeling I have. While I personally celebrate all the good outcomes of Marco Civil in many areas of the law on internet rights, I'm sadly disappointed with the mandatory data retention provision (I think Article 15). I'm not sure which is the latest version of that document. On 04/23/2014 02:59 AM, Marie GEORGES wrote: > Dear People in Sao Paulo at Netmundial, > > What about asking our Brazilian friends when they will adopt the complementary and necessary draft Data Protection law prepared years ago ? > > and did, in the Marco Civil, the Senate adopted the 13 months retention period for metadata by telecom and ISPs? if so , it is awful. > best wishes > Marie > > Le 23 avr. 2014 à 10:17, divina.meigs a écrit : > >> >> Le 23/04/2014 03:23, « Stephanie Perrin » >> a écrit : >> >>> Congratulations to all, timing was excellent too! >>> Stephanie Perrin >>> On Apr 22, 2014, at 6:56 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >>> >>>> Senate passed Marco Civil. >>>> >>>> Congratulations Brazil! >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> 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 > > -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 901 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From renata at webfoundation.org Wed Apr 23 11:05:20 2014 From: renata at webfoundation.org (Renata Avila) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 12:05:20 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Netmundial address In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: From g.astbrink at gsa.com.au Wed Apr 23 11:11:06 2014 From: g.astbrink at gsa.com.au (g.astbrink) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 23:11:06 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Nnenna's speech Message-ID: What a stunning speech, Nnenna! Very impressive! And thank you for including people with disability. You covered it all! Gunela -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Apr 23 11:19:54 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder at itforchange.net) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 08:19:54 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Nnenna's speech In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <732db7bb01f803d402afec2695c56ad7.squirrel@www.itforchange.net> One of the best I have ever heard... the room was in raptures! Congrats, Nnenna.... > What a stunning speech, Nnenna! Very impressive! > > And thank you for including people with disability. You covered it > all! > > Gunela > > From brett at accessnow.org Wed Apr 23 11:27:00 2014 From: brett at accessnow.org (Brett Solomon) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 11:27:00 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Nenna's speech In-Reply-To: <20140423145149.GE3936@tarvainen.info> References: <20140423145149.GE3936@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: Amazing Nnenna! Loved it! Brett Brett Solomon Executive Director Access | accessnow.org +1 917 969 6077 @solomonbrett Key ID: 0x4EDC17EB Fingerprint: C02C A886 B0FC 3A25 FF9F ECE8 FCDF BA23 4EDC 17EB On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Tapani Tarvainen < tapani.tarvainen at effi.org> wrote: > On Apr 23 19:38, Subi Chaturvedi (subi.igp at gmail.com) wrote: > > > Absolutely outstanding Nnenna. > > Indeed. Overshadowed other speakers so badly it was almost > embarrassing to listen them after Nnenna's awesome performance. > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: From mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG Wed Apr 23 11:28:55 2014 From: mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG (Mike Godwin (mgodwin@INTERNEWS.ORG)) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 11:28:55 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] NetMundial on YouTube, including streaming video. Message-ID: For those who haven¹t seen this already, YouTube¹s NetMundial Channel is up, and it includes live streaming. It¹s here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCubDqUV2N_lzzxT7JFVtilg ‹Mike -- Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project mgodwin at internews.org | Mobile 415-793-4446 Skype mnemonic1026 Address 1640 Rhode Island Ave. NW, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20036 USA INTERNEWS | Local Voices. Global Change. www.internews.org | @internews | facebook.com/internews From joana at varonferraz.com Wed Apr 23 12:21:45 2014 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 13:21:45 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Nenna's speech In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Nnenna, that speech was amazing. People around here were wondering if we can make it something for all the ones that felt represented by its content (many, I suspect) to just endorse it. On 23 Apr 2014 11:35, "Borami Kim" wrote: > > +1 wow !!! > > B > > 2014. 4. 23. 오전 10:41에 "Deirdre Williams" 님이 작성: > >> Oh WOW!! >> I'm sitting here in tears. >> Deirdre >> >> >> On 23 April 2014 09:36, Diego R. Canabarro wrote: >>> >>> Awesome! >>> >>> -- >>> Enviado a partir de dispositivo movel >>> Sent from mobile device >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arbih2002us at yahoo.com Wed Apr 23 12:26:28 2014 From: arbih2002us at yahoo.com (arbih2002us at yahoo.com) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 18:26:28 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Nenna's speech Message-ID: <4k5rkwspy9kj24uqiwj20wa9.1398270388386@email.android.com> +1 Sent from Samsung Mobile -------- Original message -------- From: Izumi AIZU Date: 23/04/2014 16:23 (GMT+02:00) To: governance ,"" Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Nenna's speech What a powerful message you delivered on behalf of the Civil Society.this morning at  NETMundial. I think your message had got the best reactions and applause from all the participants and demonstrated the quality of the Civil Society discourse on Internet Governance. SO well done. I liked your making the analogy of Football game with Internet governance. I am really proud of you being our voice. izumi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pileleji at ymca.gm Wed Apr 23 12:33:12 2014 From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 16:33:12 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Nenna's speech In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Joana, Definitely I totally endorse this intiative +1 Regards Poncelet On 23 April 2014 16:21, Joana Varon wrote: > Nnenna, that speech was amazing. People around here were wondering if we > can make it something for all the ones that felt represented by its content > (many, I suspect) to just endorse it. > > > > On 23 Apr 2014 11:35, "Borami Kim" wrote: > > > > +1 wow !!! > > > > B > > > > 2014. 4. 23. 오전 10:41에 "Deirdre Williams" 님이 > 작성: > > > >> Oh WOW!! > >> I'm sitting here in tears. > >> Deirdre > >> > >> > >> On 23 April 2014 09:36, Diego R. Canabarro > wrote: > >>> > >>> Awesome! > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Enviado a partir de dispositivo movel > >>> Sent from mobile device > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> 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 > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir > William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> 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: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd *www.ymca.gm www.waigf.org www.aficta.org www.itag.gm www.npoc.org http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 *www.diplointernetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeanette at wzb.eu Wed Apr 23 07:35:17 2014 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 13:35:17 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Session on the roadmap today Message-ID: <5357A575.8070808@wzb.eu> Hi everyone, we expect to have about 6 or 7 speaking slots for civil society (and for all other stakeholder groups for that matter) in the working session on the roadmap part of the draft document. It would be good if you could coordinate, try to allocate some of the slots beforehand and prepare them well. Slots are only 2 minutes long! I will explain the working methods in more detail in the first session after the lunch break. Jeanette From mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG Wed Apr 23 12:39:39 2014 From: mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG (Mike Godwin (mgodwin@INTERNEWS.ORG)) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 12:39:39 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Nenna's speech In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think this is a great idea! -- Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project mgodwin at internews.org | Mobile 415-793-4446 Skype mnemonic1026 Address 1640 Rhode Island Ave. NW, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20036 USA INTERNEWS | Local Voices. Global Change. www.internews.org | @internews | facebook.com/internews From: Poncelet Ileleji > Reply-To: Poncelet Ileleji > Date: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 at 12:33 PM To: Joana Varon > Cc: Internet Governance >, "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> <" >, Diego Rafael Canabarro > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Nenna's speech Hi Joana, Definitely I totally endorse this intiative +1 Regards Poncelet On 23 April 2014 16:21, Joana Varon > wrote: Nnenna, that speech was amazing. People around here were wondering if we can make it something for all the ones that felt represented by its content (many, I suspect) to just endorse it. On 23 Apr 2014 11:35, "Borami Kim" > wrote: > > +1 wow !!! > > B > > 2014. 4. 23. 오전 10:41에 "Deirdre Williams" >님이 작성: > >> Oh WOW!! >> I'm sitting here in tears. >> Deirdre >> >> >> On 23 April 2014 09:36, Diego R. Canabarro > wrote: >>> >>> Awesome! >>> >>> -- >>> Enviado a partir de dispositivo movel >>> Sent from mobile device >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd www.ymca.gm www.waigf.org www.aficta.org www.itag.gm www.npoc.org http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 www.diplointernetgovernance.org Click here to report this email as spam. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rishab.bailey at gmail.com Wed Apr 23 12:42:35 2014 From: rishab.bailey at gmail.com (Rishab Bailey) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 22:12:35 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Nenna's speech In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1! On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) < mgodwin at internews.org> wrote: > > I think this is a great idea! > -- > > *Mike Godwin* | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project > > mgodwin at internews.org | *Mobile* 415-793-4446 > > *Skype* mnemonic1026 > > *Address* 1640 Rhode Island Ave. NW, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20036 USA > > > > *INTERNEWS* | *Local Voices. Global Change.* > > www.internews.org | @internews | > facebook.com/internews > > From: Poncelet Ileleji > Reply-To: Poncelet Ileleji > Date: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 at 12:33 PM > To: Joana Varon > Cc: Internet Governance , " > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> <" , Diego > Rafael Canabarro > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Nenna's speech > > Hi Joana, > > Definitely I totally endorse this intiative +1 > > Regards > > Poncelet > > > On 23 April 2014 16:21, Joana Varon wrote: > >> Nnenna, that speech was amazing. People around here were wondering if we >> can make it something for all the ones that felt represented by its content >> (many, I suspect) to just endorse it. >> >> >> >> On 23 Apr 2014 11:35, "Borami Kim" wrote: >> > >> > +1 wow !!! >> > >> > B >> > >> > 2014. 4. 23. 오전 10:41에 "Deirdre Williams" 님이 >> 작성: >> > >> >> Oh WOW!! >> >> I'm sitting here in tears. >> >> Deirdre >> >> >> >> >> >> On 23 April 2014 09:36, Diego R. Canabarro >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Awesome! >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> Enviado a partir de dispositivo movel >> >>> Sent from mobile device >> >>> >> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >> >>> 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 >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir >> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> 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: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- > Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS > Coordinator > The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio > MDI Road Kanifing South > P. O. Box 421 Banjul > The Gambia, West Africa > Tel: (220) 4370240 > Fax:(220) 4390793 > Cell:(220) 9912508 > Skype: pons_utd > > > > > > > *www.ymca.gm www.waigf.org > www.aficta.org www.itag.gm > www.npoc.org > http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 > *www.diplointernetgovernance.org > > > > > > > Click hereto report this email as spam. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From iza at anr.org Wed Apr 23 12:43:24 2014 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 01:43:24 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Nenna's speech In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +100 ! 2014-04-24 1:42 GMT+09:00 Rishab Bailey : > +1! > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) < > mgodwin at internews.org> wrote: > >> >> I think this is a great idea! >> -- >> >> *Mike Godwin* | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project >> >> mgodwin at internews.org | *Mobile* 415-793-4446 >> >> *Skype* mnemonic1026 >> >> *Address* 1640 Rhode Island Ave. NW, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20036 USA >> >> >> >> *INTERNEWS* | *Local Voices. Global Change.* >> >> www.internews.org | @internews | >> facebook.com/internews >> >> From: Poncelet Ileleji >> Reply-To: Poncelet Ileleji >> Date: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 at 12:33 PM >> To: Joana Varon >> Cc: Internet Governance , " >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> <" , Diego >> Rafael Canabarro >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Nenna's speech >> >> Hi Joana, >> >> Definitely I totally endorse this intiative +1 >> >> Regards >> >> Poncelet >> >> >> On 23 April 2014 16:21, Joana Varon wrote: >> >>> Nnenna, that speech was amazing. People around here were wondering if we >>> can make it something for all the ones that felt represented by its content >>> (many, I suspect) to just endorse it. >>> >>> >>> >>> On 23 Apr 2014 11:35, "Borami Kim" wrote: >>> > >>> > +1 wow !!! >>> > >>> > B >>> > >>> > 2014. 4. 23. 오전 10:41에 "Deirdre Williams" 님이 >>> 작성: >>> > >>> >> Oh WOW!! >>> >> I'm sitting here in tears. >>> >> Deirdre >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On 23 April 2014 09:36, Diego R. Canabarro >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Awesome! >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Enviado a partir de dispositivo movel >>> >>> Sent from mobile device >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir >>> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >>> >> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >>> >> 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: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS >> Coordinator >> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio >> MDI Road Kanifing South >> P. O. Box 421 Banjul >> The Gambia, West Africa >> Tel: (220) 4370240 >> Fax:(220) 4390793 >> Cell:(220) 9912508 >> Skype: pons_utd >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *www.ymca.gm www.waigf.org >> www.aficta.org www.itag.gm >> www.npoc.org >> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 * >> www.diplointernetgovernance.org >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Click hereto report this email as spam. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From squ24n at gmail.com Wed Apr 23 12:47:35 2014 From: squ24n at gmail.com (Borami Kim) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 01:47:35 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Nenna's speech In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +101 !!! B 2014. 4. 23. 오후 1:44에 "Izumi AIZU" 님이 작성: > +100 ! > > > > 2014-04-24 1:42 GMT+09:00 Rishab Bailey : > >> +1! >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) < >> mgodwin at internews.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> I think this is a great idea! >>> -- >>> >>> *Mike Godwin* | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project >>> >>> mgodwin at internews.org | *Mobile* 415-793-4446 >>> >>> *Skype* mnemonic1026 >>> >>> *Address* 1640 Rhode Island Ave. NW, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20036 USA >>> >>> >>> >>> *INTERNEWS* | *Local Voices. Global Change.* >>> >>> www.internews.org | @internews | >>> facebook.com/internews >>> >>> From: Poncelet Ileleji >>> Reply-To: Poncelet Ileleji >>> Date: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 at 12:33 PM >>> To: Joana Varon >>> Cc: Internet Governance , " >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> <" , >>> Diego Rafael Canabarro >>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Nenna's speech >>> >>> Hi Joana, >>> >>> Definitely I totally endorse this intiative +1 >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Poncelet >>> >>> >>> On 23 April 2014 16:21, Joana Varon wrote: >>> >>>> Nnenna, that speech was amazing. People around here were wondering if >>>> we can make it something for all the ones that felt represented by its >>>> content (many, I suspect) to just endorse it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 23 Apr 2014 11:35, "Borami Kim" wrote: >>>> > >>>> > +1 wow !!! >>>> > >>>> > B >>>> > >>>> > 2014. 4. 23. 오전 10:41에 "Deirdre Williams" 님이 >>>> 작성: >>>> > >>>> >> Oh WOW!! >>>> >> I'm sitting here in tears. >>>> >> Deirdre >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> On 23 April 2014 09:36, Diego R. Canabarro >>>> wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Awesome! >>>> >>> >>>> >>> -- >>>> >>> Enviado a partir de dispositivo movel >>>> >>> Sent from mobile device >>>> >>> >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> >>> 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 >>>> >>> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> -- >>>> >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir >>>> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >>>> >> >>>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> >> 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: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS >>> Coordinator >>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio >>> MDI Road Kanifing South >>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul >>> The Gambia, West Africa >>> Tel: (220) 4370240 >>> Fax:(220) 4390793 >>> Cell:(220) 9912508 >>> Skype: pons_utd >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *www.ymca.gm www.waigf.org >>> www.aficta.org www.itag.gm >>> www.npoc.org >>> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 * >>> www.diplointernetgovernance.org >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Click hereto report this email as spam. >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lorena at collaboratory.de Wed Apr 23 12:48:09 2014 From: lorena at collaboratory.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 18:48:09 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Nenna's speech In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I'd love to hear the speech, it must have been fantastic! Congrats! Has it been recorded? Is there a possibility to read a transcript at least? 2014-04-23 18:43 GMT+02:00 Izumi AIZU : > +100 ! > > > > 2014-04-24 1:42 GMT+09:00 Rishab Bailey : > > +1! >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) < >> mgodwin at internews.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> I think this is a great idea! >>> -- >>> >>> *Mike Godwin* | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project >>> >>> mgodwin at internews.org | *Mobile* 415-793-4446 >>> >>> *Skype* mnemonic1026 >>> >>> *Address* 1640 Rhode Island Ave. NW, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20036 USA >>> >>> >>> >>> *INTERNEWS* | *Local Voices. Global Change.* >>> >>> www.internews.org | @internews | >>> facebook.com/internews >>> >>> From: Poncelet Ileleji >>> Reply-To: Poncelet Ileleji >>> Date: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 at 12:33 PM >>> To: Joana Varon >>> Cc: Internet Governance , " >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> <" , >>> Diego Rafael Canabarro >>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Nenna's speech >>> >>> Hi Joana, >>> >>> Definitely I totally endorse this intiative +1 >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Poncelet >>> >>> >>> On 23 April 2014 16:21, Joana Varon wrote: >>> >>>> Nnenna, that speech was amazing. People around here were wondering if >>>> we can make it something for all the ones that felt represented by its >>>> content (many, I suspect) to just endorse it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 23 Apr 2014 11:35, "Borami Kim" wrote: >>>> > >>>> > +1 wow !!! >>>> > >>>> > B >>>> > >>>> > 2014. 4. 23. 오전 10:41에 "Deirdre Williams" 님이 >>>> 작성: >>>> > >>>> >> Oh WOW!! >>>> >> I'm sitting here in tears. >>>> >> Deirdre >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> On 23 April 2014 09:36, Diego R. Canabarro >>>> wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Awesome! >>>> >>> >>>> >>> -- >>>> >>> Enviado a partir de dispositivo movel >>>> >>> Sent from mobile device >>>> >>> >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> >>> 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 >>>> >>> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> -- >>>> >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir >>>> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >>>> >> >>>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> >> 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: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS >>> Coordinator >>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio >>> MDI Road Kanifing South >>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul >>> The Gambia, West Africa >>> Tel: (220) 4370240 >>> Fax:(220) 4390793 >>> Cell:(220) 9912508 >>> Skype: pons_utd >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *www.ymca.gm www.waigf.org >>> www.aficta.org www.itag.gm >>> www.npoc.org >>> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 * >>> www.diplointernetgovernance.org >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Click hereto report this email as spam. >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. ∙ Coordinator of the Global Internet Governance (GIG) Ohu Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ Youtube -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From katitza at eff.org Wed Apr 23 12:50:07 2014 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 09:50:07 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Nenna's speech In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5357EF3F.3090303@eff.org> Transcripts are here: https://prakash.im/text-netmundial-day1.html On 04/23/2014 09:48 AM, Lorena Jaume-Palasi wrote: > I'd love to hear the speech, it must have been fantastic! Congrats! Has > it been recorded? Is there a possibility to read a transcript at least? > > > > 2014-04-23 18:43 GMT+02:00 Izumi AIZU >: > > +100 ! > > > > 2014-04-24 1:42 GMT+09:00 Rishab Bailey >: > > +1! > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Mike Godwin > (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG ) > > wrote: > > > I think this is a great idea! > -- > > *Mike Godwin* | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy > Project____ > > mgodwin at internews.org > | *Mobile* 415-793-4446 > ____ > > *Skype* mnemonic1026____ > > *Address* 1640 Rhode Island Ave. NW, 7th Floor Washington, > DC 20036 USA____ > > ____ > > *INTERNEWS* |* **Local Voices. Global Change.*____ > > www.internews.org | @internews > | facebook.com/internews > > > > From: Poncelet Ileleji > > Reply-To: Poncelet Ileleji > > Date: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 at 12:33 PM > To: Joana Varon > > Cc: Internet Governance >, > "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > <" > >, Diego Rafael > Canabarro > > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Nenna's speech > > Hi Joana, > > Definitely I totally endorse this intiative +1 > > Regards > > Poncelet > > > On 23 April 2014 16:21, Joana Varon > wrote: > > Nnenna, that speech was amazing. People around here were > wondering if we can make it something for all the ones > that felt represented by its content (many, I suspect) > to just endorse it. > > > > On 23 Apr 2014 11:35, "Borami Kim" > wrote: > > > > +1 wow !!! > > > > B > > > > 2014. 4. 23 . 오전 10:41에 "Deirdre > Williams" >님이 작성: > > > >> Oh WOW!! > >> I'm sitting here in tears. > >> Deirdre > >> > >> > >> On 23 April 2014 09:36, Diego R. Canabarro > wrote: > >>> > >>> Awesome! > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Enviado a partir de dispositivo movel > >>> Sent from mobile device > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> 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 > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> 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: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS > Coordinator > The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio > MDI Road Kanifing South > P. O. Box 421 Banjul > The Gambia, West Africa > Tel: (220) 4370240 > Fax:(220) 4390793 > Cell:(220) 9912508 > Skype: pons_utd > /www.ymca.gm > www.waigf.org > www.aficta.org > www.itag.gm > www.npoc.org > http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 > /www.diplointernetgovernance.org > > > * > * > > > > Click here > > to report this email as spam. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. ∙ Coordinator of the Global Internet > Governance (GIG) Ohu > Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. > www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter > ∙ Facebook > ∙ Twitter > ∙Youtube > -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 901 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From iza at anr.org Wed Apr 23 12:51:20 2014 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 01:51:20 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Nenna's speech In-Reply-To: <5357EF3F.3090303@eff.org> References: <5357EF3F.3090303@eff.org> Message-ID: And YouTube here; better watch and listen the dynamics. In early part, she appears. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KemK8YbHrI izumi 2014-04-24 1:50 GMT+09:00 Katitza Rodriguez : > Transcripts are here: https://prakash.im/text-netmundial-day1.html > > > On 04/23/2014 09:48 AM, Lorena Jaume-Palasi wrote: > > I'd love to hear the speech, it must have been fantastic! Congrats! Has > > it been recorded? Is there a possibility to read a transcript at least? > > > > > > > > 2014-04-23 18:43 GMT+02:00 Izumi AIZU >>: > > > > +100 ! > > > > > > > > 2014-04-24 1:42 GMT+09:00 Rishab Bailey > >: > > > > +1! > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Mike Godwin > > (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG ) > > > wrote: > > > > > > I think this is a great idea! > > -- > > > > *Mike Godwin* | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy > > Project____ > > > > mgodwin at internews.org > > | *Mobile* 415-793-4446 > > ____ > > > > *Skype* mnemonic1026____ > > > > *Address* 1640 Rhode Island Ave. NW, 7th Floor Washington, > > DC 20036 USA____ > > > > ____ > > > > *INTERNEWS* |* **Local Voices. Global Change.*____ > > > > www.internews.org | @internews > > | facebook.com/internews > > > > > > > > From: Poncelet Ileleji > > > > Reply-To: Poncelet Ileleji > > > > Date: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 at 12:33 PM > > To: Joana Varon > > > > Cc: Internet Governance > >, > > "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > > <" > > > >, Diego Rafael > > Canabarro > > > > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Nenna's speech > > > > Hi Joana, > > > > Definitely I totally endorse this intiative +1 > > > > Regards > > > > Poncelet > > > > > > On 23 April 2014 16:21, Joana Varon > > wrote: > > > > Nnenna, that speech was amazing. People around here were > > wondering if we can make it something for all the ones > > that felt represented by its content (many, I suspect) > > to just endorse it. > > > > > > > > On 23 Apr 2014 11:35, "Borami Kim" > > wrote: > > > > > > +1 wow !!! > > > > > > B > > > > > > 2014. 4. 23 . 오전 10:41에 "Deirdre > > Williams" > >님이 작성: > > > > > >> Oh WOW!! > > >> I'm sitting here in tears. > > >> Deirdre > > >> > > >> > > >> On 23 April 2014 09:36, Diego R. Canabarro < > diegocanabarro at gmail.com > > > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Awesome! > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> Enviado a partir de dispositivo movel > > >>> Sent from mobile device > > >>> > > >>> > ____________________________________________________________ > > >>> 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 > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but > knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > >> > > >> > ____________________________________________________________ > > >> 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: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > . > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS > > Coordinator > > The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio > > MDI Road Kanifing South > > P. O. Box 421 Banjul > > The Gambia, West Africa > > Tel: (220) 4370240 > > Fax:(220) 4390793 > > Cell:(220) 9912508 > > Skype: pons_utd > > /www.ymca.gm > > www.waigf.org > > www.aficta.org > > www.itag.gm > > www.npoc.org > > http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 > > /www.diplointernetgovernance.org > > > > > > * > > * > > > > > > > > Click here > > < > https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/pCo3wiQ+oyzGX2PQPOmvUhQdr9UqjTk1hICi8yYbDOgisUIIKbhwfD21KFJ6OtyqW2iipbvjqaTaNxM9hG2QrA== > > > > to report this email as spam. > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > . > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > . > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > > > > > -- > > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > > Japan > > www.anr.org > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >. > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. ∙ Coordinator of the Global Internet > > Governance (GIG) Ohu > > Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. > > www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter > > < > http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=collaboratory&loc=de_DE> > ∙ Facebook > > ∙ Twitter > > ∙< > http://www.youtube.com/user/CollaboratoryVideo?feature=CCAQwRs%3D>Youtube > > > > -- > Katitza Rodriguez > International Rights Director > Electronic Frontier Foundation > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu Wed Apr 23 12:55:32 2014 From: erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu (JOSEFSSON Erik) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 16:55:32 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] multistakeholderism: a quick survey In-Reply-To: <535639BD.2000403@gmail.com> References: <535127F4.8010604@cafonso.ca> <53531AC5.2050004@itforchange.net> <5353209C.9060901@itforchange.net> <53554772.9060907@gmail.com>,<55C58F39-F13A-4F02-9FCD-8161770E1FE5@internews.org> <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A069B24EB@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>,<535639BD.2000403@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A069B2A7C@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> Thanks for asking Achal. If I would have signed the campaign http://wepromise.eu as a candidate to the European Parliament I would have made it an election promise to defend "the principle of multistakeholderism". That means that I "support free, open, bottom-up, and multi-stakeholder models of coordinating the Internet resources and standards - names, numbers, addresses etc" and that I "support measures which seek to ensure the capacity of representative civil society to participate in multi-stakeholder forums." Further, I "oppose any attempts by corporate, governmental or intergovernmental agencies to take control of Internet governance." Since MSism seems to be of increasing importance, I think it is best to ask Joe (in cc) who is responsible for the campaign if anyone has issues with it. My very rudimentary personal view is basically that it's a bad idea to institutionalise conflicting competences. Best regards. //Erik ________________________________________ From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Achal Prabhala [aprabhala at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday 22 April 2014 11:43 Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] multistakeholderism: a quick survey Hello Erik (and Mike - long time), The point of our exercise is not to "agree" on anything - as yet. The point is to understand what individuals on this list think multistakeholderim is/ should be. That meaning could even well be what it is not. But it is for an individual to say as she/he pleases. Mike, absolutely, we're asking for what multistakeholderism means in *this* context, in the context of NetMundial, IANA, and any other part of the Internet Governance universe which employs the term. Erik, Mike, can I ask you two to be the first to respond to the CIS call and send me an email with a few lines explaining *your* view of it? I'd appreciate that, as I would hearing from any others here who would like to share a few words on the subject. I don't want to clutter up this list or have a discussion around different meanings here, because consensus isn't the immediate point of the exercise. Good wishes, -Achal On Tuesday 22 April 2014 02:55 AM, JOSEFSSON Erik wrote: > Maybe a listing of what multistakeholderism is *not* is easier to work with and agree on? > > //Erik > > ________________________________________ > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) [mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG] > Sent: Tuesday 22 April 2014 05:38 > To: Achal Prabhala > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] multistakeholderism: a quick survey > > Perhaps ask not just what it means to everyone, but what it should mean, most constructively interpreted? > > > —Mike > > > > On Apr 21, 2014, at 12:29 PM, Achal Prabhala wrote: > >> Hello, I'm Achal Prabhala and I am attending NetMundial on behalf of the >> Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore (www.cis-india.org). >> >> Given the several different interpretations of what multistakeholderism >> means, CIS is interested in a short vox pop on what you think the term >> means. We'll run responses on the CIS website on a daily basis once >> NetMundial starts. >> >> If you have a minute, and have an opinion on what this means (a couple >> of lines will do) - I would appreciate that. You can simply email me >> directly, aprabhala at gmail dot com. Please include your designation as >> you would like it to be noted. >> >> Many thanks; I'll also be asking as many people at NetMundial who will >> speak to me from different sectors - esp government, business and the >> technical community - and we'll be similarly recording and relaying >> their answers. >> >> I appreciate your time. Good wishes, >> -Achal >> > From mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG Wed Apr 23 12:57:12 2014 From: mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG (Mike Godwin (mgodwin@INTERNEWS.ORG)) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 12:57:12 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Nenna's speech In-Reply-To: References: <5357EF3F.3090303@eff.org> Message-ID: Yes, she begins at about 35 minutes into the proceeding. —Mike -- Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project mgodwin at internews.org | Mobile 415-793-4446 Skype mnemonic1026 Address 1640 Rhode Island Ave. NW, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20036 USA INTERNEWS | Local Voices. Global Change. www.internews.org | @internews | facebook.com/internews From: Izumi AIZU > Date: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 at 12:51 PM To: Katitza Rodriguez > Cc: Lorena Jaume-Palasi >, Rishab Bailey >, Mike Godwin >, Poncelet Ileleji >, Joana Varon >, Internet Governance >, "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> <" >, Diego Rafael Canabarro > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Nenna's speech And YouTube here; better watch and listen the dynamics. In early part, she appears. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KemK8YbHrI izumi 2014-04-24 1:50 GMT+09:00 Katitza Rodriguez >: Transcripts are here: https://prakash.im/text-netmundial-day1.html On 04/23/2014 09:48 AM, Lorena Jaume-Palasi wrote: > I'd love to hear the speech, it must have been fantastic! Congrats! Has > it been recorded? Is there a possibility to read a transcript at least? > > > > 2014-04-23 18:43 GMT+02:00 Izumi AIZU >>: > > +100 ! > > > > 2014-04-24 1:42 GMT+09:00 Rishab Bailey > >>: > > +1! > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Mike Godwin > (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG >) > >> wrote: > > > I think this is a great idea! > -- > > *Mike Godwin* | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy > Project____ > > mgodwin at internews.org > > | *Mobile* 415-793-4446 > ____ > > *Skype* mnemonic1026____ > > *Address* 1640 Rhode Island Ave. NW, 7th Floor Washington, > DC 20036 USA____ > > ____ > > *INTERNEWS* |* **Local Voices. Global Change.*____ > > www.internews.org | @internews > | facebook.com/internews > > > > From: Poncelet Ileleji > >> > Reply-To: Poncelet Ileleji > >> > Date: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 at 12:33 PM > To: Joana Varon > >> > Cc: Internet Governance > >>, > "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > >> <" > > >>, Diego Rafael > Canabarro > >> > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Nenna's speech > > Hi Joana, > > Definitely I totally endorse this intiative +1 > > Regards > > Poncelet > > > On 23 April 2014 16:21, Joana Varon > >> wrote: > > Nnenna, that speech was amazing. People around here were > wondering if we can make it something for all the ones > that felt represented by its content (many, I suspect) > to just endorse it. > > > > On 23 Apr 2014 11:35, "Borami Kim" > >> wrote: > > > > +1 wow !!! > > > > B > > > > 2014. 4. 23 . 오전 10:41에 "Deirdre > Williams" > >>님이 작성: > > > >> Oh WOW!! > >> I'm sitting here in tears. > >> Deirdre > >> > >> > >> On 23 April 2014 09:36, Diego R. Canabarro > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Awesome! > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Enviado a partir de dispositivo movel > >>> Sent from mobile device > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> 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 > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> 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: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > >. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS > Coordinator > The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio > MDI Road Kanifing South > P. O. Box 421 Banjul > The Gambia, West Africa > Tel: (220) 4370240 > Fax:(220) 4390793 > Cell:(220) 9912508 > Skype: pons_utd > /www.ymca.gm > www.waigf.org > www.aficta.org > www.itag.gm > www.npoc.org > http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 > /www.diplointernetgovernance.org > > > * > * > > > > Click here > > to report this email as spam. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > >. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > >. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. ∙ Coordinator of the Global Internet > Governance (GIG) Ohu > Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. > www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter > ∙ Facebook > ∙ Twitter > ∙Youtube > -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nnenna75 at gmail.com Wed Apr 23 12:59:27 2014 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 16:59:27 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Netmundial address In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all Here is the speech without the applause and emotions. I am surprised that it is now being termed "Nnenna speech". This was a collective effort by us all. So thanks to you you and you. N ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Nnenna Nwakanma" Date: 23 Apr 2014 15:01 Subject: Netmundial address To: "Gabe Trodd" , "Renata Avila" < renata at webfoundation.org>, "Dillon Mann" , "Carolina Rossini" , "Sonia Jorge" < snjorge at webfoundation.org>, "Nnenna Nwakanma" Cc: Here we go!! -- Nnenna Nwakanma | Africa Regional Coordinator Africa | Online | +22507416820 | +2348101887065 Skype: nnenna75 | Twitter: @nnenna *World Wide Web Foundation | **1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, USA | **www.webfoundation.org* * | Twitter: @webfoundation* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Opening ceremony SpeechNNENNAcivilSociety.doc Type: application/msword Size: 28672 bytes Desc: not available URL: From genekimmelman at gmail.com Wed Apr 23 13:10:11 2014 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 14:10:11 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Netmundial address Message-ID: I'd like us to put this out as a consensus statement from civil society groups.  Public Knowledge signs on -------- Original message -------- From: Nnenna Nwakanma Date: 04/23/2014 1:59 PM (GMT-03:00) To: Jeremy Malcolm ,"" ,Discussion List on African Internet Governance Forum ,Governance Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Netmundial address Dear all Here is the speech without the applause and emotions. I am surprised that it is now being termed "Nnenna speech". This was a collective effort by us all.  So thanks to you you and you. N ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Nnenna Nwakanma" Date: 23 Apr 2014 15:01 Subject: Netmundial address To: "Gabe Trodd" , "Renata Avila" , "Dillon Mann" , "Carolina Rossini" , "Sonia Jorge" , "Nnenna Nwakanma" Cc: Here we go!! -- Nnenna Nwakanma |  Africa Regional Coordinator Africa  |  Online | +22507416820  | +2348101887065 Skype: nnenna75 | Twitter: @nnenna World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com Wed Apr 23 14:19:16 2014 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Mwendwa Kivuva) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 21:19:16 +0300 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Netmundial address In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: That was quick mobilisation and great input from the Think Tanks from both IGC and BetsBits. Nnenna, you did a great job of compiling and delivering it On 23/04/2014, genekimmelman at gmail.com wrote: > I'd like us to put this out as a consensus statement from civil society > groups.  Public Knowledge signs on > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Nnenna Nwakanma > Date: 04/23/2014 1:59 PM (GMT-03:00) > To: Jeremy Malcolm ,"" > ,Discussion List on African Internet Governance > Forum ,Governance > Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Netmundial address > > Dear all > > Here is the speech without the applause and emotions. I am surprised that it > is now being termed "Nnenna speech". > > This was a collective effort by us all.  So thanks to you you and you. > > N > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Nnenna Nwakanma" > Date: 23 Apr 2014 15:01 > Subject: Netmundial address > To: "Gabe Trodd" , "Renata Avila" > , "Dillon Mann" , > "Carolina Rossini" , "Sonia Jorge" > , "Nnenna Nwakanma" > Cc: > > Here we go!! > > -- > > Nnenna Nwakanma |  Africa Regional Coordinator > Africa  |  Online | +22507416820  | +2348101887065 > Skype: nnenna75 | Twitter: @nnenna > World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC > 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation > -- ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya twitter.com/lordmwesh From renata at webfoundation.org Wed Apr 23 14:27:28 2014 From: renata at webfoundation.org (Renata Avila) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 15:27:28 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Netmundial address In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Copying Gabe and Anne in. Renata On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Mwendwa Kivuva wrote: > That was quick mobilisation and great input from the Think Tanks from > both IGC and BetsBits. Nnenna, you did a great job of compiling and > delivering it > > On 23/04/2014, genekimmelman at gmail.com wrote: > > I'd like us to put this out as a consensus statement from civil society > > groups. Public Knowledge signs on > > > > -------- Original message -------- > > From: Nnenna Nwakanma > > Date: 04/23/2014 1:59 PM (GMT-03:00) > > To: Jeremy Malcolm ," >" > > ,Discussion List on African Internet > Governance > > Forum ,Governance > > Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Netmundial address > > > > Dear all > > > > Here is the speech without the applause and emotions. I am surprised > that it > > is now being termed "Nnenna speech". > > > > This was a collective effort by us all. So thanks to you you and you. > > > > N > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: "Nnenna Nwakanma" > > Date: 23 Apr 2014 15:01 > > Subject: Netmundial address > > To: "Gabe Trodd" , "Renata Avila" > > , "Dillon Mann" >, > > "Carolina Rossini" , "Sonia Jorge" > > , "Nnenna Nwakanma" > > Cc: > > > > Here we go!! > > > > -- > > > > Nnenna Nwakanma | Africa Regional Coordinator > > Africa | Online | +22507416820 | +2348101887065 > > Skype: nnenna75 | Twitter: @nnenna > > World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC > > 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation > > > > > -- > ______________________ > Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya > twitter.com/lordmwesh > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- *Renata Avila * Global Campaign Lead, Web We Want Human Rights - Intellectual Property Lawyer +44 2032897004 (UK) *World Wide Web Foundation | 110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington D.C. 20005 USA **| **www.webfoundation.org* * | Twitter: @webfoundation* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andersj at elon.edu Wed Apr 23 14:51:46 2014 From: andersj at elon.edu (Janna Anderson) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 18:51:46 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Netmundial In-Reply-To: Message-ID: NETmundial Day One afternoon session now starting - viewable easily on YouTube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUxDb5RY3Cg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From antiropy at gmail.com Wed Apr 23 15:00:08 2014 From: antiropy at gmail.com (Byoung-il Oh) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 04:00:08 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Nenna's speech In-Reply-To: <1398275808.50081.YahooMailNeo@web171704.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <1398275808.50081.YahooMailNeo@web171704.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: really fantastic!! couldn't be better!!! 2014. 4. 23. 오후 2:57에 "norbert GLAKPE" 님이 작성: > Simply fabulous! > Congrat Nnena. > > Le Mercredi 23 avril 2014 19h18, Borami Kim a écrit : > +101 !!! > B > 2014. 4. 23. 오후 1:44에 "Izumi AIZU" 님이 작성: > > +100 ! > > > > 2014-04-24 1:42 GMT+09:00 Rishab Bailey : > > +1! > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) < > mgodwin at internews.org> wrote: > > > I think this is a great idea! > -- > *Mike Godwin* | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project > mgodwin at internews.org | *Mobile* 415-793-4446 > *Skype* mnemonic1026 > *Address* 1640 Rhode Island Ave. NW, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20036 USA > > *INTERNEWS* | *Local Voices. Global Change.* > www.internews.org | @internews | facebook.com/internews > > From: Poncelet Ileleji > Reply-To: Poncelet Ileleji > Date: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 at 12:33 PM > To: Joana Varon > Cc: Internet Governance , " > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> <" , Diego > Rafael Canabarro > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Nenna's speech > > Hi Joana, > > Definitely I totally endorse this intiative +1 > > Regards > > Poncelet > > > On 23 April 2014 16:21, Joana Varon wrote: > > Nnenna, that speech was amazing. People around here were wondering if we > can make it something for all the ones that felt represented by its content > (many, I suspect) to just endorse it. > > > > On 23 Apr 2014 11:35, "Borami Kim" wrote: > > > > +1 wow !!! > > > > B > > > > 2014. 4. 23. 오전 10:41에 "Deirdre Williams" 님이 > 작성: > > > >> Oh WOW!! > >> I'm sitting here in tears. > >> Deirdre > >> > >> > >> On 23 April 2014 09:36, Diego R. Canabarro > wrote: > >>> > >>> Awesome! > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Enviado a partir de dispositivo movel > >>> Sent from mobile device > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> 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 > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir > William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> 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: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS > Coordinator > The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio > MDI Road Kanifing South > P. O. Box 421 Banjul > The Gambia, West Africa > Tel: (220) 4370240 > Fax:(220) 4390793 > Cell:(220) 9912508 > Skype: pons_utd > > > > > > > *www.ymca.gm www.waigf.orgwww.aficta.orgwww.itag.gmwww.npoc.org > http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753*www.diplointernetgovernance.org > > > > > > > Click here to report this email as spam. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nb at bollow.ch Wed Apr 23 15:49:16 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 21:49:16 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Video link to Nnenna's Netmundial address In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20140423214916.1b027c16@quill> Here is a video link to just this great speech complete with the applause and emotions. http://youtu.be/qJebTNivCJo Greetings, Norbert Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > Dear all > > Here is the speech without the applause and emotions. I am surprised > that it is now being termed "Nnenna speech". > > This was a collective effort by us all. So thanks to you you and you. > > N From joly at punkcast.com Wed Apr 23 16:14:40 2014 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 16:14:40 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Netmundial address In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Here is a link to Nnenna's speech https://www.youtube.com/embed/0KemK8YbHrI?start=2105&end=2785 Embed: It is available online at http://webfoundation.org/2014/04/nnenna-nwakanma-delivers-keynote-speech-at-opening-ceremony-of-netmundial/ j -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Wed Apr 23 16:46:40 2014 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 16:46:40 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Netmundial address In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Fantastic work Nnenna. Great job particularly representing the thoughts, feelings and ideals of the diverse group of "developing economies". I'm very happy as well that the UNESCO DDG specifically mentioned Africa and Small Island Developing Nations in his remarks. The battle continues. ------ Rgds, Tracy On Apr 23, 2014 1:08 PM, "genekimmelman at gmail.com" wrote: > I'd like us to put this out as a consensus statement from civil society > groups. Public Knowledge signs on > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Nnenna Nwakanma > Date: 04/23/2014 1:59 PM (GMT-03:00) > To: Jeremy Malcolm ,"" > ,Discussion List on African Internet > Governance Forum ,Governance < > governance at lists.igcaucus.org> > Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Netmundial address > > > Dear all > > Here is the speech without the applause and emotions. I am surprised that > it is now being termed "Nnenna speech". > > This was a collective effort by us all. So thanks to you you and you. > > N > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Nnenna Nwakanma" > Date: 23 Apr 2014 15:01 > Subject: Netmundial address > To: "Gabe Trodd" , "Renata Avila" < > renata at webfoundation.org>, "Dillon Mann" , > "Carolina Rossini" , "Sonia Jorge" < > snjorge at webfoundation.org>, "Nnenna Nwakanma" > Cc: > > Here we go!! > > -- > > Nnenna Nwakanma | Africa Regional Coordinator > Africa | Online | +22507416820 | +2348101887065 > Skype: nnenna75 | Twitter: @nnenna > *World Wide Web Foundation | **1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington > DC 20005, USA | **www.webfoundation.org* * | > Twitter: @webfoundation* > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Apr 23 17:15:46 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 22:15:46 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Netmundial address In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0ecc01cf5f39$344f2390$9ced6ab0$@gmail.com> Really excellent Nnenna! Congratulations to all as it is endorsed. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Nnenna Nwakanma Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 5:59 PM To: Jeremy Malcolm; ; Discussion List on African Internet Governance Forum; Governance Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Netmundial address Dear all Here is the speech without the applause and emotions. I am surprised that it is now being termed "Nnenna speech". This was a collective effort by us all. So thanks to you you and you. N ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Nnenna Nwakanma" Date: 23 Apr 2014 15:01 Subject: Netmundial address To: "Gabe Trodd" , "Renata Avila" , "Dillon Mann" , "Carolina Rossini" , "Sonia Jorge" , "Nnenna Nwakanma" Cc: Here we go!! -- Nnenna Nwakanma | Africa Regional Coordinator Africa | Online | +22507416820 | +2348101887065 Skype: nnenna75 | Twitter: @nnenna World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Wed Apr 23 17:37:18 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 23:37:18 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Fwd: Netmundial address In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Nnenna, Compliments for having already transformed NetMundial is something unexpected. From the Intro of Nnenna: Africa, Best Bits and Internet Governance Caucus Intro of the Web Foundation: Mission, and key activities On principles: a) Access b) social change and justice On principles c) Human Rights and Freedoms On Roadmap: a) Participation b) resources On Roadmap: c) Change (accountability, transparency) Overarching issue: Trust and positive agenda Thanks to your public speech, you did walk the walk, even though you sticked to your minute by minute draft :-). It was difficult to know where these simple lines would lead. What a great speech. My Sincere congratulations. The other very good thing with your speech, is that it is now linked intimately to President Rousseff's words at the UN, and it will become a reference to many, in case they would forget about some critical ideas, principles and issues. I do remember that in the present lists we have had people asking "what means social Justice?" Milton was one of them. Probably today your speech has changed a little that non understanding. Your speech will also raise expectations. It doesn't imply that by all means we should take whatever ICANN and backers will consent to give. When you speak with sincerity of a collective work, or a cooperative spirit, we all know that trust is still low. It will come back through common values, such as the ones you very rightfully put back at the center of the board, but also through common definitions, common language, common honesty. So whatever outcome of NetMundial will engender, it will be confronted to these two speeches. I am willing to see if beyond the speech, there is a dialogue, or just a communication 'game' - not talking about your speech - to make sure people converge, (agree) without assuming the diversity of opinions, and the necessary and fertile debate. Democracy is about le débat d'opinions, not just smiles, '+1', and 'converging'. Let us notice and remember that among the submissions they were only a couple of them who dared suggest a new grand design for Internet Governance, including some essential functions, but clearly going beyond THE solution that ICANN and USG are still willing to push in our mouth and minds. I am not talking of any fight between a multilateral vs a multistakeholder model of governance. (Rousseff today spoke about a multisectoral approach) I am thinking of going beyond that establishment, that single world. Out of ICANN thinking, no survival. Out of one single root zone, no more Internet. This is all a big lie. There is room for more Internet, and for more Democracy in it, and with it. The 'Don't change it, it ain't broken', or 'No one controls the Internet', or 'Internet cannot be governed'. Well Internet can be governed, in a fair and democratic fashion, for all the very same reasons you have exposed with so much talent. I still do not see any reason why a monopoly would be given (or self attributed) the right to decide for itself and for us all. As you said, as the Just Net Coalition and some other defend, the Internet, and not only the web, should be considered as a public commons. This has indeed very practical consequences for the Internet we(?!) want. Warmly and respectfully JC Le 23 avr. 2014 à 18:59, Nnenna Nwakanma a écrit : > Dear all > > Here is the speech without the applause and emotions. I am surprised that it is now being termed "Nnenna speech". > > This was a collective effort by us all. So thanks to you you and you. > > N > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Nnenna Nwakanma" > Date: 23 Apr 2014 15:01 > Subject: Netmundial address > To: "Gabe Trodd" , "Renata Avila" , "Dillon Mann" , "Carolina Rossini" , "Sonia Jorge" , "Nnenna Nwakanma" > Cc: > > Here we go!! > > -- > > Nnenna Nwakanma | Africa Regional Coordinator > Africa | Online | +22507416820 | +2348101887065 > Skype: nnenna75 | Twitter: @nnenna > World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: From lorena at collaboratory.de Wed Apr 23 17:45:02 2014 From: lorena at collaboratory.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 23:45:02 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Fwd: Netmundial address In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Well done! Very passionate, moving speech. I forwarded it to diverse youth fora. They all loved it! Thanks for this Nnenna! 2014-04-23 23:37 GMT+02:00 Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal < jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>: > Dear Nnenna, > > Compliments for having already transformed NetMundial is something > unexpected. > > From the > > 1. Intro of Nnenna: Africa, Best Bits and Internet Governance Caucus > 2. Intro of the Web Foundation: Mission, and key activities > 3. On principles: a) Access b) social change and justice > 4. On principles c) Human Rights and Freedoms > 5. On Roadmap: a) Participation b) resources > 6. On Roadmap: c) Change (accountability, transparency) > 7. Overarching issue: Trust and positive agenda > 8. Thanks > > to your public speech, you did walk the walk, even though you sticked to > your minute by minute draft :-). It was difficult to know where these > simple lines would lead. What a great speech. My Sincere congratulations. > > The other very good thing with your speech, is that it is now linked > intimately to President Rousseff's words at the UN, and it will become a > reference to many, in case they would forget about some critical ideas, > principles and issues. I do remember that in the present lists we have had > people asking "what means social Justice?" Milton was one of them. Probably > today your speech has changed a little that non understanding. > > Your speech will also raise expectations. It doesn't imply that by all > means we should take whatever ICANN and backers will consent to give. When > you speak with sincerity of a collective work, or a cooperative spirit, we > all know that trust is still low. It will come back through common values, > such as the ones you very rightfully put back at the center of the board, > but also through common definitions, common language, common honesty. So > whatever outcome of NetMundial will engender, it will be confronted to > these two speeches. I am willing to see if beyond the speech, there is a > dialogue, or just a communication 'game' - not talking about your speech - > to make sure people converge, (agree) without assuming the diversity of > opinions, and the necessary and fertile debate. Democracy is about le débat > d'opinions, not just smiles, '+1', and 'converging'. Let us notice and > remember that among the submissions they were only a couple of them who > dared suggest a new grand design for Internet Governance, including some > essential functions, but clearly going beyond THE solution that ICANN and > USG are still willing to push in our mouth and minds. I am not talking of > any fight between a multilateral vs a multistakeholder model of governance. > (Rousseff today spoke about a multisectoral approach) I am thinking of > going beyond that establishment, that single world. Out of ICANN thinking, > no survival. Out of one single root zone, no more Internet. This is all a > big lie. There is room for more Internet, and for more Democracy in it, and > with it. The 'Don't change it, it ain't broken', or 'No one controls the > Internet', or 'Internet cannot be governed'. Well Internet can be governed, > in a fair and democratic fashion, for all the very same reasons you have > exposed with so much talent. I still do not see any reason why a monopoly > would be given (or self attributed) the right to decide for itself and for > us all. As you said, as the Just Net Coalition and some other defend, the > Internet, and not only the web, should be considered as a public commons. > This has indeed very practical consequences for the Internet we(?!) want. > > Warmly and respectfully > JC > > > Le 23 avr. 2014 à 18:59, Nnenna Nwakanma a écrit : > > Dear all > > Here is the speech without the applause and emotions. I am surprised that > it is now being termed "Nnenna speech". > > This was a collective effort by us all. So thanks to you you and you. > > N > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Nnenna Nwakanma" > Date: 23 Apr 2014 15:01 > Subject: Netmundial address > To: "Gabe Trodd" , "Renata Avila" < > renata at webfoundation.org>, "Dillon Mann" , > "Carolina Rossini" , "Sonia Jorge" < > snjorge at webfoundation.org>, "Nnenna Nwakanma" > Cc: > > Here we go!! > > -- > > Nnenna Nwakanma | Africa Regional Coordinator > Africa | Online | +22507416820 | +2348101887065 > Skype: nnenna75 | Twitter: @nnenna > *World Wide Web Foundation | **1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington > DC 20005, USA | **www.webfoundation.org* * | > Twitter: @webfoundation* > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. ∙ Coordinator of the Global Internet Governance (GIG) Ohu Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ Youtube -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Apr 23 18:29:32 2014 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 22:29:32 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Netmundial address In-Reply-To: <0ecc01cf5f39$344f2390$9ced6ab0$@gmail.com> References: ,<0ecc01cf5f39$344f2390$9ced6ab0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6c60dcaed8de41719976d100209bfc9e@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> + 1000000000 endorsed by me : ) Lee ________________________________ From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net on behalf of michael gurstein Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 5:15 PM To: 'Nnenna Nwakanma'; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; 'Discussion List on African Internet Governance Forum'; 'Governance' Subject: RE: [bestbits] Fwd: Netmundial address Really excellent Nnenna! Congratulations to all as it is endorsed. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Nnenna Nwakanma Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 5:59 PM To: Jeremy Malcolm; ; Discussion List on African Internet Governance Forum; Governance Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Netmundial address Dear all Here is the speech without the applause and emotions. I am surprised that it is now being termed "Nnenna speech". This was a collective effort by us all. So thanks to you you and you. N ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Nnenna Nwakanma" > Date: 23 Apr 2014 15:01 Subject: Netmundial address To: "Gabe Trodd" >, "Renata Avila" >, "Dillon Mann" >, "Carolina Rossini" >, "Sonia Jorge" >, "Nnenna Nwakanma" > Cc: Here we go!! -- Nnenna Nwakanma | Africa Regional Coordinator Africa | Online | +22507416820 | +2348101887065 Skype: nnenna75 | Twitter: @nnenna World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mail at silvioheinze.eu Wed Apr 23 18:39:54 2014 From: mail at silvioheinze.eu (Silvio Heinze) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 19:39:54 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?netmundial_=96_common_minimum_line=3F?= Message-ID: Hey, this question just occurred: do we have some common minimum points we need to have in the document and which are coordinated with others from civil society? Or does it make sense to gather tomorrow morning to have some kind of agreement at least in civil society? Best, Silvio -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 801 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk Wed Apr 23 19:20:52 2014 From: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk (Marianne Franklin) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 11:20:52 +1200 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Netmundial address In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <53584AD4.9040501@gold.ac.uk> Dear Nnenna Thanks for the inspiring and affirming speech you gave; firm, fair, and calling all parties involved to be transparent, and accountable. Absolutely Fabulous! best MF On 24/04/2014 04:59, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > > Dear all > > Here is the speech without the applause and emotions. I am surprised > that it is now being termed "Nnenna speech". > > This was a collective effort by us all. So thanks to you you and you. > > N > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Nnenna Nwakanma" > > Date: 23 Apr 2014 15:01 > Subject: Netmundial address > To: "Gabe Trodd" >, "Renata Avila" > >, "Dillon > Mann" >, "Carolina Rossini" > >, > "Sonia Jorge" >, "Nnenna Nwakanma" > > > Cc: > > Here we go!! > > -- > > Nnenna Nwakanma | Africa Regional Coordinator > Africa | Online | +22507416820 | > +2348101887065 > Skype: nnenna75 | Twitter: @nnenna > *World Wide Web Foundation | **1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, > Washington DC 20005, USA | **www.webfoundation.org* > * | Twitter: @webfoundation* -- Dr Marianne Franklin Professor of Global Media and Politics Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program Goldsmiths (University of London) Department of Media & Communications New Cross, London SE14 6NW Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 @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/ Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) www.internetrightsandprinciples.org @netrights -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Wed Apr 23 19:52:02 2014 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 20:52:02 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] For endorsement: Civil society proposals for amendments to the NETmundial outcome document Message-ID: <6A616C2B-3137-403D-8073-7370B562D255@Malcolm.id.au> Here are the proposals that representatives who were present at the civil society meeting in Sao Paulo have just finalised, representing a set of proposals that were discussed at the meeting and seemed to have broad agreement. This forms the basis of interventions that have been made today, and will be made tomorrow, but civil society representatives here at NETmundial 2014: http://bestbits.net/netmundial-proposals/ Whether or not you were present, you are encouraged to endorse these proposals if you generally agree with them, to add weight to them when they are considered by the chairs and advisors in the drafting session that begins tonight. Therefore, the sooner you can endorse, the better. Apologies again for the short notice and urgency (which seems to be a pattern for NETmundial), and thanks to those who put a lot of hard work into writing it (including Joana, Niels, Matthew, Deborah, Valeria, Danny and others). -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Apr 23 20:42:42 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 20:42:42 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] For endorsement: Civil society proposals for amendments to the NETmundial outcome document In-Reply-To: <6A616C2B-3137-403D-8073-7370B562D255@Malcolm.id.au> References: <6A616C2B-3137-403D-8073-7370B562D255@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: Joana on carols email: we need to think and brainstorm more on the way forward. Suggestions? On Apr 23, 2014 8:52 PM, "Jeremy Malcolm" wrote: > Here are the proposals that representatives who were present at the civil > society meeting in Sao Paulo have just finalised, representing a set of > proposals that were discussed at the meeting and seemed to have broad > agreement. This forms the basis of interventions that have been made > today, and will be made tomorrow, but civil society representatives here at > NETmundial 2014: > > http://bestbits.net/netmundial-proposals/ > > Whether or not you were present, you are encouraged to endorse these > proposals if you generally agree with them, to add weight to them when they > are considered by the chairs and advisors in the drafting session that > begins tonight. Therefore, the sooner you can endorse, the better. > Apologies again for the short notice and urgency (which seems to be a > pattern for NETmundial), and thanks to those who put a lot of hard work > into writing it (including Joana, Niels, Matthew, Deborah, Valeria, Danny > and others). > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see > http://jere.my/l/pgp. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Wed Apr 23 21:32:14 2014 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 22:32:14 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] For endorsement: Civil society proposals for amendments to the NETmundial outcome document In-Reply-To: References: <6A616C2B-3137-403D-8073-7370B562D255@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: On 23 Apr 2014, at 9:36 pm, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Anyway, I will maybe hold my nose and sign later but after Nnenna's eloquent statement to be frank this is a bit of a disappointment/needed more eyes on the text to keep - silliness - from slipping in, and weakening what is on the whole good work. Fair point, it is true that it was put together in a hurry - I'll work on tidying the language, and I think the inclusion of the confusing bracketed part of 10 may just have been a clerical mistake which should also be removed. The main reason for wanting to put it online quickly was to make sure it was before the drafting group, which is now underway. Regardless, they already have heard most of our oral contributions based loosely on this text. -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From jac at apcwomen.org Thu Apr 24 01:36:03 2014 From: jac at apcwomen.org (Jac sm Kee) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 13:36:03 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Fwd: Netmundial address In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5358A2C3.2070209@apcwomen.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 just saw the video. huge congratulations nnenna! your energy, presence and message infused everything. and thanks also for raising the issue of women and the internet! with a huge grin, jac - -- Jac sm Kee Women's Rights Programme Manager Association for Progressive Communications www.apc.org | erotics.apc.org | www.takebackthetech.net Skype: jhybeturle | Twitter: jhybe -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTWKLDAAoJEKpQzmPAS5FmgWsH/2hdS5qgDSgRbldR8BVJLCyF 5EOsEJeWlN9JVHkSYZ9FRgT1ZD6dwkCwNPTvXpCJac9K9YI1R7SB2bzGJTbthiM3 0tkZNDypyf330HEe0ahqVGXD/oJc+DjT3VRv+pSgiU01KpO49HW3W3x2mfY73DfQ ur4vQwX7/nwinBb4EPjgnf+xdI6R0UoUSffWVQsZDvUQuKcUIAAxZIMnJv5Ik+X3 q1oNLAKdaa9lD9Szdd9ocozCLdBORGdn5Cz/UcFiHBaMTYuS2HPU/w0D2KCAahsI C8gWLmg56+7X9IDqGcseGrSwbzOyqWjz4eNPGWpG5VMBtKHaKhQGjuVT03W7/Ew= =8hf3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Apr 24 03:11:33 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 08:11:33 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] For endorsement: Civil society proposals for amendments to the NETmundial outcome document In-Reply-To: <6A616C2B-3137-403D-8073-7370B562D255@Malcolm.id.au> References: <6A616C2B-3137-403D-8073-7370B562D255@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <012c01cf5f8c$6d358d40$47a0a7c0$@gmail.com> Could I suggest that "in the spirit of Nnenna" J that CS endorse the terminology of the Internet as a "Global Commons" rather than that of "global common resource" (whose actual meaning I really don't understand). Also, could CS insist along with Nnenna that "Social Justice" be a fundamental principle of the Internet along with Human Rights. Once Nnenna's speech and the CS proposals have been put in alignment I would be delighted to endorse this. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 12:52 AM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < Subject: [bestbits] For endorsement: Civil society proposals for amendments to the NETmundial outcome document Here are the proposals that representatives who were present at the civil society meeting in Sao Paulo have just finalised, representing a set of proposals that were discussed at the meeting and seemed to have broad agreement. This forms the basis of interventions that have been made today, and will be made tomorrow, but civil society representatives here at NETmundial 2014: http://bestbits.net/netmundial-proposals/ Whether or not you were present, you are encouraged to endorse these proposals if you generally agree with them, to add weight to them when they are considered by the chairs and advisors in the drafting session that begins tonight. Therefore, the sooner you can endorse, the better. Apologies again for the short notice and urgency (which seems to be a pattern for NETmundial), and thanks to those who put a lot of hard work into writing it (including Joana, Niels, Matthew, Deborah, Valeria, Danny and others). -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From isolatedn at gmail.com Thu Apr 24 03:44:31 2014 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 13:14:31 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Nenna's speech Message-ID: What I like most is this part : "My name is Nenna. I come from the Internet. I also come from ... " Sivasubramanian M On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 1:22 AM, Oksana Prykhodko wrote: > +100 Deirdre and Tipani! Oscar and Nobel simultaniously to Nnenna > > > On Wednesday, April 23, 2014, Byoung-il Oh wrote: > > really fantastic!! couldn't be better!!! > > > > 2014. 4. 23. 오후 2:57에 "norbert GLAKPE" 님이 작성: > > > > Simply fabulous! > > Congrat Nnena. > > > > Le Mercredi 23 avril 2014 19h18, Borami Kim a écrit : > > +101 !!! > > B > > 2014. 4. 23. 오후 1:44에 "Izumi AIZU" 님이 작성: > > > > +100 ! > > > > > > 2014-04-24 1:42 GMT+09:00 Rishab Bailey : > > > > +1! > > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Mike Godwin (mgodwin at INTERNEWS.ORG) < > mgodwin at internews.org> wrote: > > > > I think this is a great idea! > > -- > > Mike Godwin | Senior Legal Advisor, Global Internet Policy Project > > mgodwin at internews.org | Mobile 415-793-4446 > > Skype mnemonic1026 > > Address 1640 Rhode Island Ave. NW, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20036 USA > > > > INTERNEWS | Local Voices. Global Change. > > www.internews.org | @internews | facebook.com/internews > > From: Poncelet Ileleji > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -- Sivasubramanian Muthusamy India +91 99524 03099 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake at gmail.com Thu Apr 24 08:02:46 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 09:02:46 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] For endorsement: Civil society proposals for amendments to the NETmundial outcome document In-Reply-To: <6A616C2B-3137-403D-8073-7370B562D255@Malcolm.id.au> References: <6A616C2B-3137-403D-8073-7370B562D255@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: Hi On Apr 23, 2014, at 8:52 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Apologies again for the short notice and urgency (which seems to be a pattern for NETmundial), and thanks to those who put a lot of hard work into writing it (including Joana, Niels, Matthew, Deborah, Valeria, Danny and others). Thanks indeed to the folks who had to bang all this out at unpleasant hours of the day. I suppose it’s too late for additions to this particular statement, but going forward we might want to consider a couple other points regarding Section II. on institutional improvements. One is strengthening the IGF. The IGC of course has been recommending this from even before the IGF's creation, i.e. beginning with our mid-2005 response to the WGIG report. Since then we’ve made numerous written and oral interventions calling for the IGF to have greater institutional capacity, to serve as a platform for ongoing working groups able to make their own non-binding recommendations, and so on. APC and other CS groupings have repeatedly taken similar positions. There’s language in the draft outcome doc, paragraphs 17-22, but it could be stronger. The other is the creation of mechanisms for monitoring, analysis, knowledge sharing, etc. This is closely linked but goes even further back; in the CS declaration to the December 2003 WSIS summit, we called for the creation of a multistakeholder “observatory," and in the years to follow also used other terms like a “clearing house” function. Often this was framed as something the IGF would do, but of course the opponents of the IGF being anything more than an annual meeting vetoed such talk. There’s now proposals to reconsider this or do things independent of UN DESA control, some of which have been supported by CS groups (e.g. APC + the European Commission’s GIPO), and there’s actually a reasonable chance of some initiatives being funded and launched. Here too there’s language in the draft outcome document, paragraph 24, but it could be stronger. To that end I proposed just a lite revision in last night’s session in the hope this could be taken on board as a mere tweak: "Full consideration should be given to establishing multistakeholder mechanisms to promote the ongoing monitoring and anlysis of Internet-governance developments, and the on-demand sharing of the knowledge on policy issues, models and experiences that governments and stakeholders need to help them identify effective solutions.” This could come up in the WGEC meeting in Geneva next week as well, so it’d be good to think about. BTW, a quick hard drive scan for “clearing house function" turned up the below IGC statement about the proposed IGF from September 2005, which I believe Adam read out at WSIS PrepCom III. There’s related language in the unfulfilled IGF mandate of the Tunis Agenda. [snip] We recommend that the forum provides the following functions: a. inclusive dialogue, with a differentiated architecture allowing for peer-level interaction; b. comparative, cross-sectoral analysis of governance mechanisms, with an eye toward "lessons learned" and best practices that could inform individual and collective institutional improvements; c. assessment and monitoring of horizontal issues applicable to all Internet governance arrangements, e.g. the promotion of transparency, accountability, inclusion, and other guidelines for "good governance,” such as the WSIS principles; d. identification of weaknesses and gaps in existing governance mechanisms, especially multidimensional issues that do not fall neatly within the scope of any existing body; e. efforts to promote enhanced coordination among existing governing bodies; f. provide a clearing house for coordination and resource mobilization to supporting meaningful developing country participation and capacity building; g. release recommendations, best practices, proposals and other documents on the various Internet governance issues. Cheers, Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jyoti at cis-india.org Thu Apr 24 09:13:52 2014 From: jyoti at cis-india.org (Jyoti Panday) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 18:43:52 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] NETmundial Day 1 Recap In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <53590E10.1070806@cis-india.org> Dear All, As Day 2 NETmundial picks up pace, here is a recap of Day 1 from Achal Prabhala who is attending NETmundial on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore (www.cis-india.org). http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-mundial-day-1 Apologies for cross posting. Regards, -- Jyoti Panday Program Officer, Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 9717 526223| W: http://cis-india.org From geetha at cis-india.org Thu Apr 24 10:29:31 2014 From: geetha at cis-india.org (Geetha Hariharan) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 19:59:31 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] NETmundial: ICANN globalisation and IANA oversight Message-ID: <53591FCB.6060101@cis-india.org> Paragraphs 25-29 of the NETmundial Draft Outcome document (as it stands now), on matters of institutional improvements, calls for an open process with the participation of all stakeholders, leading to a bottom up, open and participatory nature of those policy development processes and ensure the stability and resilience of the Internet. As the debate on the principles and roadmap at NETmundial continues, the following analysis on ICANN globalisation and IANA stewardship by Smarika Kumar at India's Centre for Internet and Society may throw some light. Smarika comprehensively compiles and analyses NETmundial contributions dealing with ICANN globalisation and accountability, and maps the process for IANA stewardship transition. http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/accountability-of-icann http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-mundial-and-suggestions-for-iana-administration From jyoti at cis-india.org Thu Apr 24 10:56:21 2014 From: jyoti at cis-india.org (Jyoti Panday) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 20:26:21 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] NETmundial Visualisations Message-ID: <53592615.3010206@cis-india.org> Some interesting visualisations on Roadmap from Centre for Internet and Society, India http://ajantriks.github.io/netmundial/roadmap_topics.html Regards, -- Jyoti Panday Program Officer, Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 9717 526223| W: http://cis-india.org From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Thu Apr 24 11:54:10 2014 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 12:54:10 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Nnenna's address posted for endorsement Message-ID: <876C7EA6-11DB-43CE-BD53-9A7C03003AFF@Malcolm.id.au> By popular demand, here is Nnenna's address to NETmundial 2014 which others can now endorse: http://bestbits.net/nnenna-netmundial/ Before doing this I discussed with the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) coordinators who had also resolved by consensus to endorse the statement. They decided to do this via the Best Bits platform rather than publishing the statement on the IGC website. They will be posting the above link to their governance list too. -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From geetha at cis-india.org Thu Apr 24 12:27:14 2014 From: geetha at cis-india.org (Geetha Hariharan) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 21:57:14 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] NETmundial: Some useful visualisations Message-ID: <53593B62.2040807@cis-india.org> Some interesting visualisations from Centre for Internet and Society about the NETmundial contributions. The visualisations have been done by Sumandro Chattapadhyay based on quantitative data gatherered from the contributions. Tracking word use: 'multi-stakeholder' and 'multi-stakeholderism' across all NETmundial contributions: http://ajantriks.github.io/netmundial/track_multistakeholder.html Which countries have not contributed to NETmundial: http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-mundial-which-countries-have-not-contributed-to-net-mundial Which governments have not contributed to NETmundial: http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-mundial-which-governments-have-not-contributed-to-net-mundial NETmundial contributions, visualised by countries of origin: http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-mundial-contributions-by-countries-of-origin What organisations have submitted contributions to NETmundial? http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-mundial-contributions-by-types-of-organisation Some word-counts: http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-mundial-comparing-appearance-of-fifty-most-frequent-words http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-mundial-word-clouds-of-contributions-by-types-of-organisation From kichango at gmail.com Thu Apr 24 16:04:22 2014 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 20:04:22 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Nnenna's address posted for endorsement In-Reply-To: <876C7EA6-11DB-43CE-BD53-9A7C03003AFF@Malcolm.id.au> References: <876C7EA6-11DB-43CE-BD53-9A7C03003AFF@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: As far as I know, the consensus call on the IGC is still running. We just decided that since other people who may not be members of the IGC (so not concerned by the IGC consensus call) might also want to endorse the text (obviously) it makes more sense to have the text published on BB site for the purposes of the endorsement process. In which case IGC will be listed on the BB page among the endorsers. If necessary, IGC may also publish the text later on as an IGC-endorsed statement/speech. I hope the above is clear enough. Thanks, Mawaki On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > By popular demand, here is Nnenna's address to NETmundial 2014 which > others can now endorse: > > http://bestbits.net/nnenna-netmundial/ > > Before doing this I discussed with the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) > coordinators who had also resolved by consensus to endorse the statement. > They decided to do this via the Best Bits platform rather than publishing > the statement on the IGC website. They will be posting the above link to > their governance list too. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see > http://jere.my/l/pgp. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Apr 24 19:08:00 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 19:08:00 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] FINAL VERSION OF THE DOCUMENT - FOR PRINTING In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NETmundial Multistakeholder Document.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 49656 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NETmundial Multistakeholder Document.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 538631 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Thu Apr 24 20:44:01 2014 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 21:44:01 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 outcome text open for endorsement Message-ID: <72FFE465-05FF-43A3-8737-B98FED084065@Malcolm.id.au> The following initial response to the NETmundial 2014 outcome text was agreed in the room at NETmundial by about 25 civil society representatives and was read out in the session by Niels ten Oever from Article 19. If you are in agreement, please endorse and share: http://bestbits.net/netmundial-response This need not prevent the development of a more substantive civil society response later. -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Apr 25 09:17:24 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 23:17:24 +1000 Subject: [bestbits] netmundial 0.1 Message-ID: <711E9EB7F5E943F5A59A34D6E8BA98C7@Toshiba> The conference is now over, and many of us now go into travel and long flights. But before I do, I want to say that during this conference, and the meeting beforehand, civil society people really worked incredibly well together – far more so than other constituencies. It was great to work with a group of such talented and knowledgeable people. There was a high volume of exchange and consultation between people and speakers on our behalf, with a willingness to take on other perspectives from the group, to stand down to allow a more relevant speaker to address a subject etc. great team work. As regards the results – this was version 0.1 of this very interesting – and i think promising – version of multistakeholder consultation. So like all versions 0.1, it was full of bugs and there are a few changes that should be made and improvements. I might say a thing or two about that after I have cleared my head. So I think the process has some lessons for us, and is worth repeating. As regards the outputs – as the civil society statement said, there were areas of disappointment. I would say personally that I was very angry at last minute changes made to some sections after the formal processes of drafting and consolidating text had ended and passed through those committees to the final approval stage. This was an example of some governmental players being more equal than others. As one colleague said, more like imperialism than multistakeholderism, from a party who preaches the religion. Oh well. In time I might say more about the detail of that. But for now – there was much good as well, and it was fantastic to be involved in this with such a great group of people. All our Brazilian reps, and also our selected reps on various committees, did a fantastic job – ad it was privilege to see how well they did. They worked long and hard on our behalf and deserve a lot of praise. If I start names I will miss someone, but to everyone who represented us, I must say job extremely well done. Now to wind down after three days of intense activities. Great work everyone, really worthwhile event. Ian Peter -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu Thu Apr 24 21:09:13 2014 From: ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu (Eduardo Bertoni) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 22:09:13 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] FINAL VERSION OF THE DOCUMENT - FOR PRINTING In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Many thanks! Is there an official Spanish version? e Eduardo On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Carolina Rossini < carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew at gp-digital.org Fri Apr 25 06:20:20 2014 From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 11:20:20 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 outcome text open for endorsement In-Reply-To: <72FFE465-05FF-43A3-8737-B98FED084065@Malcolm.id.au> References: <72FFE465-05FF-43A3-8737-B98FED084065@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: I think this is much too negative and fails to reflect the amount of positive agenda and genuinely good things that came out of the whole process. I can’t support this statement Andrew Puddephatt Global Partners Digital Andrew at gp-digital.org Tel mobile +44 (0)771 339 9597 Tel office +44 (0)207 549 0350 From: Jeremy Malcolm > Reply-To: Jeremy Malcolm > Date: Friday, 25 April 2014 01:44 To: "" > Subject: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 outcome text open for endorsement The following initial response to the NETmundial 2014 outcome text was agreed in the room at NETmundial by about 25 civil society representatives and was read out in the session by Niels ten Oever from Article 19. If you are in agreement, please endorse and share: http://bestbits.net/netmundial-response This need not prevent the development of a more substantive civil society response later. -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Fri Apr 25 06:24:51 2014 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 07:24:51 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 outcome text open for endorsement In-Reply-To: References: <72FFE465-05FF-43A3-8737-B98FED084065@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <7F5E3A1C-BC6D-4943-9484-92E3AE91A50C@Malcolm.id.au> I haven't endorsed it either for the same reason. -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp. > On 25 Apr 2014, at 7:20 am, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > > I think this is much too negative and fails to reflect the amount of positive agenda and genuinely good things that came out of the whole process. I can’t support this statement > > Andrew Puddephatt > Global Partners Digital > Andrew at gp-digital.org > Tel mobile +44 (0)771 339 9597 > Tel office +44 (0)207 549 0350 > > > From: Jeremy Malcolm > Reply-To: Jeremy Malcolm > Date: Friday, 25 April 2014 01:44 > To: "" > Subject: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 outcome text open for endorsement > > The following initial response to the NETmundial 2014 outcome text was agreed in the room at NETmundial by about 25 civil society representatives and was read out in the session by Niels ten Oever from Article 19. If you are in agreement, please endorse and share: > > http://bestbits.net/netmundial-response > > This need not prevent the development of a more substantive civil society response later. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin at ipjustice.org Sat Apr 26 16:21:55 2014 From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2014 13:21:55 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] netmundial 0.1 In-Reply-To: <120D1577-CF06-4CB9-9FEB-C3F21F933A0D@glocom.ac.jp> References: <711E9EB7F5E943F5A59A34D6E8BA98C7@Toshiba> <80721637783F4D14A2432596FE7A49C1@Toshiba> <0B507AA0-EBE9-4329-BCD0-CCB9A63FD867@mail.utoronto.ca> <120D1577-CF06-4CB9-9FEB-C3F21F933A0D@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: Great to work with so many of you this past week!! Despite our disappointments, we did win a few critical issues. And most importantly, we learned about the process and the ways in which we can lose what we've gained in final minutes of drafting and in the places where the cameras weren't present. And the lack of advance planning and announcement of the process because it was being made up on the fly, made it nearly impossible to know what to anticipate and plan for. So now we know what is needed to improve the process for next time and we will be prepared for it. And despite our legitimate complaints about the insufficient transparency in drafting sessions and HLMC, frankly, usually those moments are done in complete darkness and the fact that a small handful of the world could see it was a significant step forward in transparency. Next time, the world *will* be watching every proposed comma change, how and from where it came, etc. And I'm also so inspired by our Brazilian colleagues who were working so hard for so long -- and the same to our representatives in the committees. Thank you all for your tireless work and positive energy to improve the process and outcome. Lots of great teamwork! All best, Robin On Apr 26, 2014, at 10:30 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > The last meeting of the HLMC was open to observers. But it was a shame we didn't think to put cameras and mics in the room for the drafting sessions so they could have been webcast. Just that it wasn't thought of at the time. > > Adam > > > > > On Apr 27, 2014, at 12:33 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > >> Unfortunately that process was not open, and perhaps for good reason. They also realize they made an error in the last minute rush, and put the wrong older text in for one clause. Business is actually arguing to put a better one for us back in. Will let the list know if it happens. >> Despite the hairiness of this process, I think folks should remember that there was a remarkable production of good will achieved by all the open drafting sessions….this is really an unusual way to do business. Rome wasn’t built in a day… >> Stephanie Perrin >> Cheers stephanie >> On Apr 25, 2014, at 2:38 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> >>> First, Thanks to ALL who made this impossible possible. >>> >>> I was wondering during the last hours of confusion about the last-minute change, as well as sort of HLMC overriding the preceding process. >>> >>> My question 1 was, was this finalizing the Outcome document open to observers? >>> (I still don't know and appreciate if someone teach me). >>> >>> I was wondering, and also now like to propose in the future similar event, to use the >>> online tool, I mean online Notepad. >>> >>> In addition to the real-time scribes, and using projectors to put the text on the screen, >>> it will be very effective to use the online notepad (such as Google Doc or something similar), over the Internet, as we draft. Everyone online can see the process of changing >>> the words or sentences, they can keep track of all the changes. >>> >>> It will be useful for all the remote participants, or those in different rooms of the same >>> venue while small number of drafting committee people do the work, that make it transparent. >>> >>> Just a suggestion. >>> >>> izumi >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 2014-04-26 2:30 GMT+09:00 Ian Peter : >>> and I should have added – thanks too to the BestBits people for a really constructive pre conference get together. Without that we could not have worked together so well at the main event. >>> >>> From: Ian Peter >>> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 11:17 PM >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> Subject: [governance] netmundial 0.1 >>> >>> The conference is now over, and many of us now go into travel and long flights. But before I do, I want to say that during this conference, and the meeting beforehand, civil society people really worked incredibly well together – far more so than other constituencies. It was great to work with a group of such talented and knowledgeable people. There was a high volume of exchange and consultation between people and speakers on our behalf, with a willingness to take on other perspectives from the group, to stand down to allow a more relevant speaker to address a subject etc. great team work. >>> >>> As regards the results – this was version 0.1 of this very interesting – and i think promising – version of multistakeholder consultation. So like all versions 0.1, it was full of bugs and there are a few changes that should be made and improvements. I might say a thing or two about that after I have cleared my head. So I think the process has some lessons for us, and is worth repeating. >>> >>> As regards the outputs – as the civil society statement said, there were areas of disappointment. I would say personally that I was very angry at last minute changes made to some sections after the formal processes of drafting and consolidating text had ended and passed through those committees to the final approval stage. This was an example of some governmental players being more equal than others. As one colleague said, more like imperialism than multistakeholderism, from a party who preaches the religion. Oh well. In time I might say more about the detail of that. >>> >>> But for now – there was much good as well, and it was fantastic to be involved in this with such a great group of people. All our Brazilian reps, and also our selected reps on various committees, did a fantastic job – ad it was privilege to see how well they did. They worked long and hard on our behalf and deserve a lot of praise. If I start names I will miss someone, but to everyone who represented us, I must say job extremely well done. >>> >>> Now to wind down after three days of intense activities. Great work everyone, really worthwhile event. >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>>>> Izumi Aizu << >>> >>> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >>> >>> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >>> Japan >>> * * * * * >>> << Writing the Future of the History >> >>> www.anr.org >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From jeanette at wzb.eu Sat Apr 26 12:30:23 2014 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2014 18:30:23 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] netmundial 0.1 In-Reply-To: <01BE62EF8F934D26A1BB69F0E21F4718@Toshiba> References: <711E9EB7F5E943F5A59A34D6E8BA98C7@Toshiba> <80721637783F4D14A2432596FE7A49C1@Toshiba> <0B507AA0-EBE9-4329-BCD0-CCB9A63FD867@mail.utoronto.ca> <120D1577-CF06-4CB9-9FEB-C3F21F933A0D@glocom.ac.jp> <535BCA67.8070308@wzb.eu> <01BE62EF8F934D26A1BB69F0E21F4718@Toshiba> Message-ID: <535BDF1F.2000908@wzb.eu> Am 26.04.14 22:28, schrieb Ian Peter: > Thanks for that Jeanette, that fills in a lot of detail. And having > observed you working during the final drafting compilation session (or > at least we thought it was) I know you would not have given in on some > of these points easily. There will probably be a few other things about > the HLMC and its composition (50% government) we could look at in > refining the model. From what I understood during those meetings, it doesn't really matter if there is 50 or 5% gov reps. The point is that they cannot stray off the track defined by agreed language and official government positions. If we want to do business with them and produce concret outcomes, we have to come to terms with the constraints they are operating in. It doesn't matter what they individually see as right or wrong, they are bound by positions defined elsewhere. There is room for maneuvre but this is a subtle business not easy to understand. In the roadmap group we were discussing "necessary and proportionate", and proportionate almost made it into the document. But then, competent ministries might disagree, and as long as we cannot show them official UN language the gov reps can refer to to justify their actions when they are back home, we don't have a strong case. My thought during these drafting sessions was that we have to become more professional and understand these rules and rationalities. It is not enough to support the politically correct position. jeanette > > You mentioned two things which I quote below as good lessons for us to > learn > > 1. (Jeanette's words) In other parts, civil society could have done > better by simply > submitting concrete wording and back that up with several statements by > several organizations. So many interventions during the track sessions > were made for the transcript only since they did not refer to specific > paragraphs or did not suggest concrete wording! > > IP - I agree completely. (even if some of the specific words we did come > up with made it through the multistakeholder drafting process but got > killed at the HLMC) > > 2. (Jeanette's words) > Instead of lamenting about the specific outcome, I think we should be > more pragmatic and have a discussion about how to do better and become > more effective when the next opportunity of multistakeholder drafting > comes up. > > IP - I agree again. > > 3. My first suggestion. It would be helpful in a two day meeting > structure if we could start discussing the text before 5.30pm on Day > One. The time lost through endless speeches and plenaries and running > overtime on first day was not helpful. > > 4. My second suggestion. The time allowed for drafting was insufficient. > As in most writing situations, a second draft for comment is useful. And > the opportunity to comment on a final draft before publication and final > endorsement would also be useful. That might take more time and such a > process might actually need another day. But it would lead to better > outcomes. > > Anyway - we did really well in many ways, but yes we can learn from this > experience. > > > Ian > > > > -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann > Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2014 1:01 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; best Bits > Subject: Re: [governance] netmundial 0.1 > > From my perspective, it is not correct to say that the process was not > open. There were many people in the room when we modified the text after > the first and the second set of track sessions. > > During the second drafting session on the afternoon of the 24th there > were conversations taking place as to whether or not the HLMC would > insist on a final round of looking at the draft statement before it > would be announced. I don't know where this conversation took place and > who exactly talked to whom but the result was that the governments > engaged in the HLMC wanted to see the document beforehand. In a way this > was only fair since they were tasked with "setting the tone" of the text. > > That last session before we presented the statement was semi-public. > Many people were in the room and listened in to the discussion among > people around the table. The people around the table were members of > HLMC but also session chairs such as Anriette and me and the board. > > What happened there is that some governments expressed vetos to specific > wording of the draft doc. One country expressed reservations to the > entire document. The ICANN CEO wanted one sentence to be changed and > one word removed. At that point, it seemed at least to me that the > process was about to collapse. The only chance to prevent the whole > process from failing was to remove or tone down certain paragraphs. > > What I got to understand during the text editing process is that many if > not all governments would not be able to go beyond text and positions > that are part of agreed language as expressed in UN resolutions etc. The > gov reps simply don't have the mandate or authority to go beyond agreed > language in areas that matter to them. > > Frankly, I don't find this surprising. Multistakeholder implies taking > into account the constraints of the other stakeholders. Within the > process of collectively drafting a statement, such limits obviously > become very visible. > > So, the best we could do during the editing process is phrasing our > positions in ways that would resonate with established multilateral > language. In some areas, this worked quite well. The obvious example is > the UN resolution on privacy in the digital age. Here we could clearly > go beyond that what the private sector wanted to see in the document. > > Some of the last minute changes could have been prevented if we had > better understood the limits of what government reps in this process can > do. > > In other parts, civil society could have done better by simply > submitting concrete wording and back that up with several statements by > several organizations. So many interventions during the track sessions > were made for the transcript only since they did not refer to specific > paragraphs or did not suggest concrete wording! > > Instead of lamenting about the specific outcome, I think we should be > more pragmatic and have a discussion about how to do better and become > more effective when the next opportunity of multistakeholder drafting > comes up. > > Jeanette > > Am 26.04.14 19:30, schrieb Adam Peake: >> The last meeting of the HLMC was open to observers. But it was a >> shame we didn't think to put cameras and mics in the room for the >> drafting sessions so they could have been webcast. Just that it >> wasn't thought of at the time. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> On Apr 27, 2014, at 12:33 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> >>> Unfortunately that process was not open, and perhaps for good reason. >>> They also realize they made an error in the last minute rush, and put >>> the wrong older text in for one clause. Business is actually arguing >>> to put a better one for us back in. Will let the list know if it >>> happens. >>> Despite the hairiness of this process, I think folks should remember >>> that there was a remarkable production of good will achieved by all >>> the open drafting sessions….this is really an unusual way to do >>> business. Rome wasn’t built in a day… >>> Stephanie Perrin >>> Cheers stephanie >>> On Apr 25, 2014, at 2:38 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >>> >>>> First, Thanks to ALL who made this impossible possible. >>>> >>>> I was wondering during the last hours of confusion about the >>>> last-minute change, as well as sort of HLMC overriding the preceding >>>> process. >>>> >>>> My question 1 was, was this finalizing the Outcome document open to >>>> observers? >>>> (I still don't know and appreciate if someone teach me). >>>> >>>> I was wondering, and also now like to propose in the future similar >>>> event, to use the >>>> online tool, I mean online Notepad. >>>> >>>> In addition to the real-time scribes, and using projectors to put >>>> the text on the screen, >>>> it will be very effective to use the online notepad (such as Google >>>> Doc or something similar), over the Internet, as we draft. Everyone >>>> online can see the process of changing >>>> the words or sentences, they can keep track of all the changes. >>>> >>>> It will be useful for all the remote participants, or those in >>>> different rooms of the same >>>> venue while small number of drafting committee people do the work, >>>> that make it transparent. >>>> >>>> Just a suggestion. >>>> >>>> izumi >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2014-04-26 2:30 GMT+09:00 Ian Peter : >>>> and I should have added – thanks too to the BestBits people for a >>>> really constructive pre conference get together. Without that we >>>> could not have worked together so well at the main event. >>>> >>>> From: Ian Peter >>>> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 11:17 PM >>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>> Subject: [governance] netmundial 0.1 >>>> >>>> The conference is now over, and many of us now go into travel and >>>> long flights. But before I do, I want to say that during this >>>> conference, and the meeting beforehand, civil society people really >>>> worked incredibly well together – far more so than other >>>> constituencies. It was great to work with a group of such talented >>>> and knowledgeable people. There was a high volume of exchange and >>>> consultation between people and speakers on our behalf, with a >>>> willingness to take on other perspectives from the group, to stand >>>> down to allow a more relevant speaker to address a subject etc. >>>> great team work. >>>> >>>> As regards the results – this was version 0.1 of this very >>>> interesting – and i think promising – version of multistakeholder >>>> consultation. So like all versions 0.1, it was full of bugs and >>>> there are a few changes that should be made and improvements. I >>>> might say a thing or two about that after I have cleared my head. So >>>> I think the process has some lessons for us, and is worth repeating. >>>> >>>> As regards the outputs – as the civil society statement said, there >>>> were areas of disappointment. I would say personally that I was very >>>> angry at last minute changes made to some sections after the formal >>>> processes of drafting and consolidating text had ended and passed >>>> through those committees to the final approval stage. This was an >>>> example of some governmental players being more equal than others. >>>> As one colleague said, more like imperialism than >>>> multistakeholderism, from a party who preaches the religion. Oh >>>> well. In time I might say more about the detail of that. >>>> >>>> But for now – there was much good as well, and it was fantastic to >>>> be involved in this with such a great group of people. All our >>>> Brazilian reps, and also our selected reps on various committees, >>>> did a fantastic job – ad it was privilege to see how well they did. >>>> They worked long and hard on our behalf and deserve a lot of praise. >>>> If I start names I will miss someone, but to everyone who >>>> represented us, I must say job extremely well done. >>>> >>>> Now to wind down after three days of intense activities. Great work >>>> everyone, really worthwhile event. >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >> Izumi Aizu << >>>> >>>> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >>>> >>>> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >>>> Japan >>>> * * * * * >>>> << Writing the Future of the History >> >>>> www.anr.org >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> 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 > From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Apr 25 13:30:59 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2014 03:30:59 +1000 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] netmundial 0.1 In-Reply-To: <711E9EB7F5E943F5A59A34D6E8BA98C7@Toshiba> References: <711E9EB7F5E943F5A59A34D6E8BA98C7@Toshiba> Message-ID: <80721637783F4D14A2432596FE7A49C1@Toshiba> and I should have added – thanks too to the BestBits people for a really constructive pre conference get together. Without that we could not have worked together so well at the main event. From: Ian Peter Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 11:17 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [governance] netmundial 0.1 The conference is now over, and many of us now go into travel and long flights. But before I do, I want to say that during this conference, and the meeting beforehand, civil society people really worked incredibly well together – far more so than other constituencies. It was great to work with a group of such talented and knowledgeable people. There was a high volume of exchange and consultation between people and speakers on our behalf, with a willingness to take on other perspectives from the group, to stand down to allow a more relevant speaker to address a subject etc. great team work. As regards the results – this was version 0.1 of this very interesting – and i think promising – version of multistakeholder consultation. So like all versions 0.1, it was full of bugs and there are a few changes that should be made and improvements. I might say a thing or two about that after I have cleared my head. So I think the process has some lessons for us, and is worth repeating. As regards the outputs – as the civil society statement said, there were areas of disappointment. I would say personally that I was very angry at last minute changes made to some sections after the formal processes of drafting and consolidating text had ended and passed through those committees to the final approval stage. This was an example of some governmental players being more equal than others. As one colleague said, more like imperialism than multistakeholderism, from a party who preaches the religion. Oh well. In time I might say more about the detail of that. But for now – there was much good as well, and it was fantastic to be involved in this with such a great group of people. All our Brazilian reps, and also our selected reps on various committees, did a fantastic job – ad it was privilege to see how well they did. They worked long and hard on our behalf and deserve a lot of praise. If I start names I will miss someone, but to everyone who represented us, I must say job extremely well done. Now to wind down after three days of intense activities. Great work everyone, really worthwhile event. 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeanette at wzb.eu Sat Apr 26 11:01:59 2014 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2014 17:01:59 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] netmundial 0.1 In-Reply-To: <120D1577-CF06-4CB9-9FEB-C3F21F933A0D@glocom.ac.jp> References: <711E9EB7F5E943F5A59A34D6E8BA98C7@Toshiba> <80721637783F4D14A2432596FE7A49C1@Toshiba> <0B507AA0-EBE9-4329-BCD0-CCB9A63FD867@mail.utoronto.ca> <120D1577-CF06-4CB9-9FEB-C3F21F933A0D@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <535BCA67.8070308@wzb.eu> From my perspective, it is not correct to say that the process was not open. There were many people in the room when we modified the text after the first and the second set of track sessions. During the second drafting session on the afternoon of the 24th there were conversations taking place as to whether or not the HLMC would insist on a final round of looking at the draft statement before it would be announced. I don't know where this conversation took place and who exactly talked to whom but the result was that the governments engaged in the HLMC wanted to see the document beforehand. In a way this was only fair since they were tasked with "setting the tone" of the text. That last session before we presented the statement was semi-public. Many people were in the room and listened in to the discussion among people around the table. The people around the table were members of HLMC but also session chairs such as Anriette and me and the board. What happened there is that some governments expressed vetos to specific wording of the draft doc. One country expressed reservations to the entire document. The ICANN CEO wanted one sentence to be changed and one word removed. At that point, it seemed at least to me that the process was about to collapse. The only chance to prevent the whole process from failing was to remove or tone down certain paragraphs. What I got to understand during the text editing process is that many if not all governments would not be able to go beyond text and positions that are part of agreed language as expressed in UN resolutions etc. The gov reps simply don't have the mandate or authority to go beyond agreed language in areas that matter to them. Frankly, I don't find this surprising. Multistakeholder implies taking into account the constraints of the other stakeholders. Within the process of collectively drafting a statement, such limits obviously become very visible. So, the best we could do during the editing process is phrasing our positions in ways that would resonate with established multilateral language. In some areas, this worked quite well. The obvious example is the UN resolution on privacy in the digital age. Here we could clearly go beyond that what the private sector wanted to see in the document. Some of the last minute changes could have been prevented if we had better understood the limits of what government reps in this process can do. In other parts, civil society could have done better by simply submitting concrete wording and back that up with several statements by several organizations. So many interventions during the track sessions were made for the transcript only since they did not refer to specific paragraphs or did not suggest concrete wording! Instead of lamenting about the specific outcome, I think we should be more pragmatic and have a discussion about how to do better and become more effective when the next opportunity of multistakeholder drafting comes up. Jeanette Am 26.04.14 19:30, schrieb Adam Peake: > The last meeting of the HLMC was open to observers. But it was a shame we didn't think to put cameras and mics in the room for the drafting sessions so they could have been webcast. Just that it wasn't thought of at the time. > > Adam > > > > > On Apr 27, 2014, at 12:33 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > >> Unfortunately that process was not open, and perhaps for good reason. They also realize they made an error in the last minute rush, and put the wrong older text in for one clause. Business is actually arguing to put a better one for us back in. Will let the list know if it happens. >> Despite the hairiness of this process, I think folks should remember that there was a remarkable production of good will achieved by all the open drafting sessions….this is really an unusual way to do business. Rome wasn’t built in a day… >> Stephanie Perrin >> Cheers stephanie >> On Apr 25, 2014, at 2:38 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> >>> First, Thanks to ALL who made this impossible possible. >>> >>> I was wondering during the last hours of confusion about the last-minute change, as well as sort of HLMC overriding the preceding process. >>> >>> My question 1 was, was this finalizing the Outcome document open to observers? >>> (I still don't know and appreciate if someone teach me). >>> >>> I was wondering, and also now like to propose in the future similar event, to use the >>> online tool, I mean online Notepad. >>> >>> In addition to the real-time scribes, and using projectors to put the text on the screen, >>> it will be very effective to use the online notepad (such as Google Doc or something similar), over the Internet, as we draft. Everyone online can see the process of changing >>> the words or sentences, they can keep track of all the changes. >>> >>> It will be useful for all the remote participants, or those in different rooms of the same >>> venue while small number of drafting committee people do the work, that make it transparent. >>> >>> Just a suggestion. >>> >>> izumi >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 2014-04-26 2:30 GMT+09:00 Ian Peter : >>> and I should have added – thanks too to the BestBits people for a really constructive pre conference get together. Without that we could not have worked together so well at the main event. >>> >>> From: Ian Peter >>> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 11:17 PM >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> Subject: [governance] netmundial 0.1 >>> >>> The conference is now over, and many of us now go into travel and long flights. But before I do, I want to say that during this conference, and the meeting beforehand, civil society people really worked incredibly well together – far more so than other constituencies. It was great to work with a group of such talented and knowledgeable people. There was a high volume of exchange and consultation between people and speakers on our behalf, with a willingness to take on other perspectives from the group, to stand down to allow a more relevant speaker to address a subject etc. great team work. >>> >>> As regards the results – this was version 0.1 of this very interesting – and i think promising – version of multistakeholder consultation. So like all versions 0.1, it was full of bugs and there are a few changes that should be made and improvements. I might say a thing or two about that after I have cleared my head. So I think the process has some lessons for us, and is worth repeating. >>> >>> As regards the outputs – as the civil society statement said, there were areas of disappointment. I would say personally that I was very angry at last minute changes made to some sections after the formal processes of drafting and consolidating text had ended and passed through those committees to the final approval stage. This was an example of some governmental players being more equal than others. As one colleague said, more like imperialism than multistakeholderism, from a party who preaches the religion. Oh well. In time I might say more about the detail of that. >>> >>> But for now – there was much good as well, and it was fantastic to be involved in this with such a great group of people. All our Brazilian reps, and also our selected reps on various committees, did a fantastic job – ad it was privilege to see how well they did. They worked long and hard on our behalf and deserve a lot of praise. If I start names I will miss someone, but to everyone who represented us, I must say job extremely well done. >>> >>> Now to wind down after three days of intense activities. Great work everyone, really worthwhile event. >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >> Izumi Aizu << >>> >>> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >>> >>> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >>> Japan >>> * * * * * >>> << Writing the Future of the History >> >>> www.anr.org >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Apr 26 16:28:45 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 06:28:45 +1000 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] netmundial 0.1 In-Reply-To: <535BCA67.8070308@wzb.eu> References: <711E9EB7F5E943F5A59A34D6E8BA98C7@Toshiba> <80721637783F4D14A2432596FE7A49C1@Toshiba> <0B507AA0-EBE9-4329-BCD0-CCB9A63FD867@mail.utoronto.ca> <120D1577-CF06-4CB9-9FEB-C3F21F933A0D@glocom.ac.jp> <535BCA67.8070308@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <01BE62EF8F934D26A1BB69F0E21F4718@Toshiba> Thanks for that Jeanette, that fills in a lot of detail. And having observed you working during the final drafting compilation session (or at least we thought it was) I know you would not have given in on some of these points easily. There will probably be a few other things about the HLMC and its composition (50% government) we could look at in refining the model. You mentioned two things which I quote below as good lessons for us to learn 1. (Jeanette's words) In other parts, civil society could have done better by simply submitting concrete wording and back that up with several statements by several organizations. So many interventions during the track sessions were made for the transcript only since they did not refer to specific paragraphs or did not suggest concrete wording! IP - I agree completely. (even if some of the specific words we did come up with made it through the multistakeholder drafting process but got killed at the HLMC) 2. (Jeanette's words) Instead of lamenting about the specific outcome, I think we should be more pragmatic and have a discussion about how to do better and become more effective when the next opportunity of multistakeholder drafting comes up. IP - I agree again. 3. My first suggestion. It would be helpful in a two day meeting structure if we could start discussing the text before 5.30pm on Day One. The time lost through endless speeches and plenaries and running overtime on first day was not helpful. 4. My second suggestion. The time allowed for drafting was insufficient. As in most writing situations, a second draft for comment is useful. And the opportunity to comment on a final draft before publication and final endorsement would also be useful. That might take more time and such a process might actually need another day. But it would lead to better outcomes. Anyway - we did really well in many ways, but yes we can learn from this experience. Ian -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2014 1:01 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; best Bits Subject: Re: [governance] netmundial 0.1 From iza at anr.org Sun Apr 27 07:44:09 2014 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 20:44:09 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Message-ID: A little reflection Like some of you, I was thinking how far we came from INET/IFWP/ICANN/WSIS/WGIG/IGF days to NETMundial when Adam and Jeanette were reading the final outcome statement and receiving strong standing ovations. Adam and Jeanette were the 2nd or 3rd generation of the Co-coordinators of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus, at the days of WSIS Tunis phase if I am not mistaken. YJ Park and Wolfgang Kleinwacther were the first ones at the first WSIS process. At the initial WSIS process. not only them, but most Civil Society members were not given much role other than making statements within limited and controlled frameworks. Yes we had the bureau, made negotiations with government reps, but not in the MSH modality of say "working together". By and large, we were the "outsiders" trying to lobby "them". Compared with that, civil society members in the EMC and HLMC were "insiders" and often "lobbied" by not only other CS members but also by other stakeholders. They were taking the lead in the drafting sessions. IF they, or all of us, CS members were not there, there would be no NETMundial and its outcome. It is not their (CS members at EMC and HLMC) efforts per se, but, but our collective energy, blood sweat and tears, tough and sharp arguments among CS circle, engagement, passion, patience, all of these that resulted in building-up of the credibility we today got at NETMundial. In that regard, I would say, congratulations to Adam and Jeanette, but also to Nnenna, Marilia, Carlos, Stephanie, Luis, Subi and all others who worked hard in NETMundial process including those who did not get the explicit role, but nevertheless played important roles here and there. I felt we are maturing and making good progress. Of course, we still have a lot to achieve. Now, going forward! izumi -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Sat Apr 26 17:56:49 2014 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2014 23:56:49 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] netmundial 0.1 In-Reply-To: <535BCA67.8070308@wzb.eu> References: <711E9EB7F5E943F5A59A34D6E8BA98C7@Toshiba> <80721637783F4D14A2432596FE7A49C1@Toshiba> <0B507AA0-EBE9-4329-BCD0-CCB9A63FD867@mail.utoronto.ca> <120D1577-CF06-4CB9-9FEB-C3F21F933A0D@glocom.ac.jp> <535BCA67.8070308@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <2ED7DFAB-B47F-450D-AE6B-C8045D7A01EF@theglobaljournal.net> Stephanie, who's trying to be a very positive person in that difficult debate, observed and acknowledged that the SP process (part of it) was not open... Jeanette says that is was...Jeanette writes that next time will be better. - but who's in charge of improving it? Who ever did it? I think MS has reached its limits at Sao Paulo. And indeed MSism as a model will never go beyond that type of document. Because MSism has no vision, no values, no philosophy. It is barely a methodology. There is no one serious in politics, social science, economy, law, political science to state that 'equal footing right' makes any sense. From Adam Smith, to Locke, Rousseau, Rawls, Habermas, this concept is empty. And because of the absence of vision, values, philosophy, whether in SP or in Istanbul, MSism will bring no different, no more open, and who could predict that MSism will deliver any serious concrete actions/changes. MSism is Roma brought dictatorship Stephanie, and ultimately ruin. IT is amusing to notice that everyone tends to claim victory after SP. Fun. Some see in the text the confirmation of the WSIS process, some see a post-WSIS world in the making, some probably nothing - I am thinking of the citizens here. Some will state that this is the first MS document, others will put it into their MS shelve with the plenty Blah MS has produced so far. This is precisely why these last years, very little has been achieved (deadlock?!), specifically because lacking of solid grounds of definition and understanding. All this makes it impossible to progress seriously. Sao Paulo did not derogate to that incapacity. - do we all understand that document in the same manner? Are we sure? What is more striking is the language and content of Nnenna's speech. This is a language of truth. The outcome document might have move the overall IG community by a millimeter (everyone claiming that this millimeter is his/her victory), the battle of words/concepts/ideas/dogmas/interests is pulling the Internet chariot to nowhere, if you think in terms of public and user interest. Vagueness is failing to have our engine starting and we feel no torque in the IG arena. And I am even not talking of surveillance, rights to privacy, copyright...where the outcome document is in serious jeopardy of going backward. I do believe that the concrete gift made to the IG debate in Sao Paulo is not the outcome document. It is "Nnenna's speach" which she claims not to be hers. Everyone could ask what is it in that speech that makes it so easily endorsable. Even for a simple citizen. Check thoroughly that language. This is where there is hope that the IG debate finds its principles, and out of them, a roadmap. The total absence of proposals in terms of IG grand design, - except for one submission- based upon all what we know and cherish in the Internet venture, is incredibly depressing. Are we a castrated group of IG minds. No vision in terms of governance eco-system has been discussed and reflected on in SP. Multistakeholderism is a method. It is not an eco-system. If we see MSism as a way to make sure that private sector has not only rights but assume more responsibility, then such an MSism would be the holly grail of societal change. I like the idea of an eco-system when it comes to Internet governance. A net is a bit like an onion, and its governance must have some sort of original design. It should embrace all the onion skins. From local to global, from policy making to IP, addressing, naming, cyber security, anti-mass surveillance...Stieglitz just spoke of the asymmetric role of the private sector in the US society, talking to Picketty about revenues, wealth and inequalities (raising). Giving to ICANN, a US driven monopole over an historical single root-zone for the benefit of a few, against all technical odds in terms of architectural innovation, makes me wonder why the Internet governance herd is not more interested to open new paths leading to highly protected root zone, neutral root zone, business root zone... We should have digital turnpike, digital freeways, digital highways, digital overpass and bridge. Why is it that NetMundial failed to listen to new ideas, specially when they are given for free by one of the founding father of the Internet. Even fighting against the simple idea to insert the word 'democracy' in an IG document makes me freak out. Status quo will be overtaken by history if not by us. It will be lost when technical innovation will prevail again. When algorithm will stop to be the drivers of profit. Some algorithm will become part of our global commons, soon or later. Like transportation, roads, channels... When the ever losing value of the click will come to an ever low, what shall we do to make more money, after the diversity of media and opinion will have die to the law of the click. Google is already in danger. So whatever next Internet of things, or humans, of ideas, of feelings we will have to deal with in the near future, if profit is the leading criteria to govern these spaces, then we all will have fail. As we somehow did in SP. Except for the unexpected human voice that suddenly emerged in an introductory speech, and not a concluding document. We had it all during the opening. Hope there is. Let's look where it stands. JC Le 26 avr. 2014 à 17:01, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit : > From my perspective, it is not correct to say that the process was not open. There were many people in the room when we modified the text after the first and the second set of track sessions. > > During the second drafting session on the afternoon of the 24th there were conversations taking place as to whether or not the HLMC would insist on a final round of looking at the draft statement before it would be announced. I don't know where this conversation took place and who exactly talked to whom but the result was that the governments engaged in the HLMC wanted to see the document beforehand. In a way this was only fair since they were tasked with "setting the tone" of the text. > > That last session before we presented the statement was semi-public. Many people were in the room and listened in to the discussion among people around the table. The people around the table were members of HLMC but also session chairs such as Anriette and me and the board. > > What happened there is that some governments expressed vetos to specific wording of the draft doc. One country expressed reservations to the entire document. The ICANN CEO wanted one sentence to be changed and one word removed. At that point, it seemed at least to me that the process was about to collapse. The only chance to prevent the whole process from failing was to remove or tone down certain paragraphs. > > What I got to understand during the text editing process is that many if not all governments would not be able to go beyond text and positions that are part of agreed language as expressed in UN resolutions etc. The gov reps simply don't have the mandate or authority to go beyond agreed language in areas that matter to them. > > Frankly, I don't find this surprising. Multistakeholder implies taking into account the constraints of the other stakeholders. Within the process of collectively drafting a statement, such limits obviously become very visible. > > So, the best we could do during the editing process is phrasing our positions in ways that would resonate with established multilateral language. In some areas, this worked quite well. The obvious example is the UN resolution on privacy in the digital age. Here we could clearly go beyond that what the private sector wanted to see in the document. > > Some of the last minute changes could have been prevented if we had better understood the limits of what government reps in this process can do. > > In other parts, civil society could have done better by simply submitting concrete wording and back that up with several statements by several organizations. So many interventions during the track sessions were made for the transcript only since they did not refer to specific paragraphs or did not suggest concrete wording! > > Instead of lamenting about the specific outcome, I think we should be more pragmatic and have a discussion about how to do better and become more effective when the next opportunity of multistakeholder drafting comes up. > > Jeanette > > Am 26.04.14 19:30, schrieb Adam Peake: >> The last meeting of the HLMC was open to observers. But it was a shame we didn't think to put cameras and mics in the room for the drafting sessions so they could have been webcast. Just that it wasn't thought of at the time. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> On Apr 27, 2014, at 12:33 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> >>> Unfortunately that process was not open, and perhaps for good reason. They also realize they made an error in the last minute rush, and put the wrong older text in for one clause. Business is actually arguing to put a better one for us back in. Will let the list know if it happens. >>> Despite the hairiness of this process, I think folks should remember that there was a remarkable production of good will achieved by all the open drafting sessions….this is really an unusual way to do business. Rome wasn’t built in a day… >>> Stephanie Perrin >>> Cheers stephanie >>> On Apr 25, 2014, at 2:38 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >>> >>>> First, Thanks to ALL who made this impossible possible. >>>> >>>> I was wondering during the last hours of confusion about the last-minute change, as well as sort of HLMC overriding the preceding process. >>>> >>>> My question 1 was, was this finalizing the Outcome document open to observers? >>>> (I still don't know and appreciate if someone teach me). >>>> >>>> I was wondering, and also now like to propose in the future similar event, to use the >>>> online tool, I mean online Notepad. >>>> >>>> In addition to the real-time scribes, and using projectors to put the text on the screen, >>>> it will be very effective to use the online notepad (such as Google Doc or something similar), over the Internet, as we draft. Everyone online can see the process of changing >>>> the words or sentences, they can keep track of all the changes. >>>> >>>> It will be useful for all the remote participants, or those in different rooms of the same >>>> venue while small number of drafting committee people do the work, that make it transparent. >>>> >>>> Just a suggestion. >>>> >>>> izumi >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2014-04-26 2:30 GMT+09:00 Ian Peter : >>>> and I should have added – thanks too to the BestBits people for a really constructive pre conference get together. Without that we could not have worked together so well at the main event. >>>> >>>> From: Ian Peter >>>> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 11:17 PM >>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>> Subject: [governance] netmundial 0.1 >>>> >>>> The conference is now over, and many of us now go into travel and long flights. But before I do, I want to say that during this conference, and the meeting beforehand, civil society people really worked incredibly well together – far more so than other constituencies. It was great to work with a group of such talented and knowledgeable people. There was a high volume of exchange and consultation between people and speakers on our behalf, with a willingness to take on other perspectives from the group, to stand down to allow a more relevant speaker to address a subject etc. great team work. >>>> >>>> As regards the results – this was version 0.1 of this very interesting – and i think promising – version of multistakeholder consultation. So like all versions 0.1, it was full of bugs and there are a few changes that should be made and improvements. I might say a thing or two about that after I have cleared my head. So I think the process has some lessons for us, and is worth repeating. >>>> >>>> As regards the outputs – as the civil society statement said, there were areas of disappointment. I would say personally that I was very angry at last minute changes made to some sections after the formal processes of drafting and consolidating text had ended and passed through those committees to the final approval stage. This was an example of some governmental players being more equal than others. As one colleague said, more like imperialism than multistakeholderism, from a party who preaches the religion. Oh well. In time I might say more about the detail of that. >>>> >>>> But for now – there was much good as well, and it was fantastic to be involved in this with such a great group of people. All our Brazilian reps, and also our selected reps on various committees, did a fantastic job – ad it was privilege to see how well they did. They worked long and hard on our behalf and deserve a lot of praise. If I start names I will miss someone, but to everyone who represented us, I must say job extremely well done. >>>> >>>> Now to wind down after three days of intense activities. Great work everyone, really worthwhile event. >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >> Izumi Aizu << >>>> >>>> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >>>> >>>> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >>>> Japan >>>> * * * * * >>>> << Writing the Future of the History >> >>>> www.anr.org >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sat Apr 26 13:30:46 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 02:30:46 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] netmundial 0.1 In-Reply-To: <0B507AA0-EBE9-4329-BCD0-CCB9A63FD867@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <711E9EB7F5E943F5A59A34D6E8BA98C7@Toshiba> <80721637783F4D14A2432596FE7A49C1@Toshiba> <0B507AA0-EBE9-4329-BCD0-CCB9A63FD867@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <120D1577-CF06-4CB9-9FEB-C3F21F933A0D@glocom.ac.jp> The last meeting of the HLMC was open to observers. But it was a shame we didn't think to put cameras and mics in the room for the drafting sessions so they could have been webcast. Just that it wasn't thought of at the time. Adam On Apr 27, 2014, at 12:33 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > Unfortunately that process was not open, and perhaps for good reason. They also realize they made an error in the last minute rush, and put the wrong older text in for one clause. Business is actually arguing to put a better one for us back in. Will let the list know if it happens. > Despite the hairiness of this process, I think folks should remember that there was a remarkable production of good will achieved by all the open drafting sessions….this is really an unusual way to do business. Rome wasn’t built in a day… > Stephanie Perrin > Cheers stephanie > On Apr 25, 2014, at 2:38 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> First, Thanks to ALL who made this impossible possible. >> >> I was wondering during the last hours of confusion about the last-minute change, as well as sort of HLMC overriding the preceding process. >> >> My question 1 was, was this finalizing the Outcome document open to observers? >> (I still don't know and appreciate if someone teach me). >> >> I was wondering, and also now like to propose in the future similar event, to use the >> online tool, I mean online Notepad. >> >> In addition to the real-time scribes, and using projectors to put the text on the screen, >> it will be very effective to use the online notepad (such as Google Doc or something similar), over the Internet, as we draft. Everyone online can see the process of changing >> the words or sentences, they can keep track of all the changes. >> >> It will be useful for all the remote participants, or those in different rooms of the same >> venue while small number of drafting committee people do the work, that make it transparent. >> >> Just a suggestion. >> >> izumi >> >> >> >> >> >> 2014-04-26 2:30 GMT+09:00 Ian Peter : >> and I should have added – thanks too to the BestBits people for a really constructive pre conference get together. Without that we could not have worked together so well at the main event. >> >> From: Ian Peter >> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 11:17 PM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> Subject: [governance] netmundial 0.1 >> >> The conference is now over, and many of us now go into travel and long flights. But before I do, I want to say that during this conference, and the meeting beforehand, civil society people really worked incredibly well together – far more so than other constituencies. It was great to work with a group of such talented and knowledgeable people. There was a high volume of exchange and consultation between people and speakers on our behalf, with a willingness to take on other perspectives from the group, to stand down to allow a more relevant speaker to address a subject etc. great team work. >> >> As regards the results – this was version 0.1 of this very interesting – and i think promising – version of multistakeholder consultation. So like all versions 0.1, it was full of bugs and there are a few changes that should be made and improvements. I might say a thing or two about that after I have cleared my head. So I think the process has some lessons for us, and is worth repeating. >> >> As regards the outputs – as the civil society statement said, there were areas of disappointment. I would say personally that I was very angry at last minute changes made to some sections after the formal processes of drafting and consolidating text had ended and passed through those committees to the final approval stage. This was an example of some governmental players being more equal than others. As one colleague said, more like imperialism than multistakeholderism, from a party who preaches the religion. Oh well. In time I might say more about the detail of that. >> >> But for now – there was much good as well, and it was fantastic to be involved in this with such a great group of people. All our Brazilian reps, and also our selected reps on various committees, did a fantastic job – ad it was privilege to see how well they did. They worked long and hard on our behalf and deserve a lot of praise. If I start names I will miss someone, but to everyone who represented us, I must say job extremely well done. >> >> Now to wind down after three days of intense activities. Great work everyone, really worthwhile event. >> >> 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 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Izumi Aizu << >> >> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >> >> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >> Japan >> * * * * * >> << Writing the Future of the History >> >> www.anr.org >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 mshears at cdt.org Fri Apr 25 09:30:56 2014 From: mshears at cdt.org (Matthew Shears) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 09:30:56 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] netmundial 0.1 In-Reply-To: <711E9EB7F5E943F5A59A34D6E8BA98C7@Toshiba> References: <711E9EB7F5E943F5A59A34D6E8BA98C7@Toshiba> Message-ID: <535A6390.6050807@cdt.org> Hi all, I would like to echo Ian's excellent comments. It was a fascinating event and there is much good in the document. We did not get what we wanted on key issues of concern - and that was disappointing - but this is just the start. I believe that the NETmundial document gives us a new "platform" on which to progress IG. Lets digest the document and identify how we use it to advance our causes and leverage it in other fora going forward. Well done to all and especially our Brazilian colleagues and all the civil society folks on the committees, etc. Its been a pleasure. Matthew On 4/25/2014 9:17 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > The conference is now over, and many of us now go into travel and long > flights. But before I do, I want to say that during this conference, > and the meeting beforehand, civil society people really worked > incredibly well together – far more so than other constituencies. It > was great to work with a group of such talented and knowledgeable > people. There was a high volume of exchange and consultation between > people and speakers on our behalf, with a willingness to take on other > perspectives from the group, to stand down to allow a more relevant > speaker to address a subject etc. great team work. > As regards the results – this was version 0.1 of this very interesting > – and i think promising – version of multistakeholder consultation. So > like all versions 0.1, it was full of bugs and there are a few changes > that should be made and improvements. I might say a thing or two about > that after I have cleared my head. So I think the process has some > lessons for us, and is worth repeating. > As regards the outputs – as the civil society statement said, there > were areas of disappointment. I would say personally that I was very > angry at last minute changes made to some sections after the formal > processes of drafting and consolidating text had ended and passed > through those committees to the final approval stage. This was an > example of some governmental players being more equal than others. As > one colleague said, more like imperialism than multistakeholderism, > from a party who preaches the religion. Oh well. In time I might say > more about the detail of that. > But for now – there was much good as well, and it was fantastic to be > involved in this with such a great group of people. All our Brazilian > reps, and also our selected reps on various committees, did a > fantastic job – ad it was privilege to see how well they did. They > worked long and hard on our behalf and deserve a lot of praise. If I > start names I will miss someone, but to everyone who represented us, I > must say job extremely well done. > Now to wind down after three days of intense activities. Great work > everyone, really worthwhile event. > Ian Peter -- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) mshears at cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin at ipjustice.org Sat Apr 26 21:44:02 2014 From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2014 18:44:02 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] netmundial 0.1 In-Reply-To: References: <711E9EB7F5E943F5A59A34D6E8BA98C7@Toshiba> <80721637783F4D14A2432596FE7A49C1@Toshiba> <0B507AA0-EBE9-4329-BCD0-CCB9A63FD867@mail.utoronto.ca> <120D1577-CF06-4CB9-9FEB-C3F21F933A0D@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <4384640F-C161-406B-AC41-32D6E9F7B06C@ipjustice.org> A few thoughts on the outcome doc and Netmundial generally, after the benefit of a plane ride to process the experience. Overall, there are some truly amazing principles supported in the Netmundial Multi-Stakeholder Statement that we as civil society should proud of and especially our representatives who got this achievement. The Internet governance principles of human rights, democracy, equality, openness, transparency, accountability, decentralized, Internet as global resource to be managed in the public interest are all supported in the final outcome document. These are all truly amazing achievements and an important pivot point in the evolution of the global governance ecosystem. Civil society lost ground on the specific wording over the most contentious issues, such as surveillance, copyright, permissionless innovation, intermediary liability, net neutrality, and separation of policy & operations in IANA, but the fact that these issues were mentioned in the governance document itself, is a significant advancement (except for the ode to copyright). So on some key substantive policy issues, the document reflects a remarkable achievement, despite a few critical losses where civil society got out-lobbied, out-muscled, & out-manuevered in the last minute behind less transparent and less organized processes on the specific wording. But the simple fact the govts and biz had to negotiate with civil society over key language (and wait in line to speak) is another rather remarkable step-forward. There was more transparency over the drafting and adoption of the document than there is in other global governance regimes where we can't see the drafting at all, since a few of us could watch. We now see the need for improved transparency in these key critical decision-making moments in this going forward. And the process frustrated and impeded civil society, who tends not be in current decision-making positions on these important process decisions. I don't want us to lose sight of the big picture, and fail to see the really great parts of this document, and that in many ways, this was a very positive step forward in the evolution of the Internet governance and Internet freedom. Yes, civil society was under-represented on panels, in committees, and key decision-making positions - everyone knows that - and we need to keep pushing on that point too; this doc supports "equality", so we've got our hook for that goal here too. On balance, this document is a pretty good starting point for further discussions on Internet governance and its positive evolution. My 2 cents, Robin On Apr 26, 2014, at 3:28 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Thank you Stephanie and Adam for your clarifications. > > I still have the "impression" that the last session was not quite as open as it could be. > > Firstly, there was not announcement, or explanation, as to how the final document would be dealt by HLMC in advance, or even on the fly, for those who were in the Main Room. > > Yes, it would be much better to have live streaming and scribed texts online for those who were not in the small drafting room. > > I would say even in the small room, it was VERY difficult to figure out what exactly they are discussing unless you have good hearing ability and understanding of the English since they were not using the microphone and sometimes audiences making some noise. > It was semi transparent in my view. > > I do not mean for criticism, but for lessons going forward. > > More than 10 years ago, we had WSIS prep meeting in Tokyo and we insisted that Drafting session by governments plus civil society and private sector be open to all who want to participate. It worked well. We had big screen in front of all, and everyone could speak up once chair allow, there were some distinction between the official member of the drafting committee and others, but not much, In the end the result of this informal drafting committee was sent to the government only negotiation, which was open and transparent, but no-government stakeholders including IGOs could have no say. > We asked government people to "honor" the works of this multistakeholder draft document and in my view we got 85%, if not 90%. (could not get good language for Human rights and Freedom of Expression). > > Now, after more than 10 years, we have, as I wrote, better online tool, much better working experience among CS members with other stakeholders, better recognition on CS and MSH to advance our work. > > As Jeanette and Ian point out, we could have done better if we had better prepared and also better prepared on the fly. > > But overall, I think civil society did a very good job, together with Brazilian host, but also I like to mention the other stakeholders, governments, business, tech and academic community also deserve the recognition together, > > As we were discussing during the dinner right after the closure, we could and should understand some government folks who really had constraints under their mandate, therefore had to put their reservations on the record. And even so, I think their behaviors were not that disruptive, at the last stage, to honor Brazilian host and also all of us engaged there. > > izumi > > > > 2014-04-27 2:30 GMT+09:00 Adam Peake : > The last meeting of the HLMC was open to observers. But it was a shame we didn't think to put cameras and mics in the room for the drafting sessions so they could have been webcast. Just that it wasn't thought of at the time. > > Adam > > > > > On Apr 27, 2014, at 12:33 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > > Unfortunately that process was not open, and perhaps for good reason. They also realize they made an error in the last minute rush, and put the wrong older text in for one clause. Business is actually arguing to put a better one for us back in. Will let the list know if it happens. > > Despite the hairiness of this process, I think folks should remember that there was a remarkable production of good will achieved by all the open drafting sessions….this is really an unusual way to do business. Rome wasn’t built in a day… > > Stephanie Perrin > > Cheers stephanie > > On Apr 25, 2014, at 2:38 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > > >> First, Thanks to ALL who made this impossible possible. > >> > >> I was wondering during the last hours of confusion about the last-minute change, as well as sort of HLMC overriding the preceding process. > >> > >> My question 1 was, was this finalizing the Outcome document open to observers? > >> (I still don't know and appreciate if someone teach me). > >> > >> I was wondering, and also now like to propose in the future similar event, to use the > >> online tool, I mean online Notepad. > >> > >> In addition to the real-time scribes, and using projectors to put the text on the screen, > >> it will be very effective to use the online notepad (such as Google Doc or something similar), over the Internet, as we draft. Everyone online can see the process of changing > >> the words or sentences, they can keep track of all the changes. > >> > >> It will be useful for all the remote participants, or those in different rooms of the same > >> venue while small number of drafting committee people do the work, that make it transparent. > >> > >> Just a suggestion. > >> > >> izumi > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> 2014-04-26 2:30 GMT+09:00 Ian Peter : > >> and I should have added – thanks too to the BestBits people for a really constructive pre conference get together. Without that we could not have worked together so well at the main event. > >> > >> From: Ian Peter > >> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 11:17 PM > >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > >> Subject: [governance] netmundial 0.1 > >> > >> The conference is now over, and many of us now go into travel and long flights. But before I do, I want to say that during this conference, and the meeting beforehand, civil society people really worked incredibly well together – far more so than other constituencies. It was great to work with a group of such talented and knowledgeable people. There was a high volume of exchange and consultation between people and speakers on our behalf, with a willingness to take on other perspectives from the group, to stand down to allow a more relevant speaker to address a subject etc. great team work. > >> > >> As regards the results – this was version 0.1 of this very interesting – and i think promising – version of multistakeholder consultation. So like all versions 0.1, it was full of bugs and there are a few changes that should be made and improvements. I might say a thing or two about that after I have cleared my head. So I think the process has some lessons for us, and is worth repeating. > >> > >> As regards the outputs – as the civil society statement said, there were areas of disappointment. I would say personally that I was very angry at last minute changes made to some sections after the formal processes of drafting and consolidating text had ended and passed through those committees to the final approval stage. This was an example of some governmental players being more equal than others. As one colleague said, more like imperialism than multistakeholderism, from a party who preaches the religion. Oh well. In time I might say more about the detail of that. > >> > >> But for now – there was much good as well, and it was fantastic to be involved in this with such a great group of people. All our Brazilian reps, and also our selected reps on various committees, did a fantastic job – ad it was privilege to see how well they did. They worked long and hard on our behalf and deserve a lot of praise. If I start names I will miss someone, but to everyone who represented us, I must say job extremely well done. > >> > >> Now to wind down after three days of intense activities. Great work everyone, really worthwhile event. > >> > >> 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 > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> 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 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> >> Izumi Aizu << > >> > >> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > >> > >> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > >> Japan > >> * * * * * > >> << Writing the Future of the History >> > >> www.anr.org > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> 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 > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.org > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From robin at ipjustice.org Sun Apr 27 00:13:16 2014 From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2014 21:13:16 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] netmundial 0.1 In-Reply-To: <93C886F4-B253-4D4F-9E9A-FEA54186B349@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <711E9EB7F5E943F5A59A34D6E8BA98C7@Toshiba> <80721637783F4D14A2432596FE7A49C1@Toshiba> <0B507AA0-EBE9-4329-BCD0-CCB9A63FD867@mail.utoronto.ca> <120D1577-CF06-4CB9-9FEB-C3F21F933A0D@glocom.ac.jp> <4384640F-C161-406B-AC41-32D6E9F7B06C@ipjustice.org> <93C886F4-B253-4D4F-9E9A-FEA54186B349@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <2C57D367-6DDE-48AB-83B8-43F3D8D9DEE0@ipjustice.org> Thanks! I just posted a cleaned-up version of this earlier big-picture analysis to the web: http://tinyurl.com/ll9wnuq A Civil Society Perspective on NETmundial 2014 Final Outcome Document: A Remarkable Achievement, Despite Losses to Hollywood & Govts Over Specific Language on Most Controversial Issues A few high-level thoughts on the Netmundial meeting in Brazil this week and its final outcome document, adopted by its high level committee. Overall, there are some truly amazing and forward-looking principles supported in the "Netmundial Multi-Stakeholder Statement" that we as civil society should proud of, and especially our civil society representatives who worked tirelessly for this achievement. Specifically, the Internet governance principles of human rights, democracy, equality, openness, transparency, accountability, decentralization, and the Internet as a global resource to be managed in the public interest are all supported in the final outcome document. These principles are all wonderful achievements for social justice and an important pivot point in the evolution of global governance principles and mechanisms. Civil society lost ground on the specific wording over the most contentious issues, such as surveillance, copyright, permissionless innovation, intermediary protections, net neutrality, and separation of policy & operations in IANA, but the fact that these controversial issues were mentioned at all in the statement, is a significant advancement (except for the ode to copyright). So on some key substantive policy issues, the statement reflects a remarkable positive achievement, despite a few critical losses on the specific wording where civil society got out-lobbied, out-muscled, & out-manuevered in the last minute, in less transparent and less organized processes. Civil society gained great experience from engaging in the process and learned a number of places were improvements can be made in future discussions and processes. Perhaps the losses on specific wording on the most contentious issues was the price to pay to obtain the larger and more numerous high-level principles supporting social justice goals and the positive development of the Internet. The simple fact the govts and business had to negotiate with civil society over final text language (and govts wait in line at the mic to speak) is another step-forward in Internet governance. Even with short comings, there was more transparency over the drafting and final high level committee’s weakening and adoption of the document than there is in other global governance regimes, where we can’t see the drafting at all, since a few of us could watch (those who could walk into the room) in NETmundial final high level committee and drafting sessions. There is demonstrated need for improved transparency in these critical decision-making moments in the process going forward. And the inability to anticipate the process also impeded civil society, who tends to be significantly under-represented in decision-making positions and among the insiders. I don’t want us to lose sight of the big picture, and fail to see the really encouraging parts of this document, and that in many ways, this was a positive advancement in the evolution of Internet governance and Internet freedom. Without question, civil society was under-represented on panels, in committees, and key decision-making positions - everyone knows that - and we need to keep pushing on that critical point; this statement supports "equality", so we’ve got our hook for that key civil society goal in here too. The last minute (significantly weakening or) insertion of new language, for which there was no consensus or previous discussion, by powerful interests (generally Hollywood, Govt, ICANN) on the document’s most controversial issues was one of the process’ biggest break down points. Even with the process issues and painful losses on specific language on the most controversial issues, on balance, this document is a pretty good starting point for further discussions on Internet governance and its positive evolution. "Netmundial Multistakeholder Statement" On Apr 26, 2014, at 8:53 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > +1! > Stephanie P > On Apr 26, 2014, at 9:44 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > >> A few thoughts on the outcome doc and Netmundial generally, after the benefit of a plane ride to process the experience. Overall, there are some truly amazing principles supported in the Netmundial Multi-Stakeholder Statement that we as civil society should proud of and especially our representatives who got this achievement. >> >> The Internet governance principles of human rights, democracy, equality, openness, transparency, accountability, decentralized, Internet as global resource to be managed in the public interest are all supported in the final outcome document. These are all truly amazing achievements and an important pivot point in the evolution of the global governance ecosystem. >> >> Civil society lost ground on the specific wording over the most contentious issues, such as surveillance, copyright, permissionless innovation, intermediary liability, net neutrality, and separation of policy & operations in IANA, but the fact that these issues were mentioned in the governance document itself, is a significant advancement (except for the ode to copyright). So on some key substantive policy issues, the document reflects a remarkable achievement, despite a few critical losses where civil society got out-lobbied, out-muscled, & out-manuevered in the last minute behind less transparent and less organized processes on the specific wording. >> >> But the simple fact the govts and biz had to negotiate with civil society over key language (and wait in line to speak) is another rather remarkable step-forward. There was more transparency over the drafting and adoption of the document than there is in other global governance regimes where we can't see the drafting at all, since a few of us could watch. We now see the need for improved transparency in these key critical decision-making moments in this going forward. And the process frustrated and impeded civil society, who tends not be in current decision-making positions on these important process decisions. >> >> I don't want us to lose sight of the big picture, and fail to see the really great parts of this document, and that in many ways, this was a very positive step forward in the evolution of the Internet governance and Internet freedom. >> >> Yes, civil society was under-represented on panels, in committees, and key decision-making positions - everyone knows that - and we need to keep pushing on that point too; this doc supports "equality", so we've got our hook for that goal here too. >> >> On balance, this document is a pretty good starting point for further discussions on Internet governance and its positive evolution. >> >> My 2 cents, >> Robin >> >> >> On Apr 26, 2014, at 3:28 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> >>> Thank you Stephanie and Adam for your clarifications. >>> >>> I still have the "impression" that the last session was not quite as open as it could be. >>> >>> Firstly, there was not announcement, or explanation, as to how the final document would be dealt by HLMC in advance, or even on the fly, for those who were in the Main Room. >>> >>> Yes, it would be much better to have live streaming and scribed texts online for those who were not in the small drafting room. >>> >>> I would say even in the small room, it was VERY difficult to figure out what exactly they are discussing unless you have good hearing ability and understanding of the English since they were not using the microphone and sometimes audiences making some noise. >>> It was semi transparent in my view. >>> >>> I do not mean for criticism, but for lessons going forward. >>> >>> More than 10 years ago, we had WSIS prep meeting in Tokyo and we insisted that Drafting session by governments plus civil society and private sector be open to all who want to participate. It worked well. We had big screen in front of all, and everyone could speak up once chair allow, there were some distinction between the official member of the drafting committee and others, but not much, In the end the result of this informal drafting committee was sent to the government only negotiation, which was open and transparent, but no-government stakeholders including IGOs could have no say. >>> We asked government people to "honor" the works of this multistakeholder draft document and in my view we got 85%, if not 90%. (could not get good language for Human rights and Freedom of Expression). >>> >>> Now, after more than 10 years, we have, as I wrote, better online tool, much better working experience among CS members with other stakeholders, better recognition on CS and MSH to advance our work. >>> >>> As Jeanette and Ian point out, we could have done better if we had better prepared and also better prepared on the fly. >>> >>> But overall, I think civil society did a very good job, together with Brazilian host, but also I like to mention the other stakeholders, governments, business, tech and academic community also deserve the recognition together, >>> >>> As we were discussing during the dinner right after the closure, we could and should understand some government folks who really had constraints under their mandate, therefore had to put their reservations on the record. And even so, I think their behaviors were not that disruptive, at the last stage, to honor Brazilian host and also all of us engaged there. >>> >>> izumi >>> >>> >>> >>> 2014-04-27 2:30 GMT+09:00 Adam Peake : >>> The last meeting of the HLMC was open to observers. But it was a shame we didn't think to put cameras and mics in the room for the drafting sessions so they could have been webcast. Just that it wasn't thought of at the time. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Apr 27, 2014, at 12:33 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>> >>> > Unfortunately that process was not open, and perhaps for good reason. They also realize they made an error in the last minute rush, and put the wrong older text in for one clause. Business is actually arguing to put a better one for us back in. Will let the list know if it happens. >>> > Despite the hairiness of this process, I think folks should remember that there was a remarkable production of good will achieved by all the open drafting sessions….this is really an unusual way to do business. Rome wasn’t built in a day… >>> > Stephanie Perrin >>> > Cheers stephanie >>> > On Apr 25, 2014, at 2:38 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >>> > >>> >> First, Thanks to ALL who made this impossible possible. >>> >> >>> >> I was wondering during the last hours of confusion about the last-minute change, as well as sort of HLMC overriding the preceding process. >>> >> >>> >> My question 1 was, was this finalizing the Outcome document open to observers? >>> >> (I still don't know and appreciate if someone teach me). >>> >> >>> >> I was wondering, and also now like to propose in the future similar event, to use the >>> >> online tool, I mean online Notepad. >>> >> >>> >> In addition to the real-time scribes, and using projectors to put the text on the screen, >>> >> it will be very effective to use the online notepad (such as Google Doc or something similar), over the Internet, as we draft. Everyone online can see the process of changing >>> >> the words or sentences, they can keep track of all the changes. >>> >> >>> >> It will be useful for all the remote participants, or those in different rooms of the same >>> >> venue while small number of drafting committee people do the work, that make it transparent. >>> >> >>> >> Just a suggestion. >>> >> >>> >> izumi >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> 2014-04-26 2:30 GMT+09:00 Ian Peter : >>> >> and I should have added – thanks too to the BestBits people for a really constructive pre conference get together. Without that we could not have worked together so well at the main event. >>> >> >>> >> From: Ian Peter >>> >> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 11:17 PM >>> >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> >> Subject: [governance] netmundial 0.1 >>> >> >>> >> The conference is now over, and many of us now go into travel and long flights. But before I do, I want to say that during this conference, and the meeting beforehand, civil society people really worked incredibly well together – far more so than other constituencies. It was great to work with a group of such talented and knowledgeable people. There was a high volume of exchange and consultation between people and speakers on our behalf, with a willingness to take on other perspectives from the group, to stand down to allow a more relevant speaker to address a subject etc. great team work. >>> >> >>> >> As regards the results – this was version 0.1 of this very interesting – and i think promising – version of multistakeholder consultation. So like all versions 0.1, it was full of bugs and there are a few changes that should be made and improvements. I might say a thing or two about that after I have cleared my head. So I think the process has some lessons for us, and is worth repeating. >>> >> >>> >> As regards the outputs – as the civil society statement said, there were areas of disappointment. I would say personally that I was very angry at last minute changes made to some sections after the formal processes of drafting and consolidating text had ended and passed through those committees to the final approval stage. This was an example of some governmental players being more equal than others. As one colleague said, more like imperialism than multistakeholderism, from a party who preaches the religion. Oh well. In time I might say more about the detail of that. >>> >> >>> >> But for now – there was much good as well, and it was fantastic to be involved in this with such a great group of people. All our Brazilian reps, and also our selected reps on various committees, did a fantastic job – ad it was privilege to see how well they did. They worked long and hard on our behalf and deserve a lot of praise. If I start names I will miss someone, but to everyone who represented us, I must say job extremely well done. >>> >> >>> >> Now to wind down after three days of intense activities. Great work everyone, really worthwhile event. >>> >> >>> >> 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 >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >>> >> 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 >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> >> Izumi Aizu << >>> >> >>> >> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >>> >> >>> >> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >>> >> Japan >>> >> * * * * * >>> >> << Writing the Future of the History >> >>> >> www.anr.org >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >>> >> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >> Izumi Aizu << >>> >>> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >>> >>> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >>> Japan >>> * * * * * >>> << Writing the Future of the History >> >>> www.anr.org >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From iza at anr.org Sun Apr 27 13:35:55 2014 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 02:35:55 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you Giacomo for your endorsement and also mention of Anriette, of course. There are many others equally worth to mention, but forgive me if I forget - it is not my intention to list all the names, but thank them all together. There are people in the remote hubs, globally, many more who could have played great roles had they been Brazil, but due to various reasons, work, money, health, family... they quietly stayed at home and watched or remotely participated. As someone proposed, we better use "online" participation which is not "remote" in substantive sense. Anyway, I also agree with Giacomo that we should thank and recognize all these outside of the Civil Society but equally important partners of the work of NET mundial. Civil society is not a solo actor in our own silo, but we are part of the larger team. izumi 2014-04-28 2:20 GMT+09:00 Mazzone, Giacomo : > Dear Izumi, > > having being there since Geneva 2003, I could only that confirm as witness > what you say. So I want to associate myself to this big thank to all > friends that have done their best to bring us where we are today. You > forgot to mention the work done by Anriette in the drafting group and by > all the Brazilian friends… But what it is more important is that these > years have forged relationships and trust, so that the border is not > anymore between civil society and the other stakeholders, but between those > that are ready to change and support the change and those that don’t want. > Chengetai, Janis, Markus, Hartmut, Raul, Lee, Thomas, Andrea and many > others …. > > This is the biggest achievement of these 10 years… > > I wish all of you a nice end of week end. > > Giacomo > > > > *From:* izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Izumi > AIZU > *Sent:* dimanche 27 avril 2014 13:44 > > *To:* governance; > *Subject:* [governance] > > > > A little reflection > > > > Like some of you, I was thinking how far we came from > INET/IFWP/ICANN/WSIS/WGIG/IGF days to NETMundial when Adam and Jeanette > were reading the final outcome statement and receiving strong standing > ovations. > > > > Adam and Jeanette were the 2nd or 3rd generation of the Co-coordinators of > the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus, at the days of WSIS Tunis > phase if I am not mistaken. YJ Park and Wolfgang Kleinwacther were the > first ones at the first WSIS process. > > > At the initial WSIS process. not only them, but most Civil Society members > were not given much role other than making statements within limited and > controlled frameworks. Yes we had the bureau, made negotiations with > government reps, but not in the MSH modality of say "working together". By > and large, we were the "outsiders" trying to lobby "them". > > > > Compared with that, civil society members in the EMC and HLMC were > "insiders" and often "lobbied" by not only other CS members but also by > other stakeholders. > > They were taking the lead in the drafting sessions. IF they, or all of us, > CS members were not there, there would be no NETMundial and its outcome. > > It is not their (CS members at EMC and HLMC) efforts per se, but, but our > collective energy, blood sweat and tears, tough and sharp arguments among > CS circle, engagement, passion, patience, all of these that resulted in > building-up of the credibility we today got at NETMundial. > > In that regard, I would say, congratulations to Adam and Jeanette, but > also to Nnenna, Marilia, Carlos, Stephanie, Luis, Subi and all others who > worked hard in NETMundial process including those who did not get the > explicit role, but nevertheless played important roles here and there. > > > > I felt we are maturing and making good progress. Of course, we still have > a lot to achieve. > > > > Now, going forward! > > > > izumi > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > * ************************************************** This email and any > files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use > of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have > received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This > footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the > mailgateway ************************************************** * > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From becky.lentz at mcgill.ca Sun Apr 27 10:15:13 2014 From: becky.lentz at mcgill.ca (Becky Lentz, Dr.) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 14:15:13 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] RE: [governance] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4562DF2F52066C4F8B1EE3A35B808D6536EC12DD@EXMBX2010-7.campus.MCGILL.CA> Dear colleagues, As a scholar/educator researching and teaching about civil society capacity building on internet freedom issues, it's been incredibly inspiring to observe how your work has taken shape and the amount of careful collaboration that has evolved from that work. This particular episode--NetMundial--of that story has many lessons to offer. Izumi's post (below) helps place this in important historical context, and to add to that, I would also direct you to a new book (as an addition to those already published, such as Marianne Franklin's recent book) that offers some useful historical insights into some of the issues Izumi raises related to NGO relations, which relate to the capacity to influence policy: Global Governance and NGO Participation: Shaping the Information Society in the United Nations, by Charlotte Dany (http://books.google.com/books/about/Global_Governance_and_NGO_Participation.html?id=jgr5tOQNhYYC). I've written a book review if anyone is interested in a quick overview (please email me offlist). Congratulations to everyone involved! Becky Lentz, McGill University ________________________________ From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [izumiaizu at gmail.com] on behalf of Izumi AIZU [iza at anr.org] Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2014 7:44 AM To: governance; Subject: [governance] A little reflection Like some of you, I was thinking how far we came from INET/IFWP/ICANN/WSIS/WGIG/IGF days to NETMundial when Adam and Jeanette were reading the final outcome statement and receiving strong standing ovations. Adam and Jeanette were the 2nd or 3rd generation of the Co-coordinators of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus, at the days of WSIS Tunis phase if I am not mistaken. YJ Park and Wolfgang Kleinwacther were the first ones at the first WSIS process. At the initial WSIS process. not only them, but most Civil Society members were not given much role other than making statements within limited and controlled frameworks. Yes we had the bureau, made negotiations with government reps, but not in the MSH modality of say "working together". By and large, we were the "outsiders" trying to lobby "them". Compared with that, civil society members in the EMC and HLMC were "insiders" and often "lobbied" by not only other CS members but also by other stakeholders. They were taking the lead in the drafting sessions. IF they, or all of us, CS members were not there, there would be no NETMundial and its outcome. It is not their (CS members at EMC and HLMC) efforts per se, but, but our collective energy, blood sweat and tears, tough and sharp arguments among CS circle, engagement, passion, patience, all of these that resulted in building-up of the credibility we today got at NETMundial. In that regard, I would say, congratulations to Adam and Jeanette, but also to Nnenna, Marilia, Carlos, Stephanie, Luis, Subi and all others who worked hard in NETMundial process including those who did not get the explicit role, but nevertheless played important roles here and there. I felt we are maturing and making good progress. Of course, we still have a lot to achieve. Now, going forward! izumi [X] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From iza at anr.org Sun Apr 27 11:40:22 2014 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 00:40:22 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] 2 Video Clips of the Concultion of NETmundial on YouTube Message-ID: Hi, I have just shared the 2 video clips on the conclusion of NET mundial meeting: 1) Adam and Jeanette reading the final statement at http://youtu.be/LkRtgJjtOQQ 2) Chair, Stephanie and Fadi making final remarks at http://youtu.be/Y4TD1_3UUx4 Please enjoy! izumi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From genekimmelman at gmail.com Sun Apr 27 08:08:05 2014 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 08:08:05 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] netmundial 0.1 Message-ID: Robin, thanks so much for doing this.  I'd like to add a few additional observations: 1. Good thing CS met the day before to discuss perspectives and strategy.  It seemed to build increased trust and respect,  focus attention for presentation on key issues,  and begin to get us organized. 2. We probably needed an additional day of meeetings to further refine strategy and how to maximize our influence .   3. Given the totally fluid nature and opaqueness of how a final document would come together, all stakeholder groups were nervous but we were most disadvantaged by not having a last minute "power push" to match government and corporate efforts.  4. We might have been able to do slightly better on wording but in the end, the leverage of key governments and corporate interests was always going to win the battle IF consensus was the goal. That's just a reminder of the ongoing political power deficit we always face and must continue the fight to overcome.  -------- Original message -------- From: Robin Gross Date: 04/27/2014 12:13 AM (GMT-05:00) To: Stephanie Perrin Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Izumi AIZU ,Adam Peake ," <" ,NCSG List Subject: Re: [governance] netmundial 0.1 Thanks!  I just posted a cleaned-up version of this earlier big-picture analysis to the web: http://tinyurl.com/ll9wnuq A Civil Society Perspective on NETmundial 2014 Final Outcome Document: A Remarkable Achievement, Despite Losses to Hollywood & Govts Over Specific Language on Most Controversial Issues A few high-level thoughts on the Netmundial meeting in Brazil this week and its final outcome document, adopted by its high level committee.  Overall, there are some truly amazing and forward-looking principles supported in the "Netmundial Multi-Stakeholder Statement" that we as civil society should proud of, and especially our civil society representatives who worked tirelessly for this achievement.    Specifically, the Internet governance principles of human rights, democracy, equality, openness, transparency, accountability, decentralization, and the Internet as a global resource to be managed in the public interest are all supported in the final outcome document.  These principles are all wonderful achievements for social justice and an important pivot point in the evolution of global governance principles and mechanisms.     Civil society lost ground on the specific wording over the most contentious issues, such as surveillance, copyright, permissionless innovation, intermediary protections, net neutrality, and separation of policy & operations in IANA, but the fact that these controversial issues were mentioned at all in the statement, is a significant advancement (except for the ode to copyright).  So on some key substantive policy issues, the statement reflects a remarkable positive achievement, despite a few critical losses on the specific wording where civil society got out-lobbied, out-muscled, & out-manuevered in the last minute, in less transparent and less organized processes.  Civil society gained great experience from engaging in the process and learned a number of places were improvements can be made in future discussions and processes.  Perhaps the losses on specific wording on the most contentious issues was the price to pay to obtain the larger and more numerous high-level principles supporting social justice goals and the positive development of the Internet.   The simple fact the govts and business had to negotiate with civil society over final text language (and govts wait in line at the mic to speak) is another step-forward in Internet governance.  Even with short comings, there was more transparency over the drafting and final high level committee’s weakening and adoption of the document than there is in other global governance regimes, where we can’t see the drafting at all, since a few of us could watch (those who could walk into the room) in NETmundial final high level committee and drafting sessions.  There is demonstrated need for improved transparency in these critical decision-making moments in the process going forward.  And the inability to anticipate the process also impeded civil society, who tends to be significantly under-represented in decision-making positions and among the insiders.   I don’t want us to lose sight of the big picture, and fail to see the really encouraging parts of this document, and that in many ways, this was a positive advancement in the evolution of Internet governance and Internet freedom.    Without question, civil society was under-represented on panels, in committees, and key decision-making positions - everyone knows that - and we need to keep pushing on that critical point; this statement supports "equality", so we’ve got our hook for that key civil society goal in here too.  The last minute (significantly weakening or) insertion of new language, for which there was no consensus or previous discussion, by powerful interests (generally Hollywood, Govt, ICANN) on the document’s most controversial issues was one of the process’ biggest break down points.   Even with the process issues and painful losses on specific language on the most controversial issues, on balance, this document is a pretty good starting point for further discussions on Internet governance and its positive evolution.   "Netmundial Multistakeholder Statement" On Apr 26, 2014, at 8:53 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: +1! Stephanie P On Apr 26, 2014, at 9:44 PM, Robin Gross wrote: A few thoughts on the outcome doc and Netmundial generally, after the benefit of a plane ride to process the experience.  Overall, there are some truly amazing principles supported in the Netmundial Multi-Stakeholder Statement that we as civil society should proud of and especially our representatives who got this achievement.   The Internet governance principles of human rights, democracy, equality, openness, transparency, accountability, decentralized, Internet as global resource to be managed in the public interest are all supported in the final outcome document.  These are all truly amazing achievements and an important pivot point in the evolution of the global governance ecosystem.   Civil society lost ground on the specific wording over the most contentious issues, such as surveillance, copyright, permissionless innovation, intermediary liability, net neutrality, and separation of policy & operations in IANA, but the fact that these issues were mentioned in the governance document itself, is a significant advancement (except for the ode to copyright).  So on some key substantive policy issues, the document reflects a remarkable achievement, despite a few critical losses where civil society got out-lobbied, out-muscled, & out-manuevered in the last minute behind less transparent and less organized processes on the specific wording.   But the simple fact the govts and biz had to negotiate with civil society over key language (and wait in line to speak) is another rather remarkable step-forward.  There was more transparency over the drafting and adoption of the document than there is in other global governance regimes where we can't see the drafting at all, since a few of us could watch.  We now see the need for improved transparency in these key critical decision-making moments in this going forward.  And the process frustrated and impeded civil society, who tends not be in current decision-making positions on these important process decisions. I don't want us to lose sight of the big picture, and fail to see the really great parts of this document, and that in many ways, this was a very positive step forward in the evolution of the Internet governance and Internet freedom.   Yes, civil society was under-represented on panels, in committees, and key decision-making positions - everyone knows that - and we need to keep pushing on that point too; this doc supports "equality", so we've got our hook for that goal here too. On balance, this document is a pretty good starting point for further discussions on Internet governance and its positive evolution. My 2 cents, Robin On Apr 26, 2014, at 3:28 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: Thank you Stephanie and Adam for your clarifications. I still have the "impression" that the last session was not quite as open as it could be. Firstly, there was not announcement, or explanation, as to how the final document would be dealt by HLMC in advance, or even on the fly, for those who were in the Main Room. Yes, it would be much better to have live streaming and scribed texts online for those who were not in the small drafting room. I would say even in the small room, it was VERY difficult to figure out what exactly they are discussing unless you have good hearing ability and understanding of the English since they were not using the microphone and sometimes audiences making some noise. It was semi transparent in my view. I do not mean for criticism, but for lessons going forward. More than 10 years ago, we had WSIS prep meeting in Tokyo and we insisted that Drafting session by governments plus civil society and private sector be open to all who want to participate. It worked well. We had big screen in front of all, and everyone could speak up once chair allow, there were some distinction between the official member of the drafting committee and others, but not much, In the end the result of this informal drafting committee was sent to the government only negotiation, which was open and transparent, but no-government stakeholders including IGOs could have no say. We asked government people to "honor" the works of this multistakeholder draft document and in my view we got 85%, if not 90%. (could not get good language for Human rights and Freedom of Expression). Now, after more than 10 years, we have, as I wrote, better online tool, much better working experience among CS members with other stakeholders, better recognition on CS and MSH to advance our work. As Jeanette and Ian point out, we could have done better if we had better prepared and also better prepared on the fly. But overall, I think civil society did a very good job, together with Brazilian host, but also I like to mention the other stakeholders, governments, business, tech and academic community also deserve the recognition together, As we were discussing during the dinner right after the closure, we could and should understand some government folks who really had constraints under their mandate, therefore had to put their reservations on the record. And even so, I think their behaviors were not that disruptive, at the last stage, to honor Brazilian host and also all of us engaged there. izumi 2014-04-27 2:30 GMT+09:00 Adam Peake : The last meeting of the HLMC was open to observers. But it was a shame we didn't think to put cameras and mics in the room for the drafting sessions so they could have been webcast. Just that it wasn't thought of at the time. Adam On Apr 27, 2014, at 12:33 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > Unfortunately that process was not open, and perhaps for good reason. They also realize they made an error in the last minute rush, and put the wrong older text in for one clause. Business is actually arguing to put a better one for us back in. Will let the list know if it happens. > Despite the hairiness of this process, I think folks should remember that there was a remarkable production of good will achieved by all the open drafting sessions….this is really an unusual way to do business. Rome wasn’t built in a day… > Stephanie Perrin > Cheers stephanie > On Apr 25, 2014, at 2:38 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> First, Thanks to ALL who made this impossible possible. >> >> I was wondering during the last hours of confusion about the last-minute change, as well as sort of HLMC overriding the preceding process. >> >> My question 1 was, was this finalizing the Outcome document open to observers? >> (I still don't know and appreciate if someone teach me). >> >> I was wondering, and also now like to propose in the future similar event, to use the >> online tool, I mean online Notepad. >> >> In addition to the real-time scribes, and using projectors to put the text on the screen, >> it will be very effective to use the online notepad (such as Google Doc or something similar), over the Internet, as we draft. Everyone online can see the process of changing >> the words or sentences, they can keep track of all the changes. >> >> It will be useful for all the remote participants, or those in different rooms of the same >> venue while small number of drafting committee people do the work, that make it transparent. >> >> Just a suggestion. >> >> izumi >> >> >> >> >> >> 2014-04-26 2:30 GMT+09:00 Ian Peter : >> and I should have added – thanks too to the BestBits people for a really constructive pre conference get together. Without that we could not have worked together so well at the main event. >> >> From: Ian Peter >> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 11:17 PM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> Subject: [governance] netmundial 0.1 >> >> The conference is now over, and many of us now go into travel and long flights. But before I do, I want to say that during this conference, and the meeting beforehand, civil society people really worked incredibly well together – far more so than other constituencies. It was great to work with a group of such talented and knowledgeable people. There was a high volume of exchange and consultation between people and speakers on our behalf, with a willingness to take on other perspectives from the group, to stand down to allow a more relevant speaker to address a subject etc. great team work. >> >> As regards the results – this was version 0.1 of this very interesting – and i think promising – version of multistakeholder consultation. So like all versions 0.1, it was full of bugs and there are a few changes that should be made and improvements. I might say a thing or two about that after I have cleared my head. So I think the process has some lessons for us, and is worth repeating. >> >> As regards the outputs – as the civil society statement said, there were areas of disappointment. I would say personally that I was very angry at last minute changes made to some sections after the formal processes of drafting and consolidating text had ended and passed through those committees to the final approval stage. This was an example of some governmental players being more equal than others. As one colleague said, more like imperialism than multistakeholderism, from a party who preaches the religion. Oh well. In time I might say more about the detail of that. >> >> But for now – there was much good as well, and it was fantastic to be involved in this with such a great group of people. All our Brazilian reps, and also our selected reps on various committees, did a fantastic job – ad it was privilege to see how well they did. They worked long and hard on our behalf and deserve a lot of praise. If I start names I will miss someone, but to everyone who represented us, I must say job extremely well done. >> >> Now to wind down after three days of intense activities. Great work everyone, really worthwhile event. >> >> 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 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Izumi Aizu << >> >> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >> >> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >> Japan >> * * * * * >> << Writing the Future of the History >> >> www.anr.org >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 --   >> Izumi Aizu <<   Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo   Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,   Japan   * * * * *   << Writing the Future of the History >>   www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ 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: From erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu Mon Apr 28 01:06:48 2014 From: erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu (JOSEFSSON Erik) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 05:06:48 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Post-processing of Multistakeholder Statement Message-ID: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A069B3D84@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> First I want to say thanks for sharing so much information and energy on this list. I feel lucky to have subscribed in time to get some of the action! :-) I just thought I should ask, as there was a preparatory text with lots of stuff that was lost in the final stages, maybe the same team could make a posteriori text where some of those things could be made visible? For example, this 'information paragraph' could maybe have been more balanced if another reference than "the rights of authors and creators" had been used, maybe like this*: Freedom of information and access to information: Everyone should have the right to access, share, create and distribute information on the internet, consistent with the UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Then you could make a diff and visualise it like this: http://euwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Sandbox%2FNETmundial-post-processing&diff=16663&oldid=16662 I ask because would the Multistakeholder Statement have been a proposal from the Commission, the Parliament would have made amendments to it in exactly that fashion. Best regards. //Erik *) I boldly copy from Ante Wessel's work on the ICESCR: http://people.ffii.org/~ante/copyright/Wessels-copyright-ICESCR-2014.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu Mon Apr 28 02:43:32 2014 From: ebertoni at alumni.gwu.edu (Eduardo Bertoni) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 08:43:32 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 outcome text open for endorsement In-Reply-To: <72FFE465-05FF-43A3-8737-B98FED084065@Malcolm.id.au> References: <72FFE465-05FF-43A3-8737-B98FED084065@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: Dear Jeremy and colleagues from bestbits, Since most of the documents when we discuss these issues are only English, we at CELE decided to translate this statement into Spanish -thanks to Natalie Schachar, an intern at CELE who helped in doing so!-. I will put the English and Spanish version in my blog, but I think that it might be a good idea to put it in the bestbits website as well. Please find the translation below. Best, Eduardo Bertoni *Declaración final de la Sociedad Civil en NETmundial 2014* *Nos gustaría dar las gracias al Gobierno de Brasil por la organización de la Reunión Global de Múltiples Partes Interesadas sobre el Futuro de la Gobernanza de Internet .* *Nosotros, como grupo diverso de organizaciones de la sociedad civil de todo el mundo, apreciamos haber sido parte del proceso.* *Sin embargo, nos sentimos decepcionados porque el documento final no refleja adecuadamente nuestras principales preocupaciones.* *La falta de reconocimiento de la neutralidad de la red en NETmundial es profundamente decepcionante.* *La vigilancia masiva no ha sido suficientemente denunciada por ser incompatible con los derechos humanos y el principio de proporcionalidad.* *Y a pesar de que el texto sobre la responsabilidad de los intermediarios de Internet es importante, la falta de garantías del debido proceso podría afectar los derechos de libertad de expresión y de privacidad.* *Creemos que este documento no ha ido más allá del status quo en cuanto a la protección de los derechos fundamentales y del balance del poder e influencia de diferentes grupos de interés.* On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 2:44 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > The following initial response to the NETmundial 2014 outcome text was > agreed in the room at NETmundial by about 25 civil society representatives > and was read out in the session by Niels ten Oever from Article 19. If you > are in agreement, please endorse and share: > > http://bestbits.net/netmundial-response > > This need not prevent the development of a more substantive civil society > response later. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see > http://jere.my/l/pgp. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Mon Apr 28 04:03:09 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 09:03:09 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 outcome text open for endorsement In-Reply-To: References: <72FFE465-05FF-43A3-8737-B98FED084065@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: Hello all, Well while its okay to appreciate the effort and perhaps other things that were achieved, it does not remove the fact that the content of that statement is valid and indeed the current status-quo. So i still maintain my signature on that statement +any edits that reflects recognition of progress made through the NetMundial Cheers! On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > I think this is much too negative and fails to reflect the amount of > positive agenda and genuinely good things that came out of the whole > process. I can’t support this statement > > Andrew Puddephatt > Global Partners Digital > Andrew at gp-digital.org > Tel mobile +44 (0)771 339 9597 > Tel office +44 (0)207 549 0350 > > > From: Jeremy Malcolm > Reply-To: Jeremy Malcolm > Date: Friday, 25 April 2014 01:44 > To: "" > Subject: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 outcome > text open for endorsement > > The following initial response to the NETmundial 2014 outcome text was > agreed in the room at NETmundial by about 25 civil society representatives > and was read out in the session by Niels ten Oever from Article 19. If you > are in agreement, please endorse and share: > > http://bestbits.net/netmundial-response > > This need not prevent the development of a more substantive civil society > response later. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see > http://jere.my/l/pgp. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nb at bollow.ch Mon Apr 28 05:59:49 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 11:59:49 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [Members] [www-advisory] Fwd: Netmundial address In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20140428115949.11f7a7fa@quill> Tim Karr wrote: > It was exciting to watch via the live stream. Is there any plan to > clip the speech as a stand alone video? It would be fun to share. http://youtu.be/qJebTNivCJo > >From Nnenna. Noting that it was also a collaborative effort of up to > >100 members from Civil Society sending input snd delivered > >impecably. Lets do this more often. Greetings, Norbert From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Mon Apr 28 09:39:41 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 09:39:41 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Brazil's Marco Civil LAW in ENGLISH Message-ID: Dear all, Please, attached you can find the translation of Marco Civil that has passed into Law on April 23rd 2014 to English, which I did over the weekend. It will be distributed to all NetMundial participants in the next few hours. Feel free to share and let me know if you have any questions. Best, C -- *Carolina Rossini* 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: APPROVED-MARCO-CIVIL.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 87126 bytes Desc: not available URL: From becky.lentz at mcgill.ca Mon Apr 28 10:39:08 2014 From: becky.lentz at mcgill.ca (Becky Lentz, Dr.) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 14:39:08 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] What about promoting media and information literacy? Message-ID: <4562DF2F52066C4F8B1EE3A35B808D6536EC1A02@EXMBX2010-7.campus.MCGILL.CA> Dear Colleagues, There is an emerging international group of scholars working explicitly on this issue, some in partnership with members of this community. If you're interested in sharing your own needs, stories, work, and even interest in collaboration related to media/info/tech policy literacy, please email me off-list so as not to clutter this forum with details about this and also forthcoming publications/articles/workshops. In the meantime, here's a related blogpost featuring an extract of some of this research on US policy advcoacy capacity building: http://oti.newamerica.net/blogposts/2013/beneath_the_glitz_of_digital_activism-93204 best, Becky Lentz, McGill University From aprabhala at gmail.com Tue Apr 29 01:41:21 2014 From: aprabhala at gmail.com (Achal Prabhala) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 11:11:21 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] What is civil society's position on copyright in Internet governance? Message-ID: I have been trying to understand what civil society's position on copyright in Internet governance is, esp. in the aftermath of NETmundial. On April 22, I took part in a civil society meeting along with many of you, when the following language was suggested to be included in civil society feedback to the draft outcome document: "resisting the expansion of a sovereign application of copyright on to the global online landscape." The language came from the recent, vivid and very real threats posed by the almost-legislated SOPA/PIPA in the US. Then it seems civil society changed it's mind: this is the language used in the final feedback document: (http://bestbits.net/netmundial-proposals/) "Right to participate in cultural life: everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits, and this right extends to the Internet. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author. This protection must be balanced with the larger public interest and human rights, including the rights to education, freedom of expression and information and the right to privacy." This is the language from the final NETmundial outcome document: ( http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf ) "Everyone should havethe right to access, share, create and distribute information on the Internet, consistent with the rights of authors and creators as established in law." Inexplicably, the language on "protection" of intellectual property is stronger in the civil society statement than in the NETmundial document. Following from this, naturally, weak or nonexistent language *against* a restrictive, censorious and unilaterally decided global intellectual property regime did not figure anywhere in the list of official civil society complaints against the final NETmundial outcome document. ( http://bestbits.net/netmundial-response/) I'd like to understand from someone who led this civil society document as to: a) Whether you considered the copyright threat sufficiently addresses in the language around freedom of expression and access to information, as well as ISP liability (even though the legal scope in these three ideas, as expressed in the statement from you, is fuzzy and does not use the word 'copyright') and therefore chose to explicitly leave it out of consideration? b) Or whether you deem the unjustified unilateral enforcement of copyright protection an insufficient threat to global online freedom and access to knowledge, despite the almost-legislated SOPA/PIPA from not that long ago. c) And lastly, whether (and how), despite the copyright issue having been raised - and seemingly accepted - in the meetings running up to the document, "civil society" believed there was "consensus" around leaving the copyright issue out of its demands. Thank you, Achal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steve at openmedia.ca Tue Apr 29 04:36:33 2014 From: steve at openmedia.ca (Steve Anderson) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 01:36:33 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] 48hrs to stand against Internet Censorship in the Trade agreements Message-ID: Millions have added their names to this collective campaign and in just 48 hrs the petition number will be projected onto key buildings in Washington DC. Join and share here: https://stopthesecrecy.net Facebook share link here . Outreach resources here . ~ thanks and apologies for cross posting -- *Steve Anderson* Executive Director, OpenMedia.org 604-837-5730 http://openmedia.org steve at openmedia.ca Follow me on Twitter Friend me on Facebook **Do you think we deserve a fair deal in our digital future? -->> OurFairDeal.org * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anriette at apc.org Tue Apr 29 05:35:35 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 11:35:35 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] What is civil society's position on copyright in Internet governance? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <535F7267.70207@apc.org> Dear Achal I was not involved in preparing the civil society inputs. I was co-chair of the drafting group for the 'principles' section of the document, and I actually with great frustration tried to find the text you had proposed during our pre-meeting. It was not on the Best Bits pad. When the 'Article 27' text was proposed during the drafting I did vigorously oppose it. I did not actually realise it was proposed by civil society as on the second day of the drafting my laptop had died, and I had no access to the online document. My personal concerns with the text in Article 27 was shared by some of the CS people who were observing. Business was strongly in favour of us inserting that text and we almost had deadlock on it. It is always easy to use existing language, and in most of the other rights, we did resort to UDHR language. On that one I held out. The deadlock was broken by us using text that was suggested, or proposed by Jeremy Malcolm on the second day. I can't remember exactly what Jeremy had said, but is input implied that some protection for authors would be acceptable. Therefore "consistent with the rights of authors and creators" was added to the original text (which was actually proposed by civil society very early on: " Everyone should have the right to access, share, create and distribute information on the Internet". The final phrase "as established in law" was demanded by business, if I remember correctly. So, in the end, this text was not too bad. And we managed to keep 'permissionless innovation' in another part of the document. The BAD news is that the text on internet intermediary liability which was only finalised after the high level committee meeting is the same OECD text which civil society opposed in 2011. France and the US were insisted it be included. It is text that links intermediary liability to economic growth and that opens the doors to intermediaries being made responsible for enforcing copyright. For me that was a huge, huge blow. I am not in a position to respond to your other questions as I was not involved in finalising the civil society inputs. My personal view however is that disproportionate enforcement of intellectual property rights is one of the greatest threats to 'internet freedom' we are facing, if not the greatest. Unlike limitations on free expression which is broadly considered to be inappropriate, there is widespread support by powerful governments and by a large part of internet industry (not all) for stronger enforcement of these rights, and for making intermediaries responsible doing so. Anriette On 29/04/2014 07:41, Achal Prabhala wrote: > > I have been trying to understand what civil society's position on > copyright in Internet governance is, esp. in the aftermath of NETmundial. > > On April 22, I took part in a civil society meeting along with many of > you, when the following language was suggested to be included in civil > society feedback to the draft outcome document: "resisting the > expansion of a sovereign application of copyright on to the global > online landscape." > > The language came from the recent, vivid and very real threats posed > by the almost-legislated SOPA/PIPA in the US. > > Then it seems civil society changed it's mind: this is the language > used in the final feedback document: > (http://bestbits.net/netmundial-proposals/) > > "Right to participate in cultural life: everyone has the right freely > to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the > arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits, and this > right extends to the Internet. Everyone has the right to the > protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any > scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author. > This protection must be balanced with the larger public interest and > human rights, including the rights to education, freedom of expression > and information and the right to privacy." > > This is the language from the final NETmundial outcome document: > (http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf) > > "Everyone should havethe right to access, share, create and distribute > information on the Internet, consistent with the rights of authors and > creators as established in law." > > Inexplicably, the language on "protection" of intellectual property is > stronger in the civil society statement than in the NETmundial document. > > Following from this, naturally, weak or nonexistent language *against* > a restrictive, censorious and unilaterally decided global intellectual > property regime did not figure anywhere in the list of official civil > society complaints against the final NETmundial outcome document. > (http://bestbits.net/netmundial-response/) > > I'd like to understand from someone who led this civil society > document as to: > > a) Whether you considered the copyright threat sufficiently addresses > in the language around freedom of expression and access to > information, as well as ISP liability (even though the legal scope in > these three ideas, as expressed in the statement from you, is fuzzy > and does not use the word 'copyright') and therefore chose to > explicitly leave it out of consideration? > > b) Or whether you deem the unjustified unilateral enforcement of > copyright protection an insufficient threat to global online freedom > and access to knowledge, despite the almost-legislated SOPA/PIPA from > not that long ago. > > c) And lastly, whether (and how), despite the copyright issue having > been raised - and seemingly accepted - in the meetings running up to > the document, "civil society" believed there was "consensus" around > leaving the copyright issue out of its demands. > > Thank you, > Achal > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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: From aprabhala at gmail.com Tue Apr 29 06:14:11 2014 From: aprabhala at gmail.com (Achal Prabhala) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 15:44:11 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: What is civil society's position on copyright in Internet governance? In-Reply-To: <535F7267.70207@apc.org> References: <535F7267.70207@apc.org> Message-ID: Many thanks for replying Anriette. There was a man in a suit - I think from Art 19 - who recorded what I had to say about IP and copyright. Perhaps he can explain why the text was discarded and why he on behalf of civil society - which I absolutely stand in opposition to and outside of in this instance - chose to strongly endorse (indeed adopt) the industry perspective on copyright. I cant imagine what the thinking here was. Were the drafters worried that the numerous multi billion dollar content industries furiously lobbying the meeting could not be trusted with protecting their own interests? Achal. On Tuesday, 29 April 2014, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear Achal > > I was not involved in preparing the civil society inputs. > > I was co-chair of the drafting group for the 'principles' section of the document, and I actually with great frustration tried to find the text you had proposed during our pre-meeting. It was not on the Best Bits pad. > > When the 'Article 27' text was proposed during the drafting I did vigorously oppose it. I did not actually realise it was proposed by civil society as on the second day of the drafting my laptop had died, and I had no access to the online document. > > My personal concerns with the text in Article 27 was shared by some of the CS people who were observing. Business was strongly in favour of us inserting that text and we almost had deadlock on it. It is always easy to use existing language, and in most of the other rights, we did resort to UDHR language. On that one I held out. > > The deadlock was broken by us using text that was suggested, or proposed by Jeremy Malcolm on the second day. I can't remember exactly what Jeremy had said, but is input implied that some protection for authors would be acceptable. > > Therefore "consistent with the rights of authors and creators" was added to the original text (which was actually proposed by civil society very early on: " > Everyone should have the right to access, share, create and distribute information on the Internet". The final phrase "as established in law" was demanded by business, if I remember correctly. > > So, in the end, this text was not too bad. And we managed to keep 'permissionless innovation' in another part of the document. The BAD news is that the text on internet intermediary liability which was only finalised after the high level committee meeting is the same OECD text which civil society opposed in 2011. France and the US were insisted it be included. It is text that links intermediary liability to economic growth and that opens the doors to intermediaries being made responsible for enforcing copyright. For me that was a huge, huge blow. > > I am not in a position to respond to your other questions as I was not involved in finalising the civil society inputs. > > My personal view however is that disproportionate enforcement of intellectual property rights is one of the greatest threats to 'internet freedom' we are facing, if not the greatest. Unlike limitations on free expression which is broadly considered to be inappropriate, there is widespread support by powerful governments and by a large part of internet industry (not all) for stronger enforcement of these rights, and for making intermediaries responsible doing so. > > Anriette > > > On 29/04/2014 07:41, Achal Prabhala wrote: > > I have been trying to understand what civil society's position on copyright in Internet governance is, esp. in the aftermath of NETmundial. > > On April 22, I took part in a civil society meeting along with many of you, when the following language was suggested to be included in civil society feedback to the draft outcome document: "resisting the expansion of a sovereign application of copyright on to the global online landscape." > > The language came from the recent, vivid and very real threats posed by the almost-legislated SOPA/PIPA in the US. > > Then it seems civil society changed it's mind: this is the language used in the final feedback document: (http://bestbits.net/netmundial-proposals/) > > "Right to participate in cultural life: everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits, and this right extends to the Internet. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author. This protection must be balanced with the larger public interest and human rights, including the rights to education, freedom of expression and information and the right to privacy." > > This is the language from the final NETmundial outcome document: ( http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf ) > > "Everyone should havethe right to access, share, create and distribute information on the Internet, consistent with the rights of authors and creators as established in law." > Inexplicably, the language on "protection" of intellectual property is stronger in the civil society statement than in the NETmundial document. > > Following from this, naturally, weak or nonexistent language *against* a restrictive, censorious and unilaterally decided global intellectual property regime did not figure anywhere in the list of official civil society complaints against the final NETmundial outcome document. ( http://bestbits.net/netmundial-response/) > > I'd like to understand from someone who led this civil society document as to: > > a) Whether you considered the copyright threat sufficiently addresses in the language around freedom of expression and access to information, as well as ISP liability (even though the legal scope in these three ideas, as expressed in the statement from you, is fuzzy and does not use the word 'copyright') and therefore chose to explicitly leave it out of consideration? > > b) Or whether you deem the unjustified unilateral enforcement of copyright prote > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > 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: From nashton at consensus.pro Tue Apr 29 06:54:20 2014 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 12:54:20 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] What is civil society's position on copyright in Internet governance? In-Reply-To: <535F7267.70207@apc.org> References: <535F7267.70207@apc.org> Message-ID: <145ad1efb60.27c9.9387b8a9f30986f905fcc4cfa238b71f@consensus.pro> For what it is worth, on the industry side that was a compromise. Many of us argued that IP didn't belong in the document at all, but as usual the Hollywood interests insisted. That phrase was a considerable reduction from what was originally proposed. On 29 April 2014 11:36:05 Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear Achal > > I was not involved in preparing the civil society inputs. > > I was co-chair of the drafting group for the 'principles' section of the > document, and I actually with great frustration tried to find the text > you had proposed during our pre-meeting. It was not on the Best Bits pad. > > When the 'Article 27' text was proposed during the drafting I did > vigorously oppose it. I did not actually realise it was proposed by > civil society as on the second day of the drafting my laptop had died, > and I had no access to the online document. > > My personal concerns with the text in Article 27 was shared by some of > the CS people who were observing. Business was strongly in favour of us > inserting that text and we almost had deadlock on it. It is always easy > to use existing language, and in most of the other rights, we did resort > to UDHR language. On that one I held out. > > The deadlock was broken by us using text that was suggested, or proposed > by Jeremy Malcolm on the second day. I can't remember exactly what > Jeremy had said, but is input implied that some protection for authors > would be acceptable. > > Therefore "consistent with the rights of authors and creators" was added > to the original text (which was actually proposed by civil society very > early on: " > Everyone should have the right to access, share, create and distribute > information on the Internet". The final phrase "as established in law" > was demanded by business, if I remember correctly. > > So, in the end, this text was not too bad. And we managed to keep > 'permissionless innovation' in another part of the document. The BAD > news is that the text on internet intermediary liability which was only > finalised after the high level committee meeting is the same OECD text > which civil society opposed in 2011. France and the US were insisted it > be included. It is text that links intermediary liability to economic > growth and that opens the doors to intermediaries being made responsible > for enforcing copyright. For me that was a huge, huge blow. > > I am not in a position to respond to your other questions as I was not > involved in finalising the civil society inputs. > > My personal view however is that disproportionate enforcement of > intellectual property rights is one of the greatest threats to 'internet > freedom' we are facing, if not the greatest. Unlike limitations on free > expression which is broadly considered to be inappropriate, there is > widespread support by powerful governments and by a large part of > internet industry (not all) for stronger enforcement of these rights, > and for making intermediaries responsible doing so. > > Anriette > > > On 29/04/2014 07:41, Achal Prabhala wrote: > > > > I have been trying to understand what civil society's position on > > copyright in Internet governance is, esp. in the aftermath of NETmundial. > > > > On April 22, I took part in a civil society meeting along with many of > > you, when the following language was suggested to be included in civil > > society feedback to the draft outcome document: "resisting the > > expansion of a sovereign application of copyright on to the global > > online landscape." > > > > The language came from the recent, vivid and very real threats posed > > by the almost-legislated SOPA/PIPA in the US. > > > > Then it seems civil society changed it's mind: this is the language > > used in the final feedback document: > > (http://bestbits.net/netmundial-proposals/) > > > > "Right to participate in cultural life: everyone has the right freely > > to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the > > arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits, and this > > right extends to the Internet. Everyone has the right to the > > protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any > > scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author. > > This protection must be balanced with the larger public interest and > > human rights, including the rights to education, freedom of expression > > and information and the right to privacy." > > > > This is the language from the final NETmundial outcome document: > > > (http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf) > > > > "Everyone should havethe right to access, share, create and distribute > > information on the Internet, consistent with the rights of authors and > > creators as established in law." > > > > Inexplicably, the language on "protection" of intellectual property is > > stronger in the civil society statement than in the NETmundial document. > > > > Following from this, naturally, weak or nonexistent language *against* > > a restrictive, censorious and unilaterally decided global intellectual > > property regime did not figure anywhere in the list of official civil > > society complaints against the final NETmundial outcome document. > > (http://bestbits.net/netmundial-response/) > > > > I'd like to understand from someone who led this civil society > > document as to: > > > > a) Whether you considered the copyright threat sufficiently addresses > > in the language around freedom of expression and access to > > information, as well as ISP liability (even though the legal scope in > > these three ideas, as expressed in the statement from you, is fuzzy > > and does not use the word 'copyright') and therefore chose to > > explicitly leave it out of consideration? > > > > b) Or whether you deem the unjustified unilateral enforcement of > > copyright protection an insufficient threat to global online freedom > > and access to knowledge, despite the almost-legislated SOPA/PIPA from > > not that long ago. > > > > c) And lastly, whether (and how), despite the copyright issue having > > been raised - and seemingly accepted - in the meetings running up to > > the document, "civil society" believed there was "consensus" around > > leaving the copyright issue out of its demands. > > > > Thank you, > > Achal > > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > 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: From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Tue Apr 29 07:20:20 2014 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 19:20:20 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] What is civil society's position on copyright in Internet governance? In-Reply-To: <535F7267.70207@apc.org> References: <535F7267.70207@apc.org> Message-ID: On 29 Apr 2014, at 5:35 pm, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > The deadlock was broken by us using text that was suggested, or proposed by Jeremy Malcolm on the second day. I can't remember exactly what Jeremy had said, but is input implied that some protection for authors would be acceptable. I lost my verbatim note of what I said due to a crash, but from Pranesh's log of the transcript (at https://prakash.im/text-netmundial-day1.html) here it is as delivered: THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. MY NAME IS JEREMY---- ON AN ENABLING ENVIRONMENT FOR INNOVATION AND CREATIVITY, WHICH AS YOUR CO-CHAIR NOTED GENERATED THE MOST COMMENTS OF ANY PARAGRAPH. DUE TO THE MISCONCEPTION THAT REFERENCE TO PERMISSIONLESS INNOVATION WAS ABOUT THE USE OF CREATIVE CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION. NOW VORRING'S WHEN WE THINK OF INNOVATION, APART FROM SCIENTISTS, WE THINK OF ARTISTS AND PERMISSIONLESS INNOVATION IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE A FAMILIAR CONCEPT TO ARTISTS BECAUSE THERE IS NO PERMISSION REQUIRED TO WRITE A SONG OR A PLAY OR A NOVEL. YOU JUST DO IT. AND INNOVATION ON THE INTERNET SHOULD WORK THE SAME WAY. NOW INNOVATION IS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO THE RULE OF LAW. THAT GOES WITHOUT SAYING. I DON'T, THEREFORE, THINK IT'S NECESSARY TO SPELL OUT ALL THE LEGAL LIMITS TO INNOVATION THAT MAY EXIST, OF WHICH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE JUST ONE. THOUGH IF WE WERE TO ADD THE WORDS "CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER PRINCIPLES IN THIS DOCUMENT," I DON'T SEE WHAT HARM THAT COULD DO. THAT DOES, HOWEVER, RAISE THE SECONDARY POINT OF WHETHER IP RIGHTS SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE LIST OF HUMAN RIGHTS, AS SOME HAVE CONTENDED. AGAIN, I DON'T SEE HOW THAT IS NECESSARY BECAUSE THE LIST OF RIGHTS IS ALREADY EXPLICITLY NONEXCLUSIVE, AND NOTHING THAT WE AGREE AT NETmundial CAN DETRACT FROM WHAT'S ALREADY IN THE UDHR. SO I WOULD OPPOSE ADDING A POINT ON IP, BUT IF ONE WAS ADDED NEVERTHELESS IT WOULD, AT THE VERY LEAST, BE NECESSARY TO QUALIFY IT TO REFLECT THE NEED TO BALANCE PRIVATE IP RIGHTS WITH THE BROADER PUBLIC INTEREST. INDEED, PARAGRAPH 27 OF THE UDHR ITSELF BALANCES IP RIGHTS WITH THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CULTURAL LIFE OF THE COMMUNITY, SO WE SHOULD MENTION THAT, ALONG WITH THE RIGHTS TO EDUCATION, FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND INFORMATION, AND THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY. I CAN SEND SOME PARTICULAR TEXT SUGGESTIONS, BUT WE -- WE DO -- AS A -- AS A STARTING POINT, WE OPPOSE THE ADDITION OF A RIGHT TO IP. SO IN CONCLUSION, WE DO SUPPORT THE RETENTION OF PERMISSIONLESS INNOVATION, AND WE BELIEVE THAT MINIMAL, IF ANY, CHANGES ARE NECESSARY TO CLARIFY THAT THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO OVERRIDE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS -- [TIMER SOUNDS ] -- THANK YOU. > So, in the end, this text was not too bad. And we managed to keep 'permissionless innovation' in another part of the document. The BAD news is that the text on internet intermediary liability which was only finalised after the high level committee meeting is the same OECD text which civil society opposed in 2011. France and the US were insisted it be included. It is text that links intermediary liability to economic growth and that opens the doors to intermediaries being made responsible for enforcing copyright. For me that was a huge, huge blow. > > I am not in a position to respond to your other questions as I was not involved in finalising the civil society inputs. There was no plan to produce a text, consensus or otherwise, out of the pre-meeting. This was something that happened spontaneously because some of the organisers decided to do it. They did a good job, but one of the things that was lost was context - such as degrees of consensus around particular text (there was not a consensus on everything) and whether some text is a "last resort" position, etc. Part of the context that was lost for the IP text was that it was a "last resort" for how we could balance out the IP language if it was included by industry. So it is correct of you (Achal) to say that this proposing protection of IP rights is not a civil society position. I considered the text from the pre-meeting as more of a rough roadmap or guide for our interventions, rather than as an agreed text. Similarly the closing statement, which also happened spontaneously, cannot be considered as representing a civil society consensus. -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From aprabhala at gmail.com Tue Apr 29 08:17:49 2014 From: aprabhala at gmail.com (Achal Prabhala) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 17:47:49 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: What is civil society's position on copyright in Internet governance? In-Reply-To: References: <535F7267.70207@apc.org> Message-ID: Dear Jeremy Thanks for this very useful context. The transcript of your intervention is very helpful indeed. But, to clarify: I'm not complaining that the netmundial outcome text says what it does about protection of IP. I also not objecting to the civil society response to the outcome doc - I know you had very little time to put that together. What I am objecting to - and want to know more about - is why civil society had no *grounds* to object to the IP language in the netmundial outcome doc. The reason I am assuming it didn't is because the final civil society submission as publicly relayed - and I'll assume this is a document that was prepared with care - used exactly the same language for protection of IP. I fully expect such language to be the outcome of a negotiation - as the final language was - but I so not understand how it can be a civil society *position* based on internal consultation. I won't go on anymore except to say that it seems as though either civil society thinks IP is a minor and sacrificable issue in internet governance, or that civil society's job is to anticipate industry reactions when formulating it's position on IP and internet governance, and I disagree with both positions. But I think you do too which makes this all the more puzzling. Good wishes, Achal On Tuesday, 29 April 2014, Jeremy Malcolm wrohte: > On 29 Apr 2014, at 5:35 pm, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > The deadlock was broken by us using text that was suggested, or proposed by Jeremy Malcolm on the second day. I can't remember exactly what Jeremy had said, but is input implied that some protection for authors would be acceptable. > > I lost my verbatim note of what I said due to a crash, but from Pranesh's log of the transcript (at https://prakash.im/text-netmundial-day1.html) here it is as delivered: > THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. MY NAME IS JEREMY---- ON AN ENABLING ENVIRONMENT FOR INNOVATION AND CREATIVITY, WHICH AS YOUR CO-CHAIR NOTED GENERATED THE MOST COMMENTS OF ANY PARAGRAPH. DUE TO THE MISCONCEPTION THAT REFERENCE TO PERMISSIONLESS INNOVATION WAS ABOUT THE USE OF CREATIVE CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION. > NOW VORRING'S WHEN WE THINK OF INNOVATION, APART FROM SCIENTISTS, WE THINK OF ARTISTS AND PERMISSIONLESS INNOVATION IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE A FAMILIAR CONCEPT TO ARTISTS BECAUSE THERE IS NO PERMISSION REQUIRED TO WRITE A SONG OR A PLAY OR A NOVEL. YOU JUST DO IT. AND INNOVATION ON THE INTERNET SHOULD WORK THE SAME WAY. NOW INNOVATION IS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO THE RULE OF LAW. THAT GOES WITHOUT SAYING. I DON'T, THEREFORE, THINK IT'S NECESSARY TO SPELL OUT ALL THE LEGAL LIMITS TO INNOVATION THAT MAY EXIST, OF WHICH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE JUST ONE. THOUGH IF WE WERE TO ADD THE WORDS "CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER PRINCIPLES IN THIS DOCUMENT," I DON'T SEE WHAT HARM THAT COULD DO. > THAT DOES, HOWEVER, RAISE THE SECONDARY POINT OF WHETHER IP RIGHTS SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE LIST OF HUMAN RIGHTS, AS SOME HAVE CONTENDED. > AGAIN, I DON'T SEE HOW THAT IS NECESSARY BECAUSE THE LIST OF RIGHTS IS ALREADY EXPLICITLY NONEXCLUSIVE, AND NOTHING THAT WE AGREE AT NETmundial CAN DETRACT FROM WHAT'S ALREADY IN THE UDHR. > SO I WOULD OPPOSE ADDING A POINT ON IP, BUT IF ONE WAS ADDED NEVERTHELESS IT WOULD, AT THE VERY LEAST, BE NECESSARY TO QUALIFY IT TO REFLECT THE NEED TO BALANCE PRIVATE IP RIGHTS WITH THE BROADER PUBLIC INTEREST. > INDEED, PARAGRAPH 27 OF THE UDHR ITSELF BALANCES IP RIGHTS WITH THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CULTURAL LIFE OF THE COMMUNITY, SO WE SHOULD MENTION THAT, ALONG WITH THE RIGHTS TO EDUCATION, FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND INFORMATION, AND THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY. > I CAN SEND SOME PARTICULAR TEXT SUGGESTIONS, BUT WE -- WE DO -- AS A -- AS A STARTING POINT, WE OPPOSE THE ADDITION OF A RIGHT TO IP. > SO IN CONCLUSION, WE DO SUPPORT THE RETENTION OF PERMISSIONLESS INNOVATION, AND WE BELIEVE THAT MINIMAL, IF ANY, CHANGES ARE NECESSARY TO CLARIFY THAT THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO OVERRIDE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS -- > [TIMER SOUNDS ] > -- THANK YOU. > > So, in the end, this text was not too bad. And we managed to keep 'permissionless innovation' in another part of the document. The BAD news is that the text on internet intermediary liability which was only finalised after the high level committee meeting is the same OECD text which civil society opposed in 2011. France and the US were insisted it be included. It is text that links intermediary liability to economic growth and that opens the doors to intermediaries being made responsible for enforcing copyright. For me that was a huge, huge blow. > > I am not in a position to respond to your other questions as I was not involved in finalising the civil society inputs. > > There was no plan to produce a text, consensus or otherwise, out of the pre-meeting. This was something that happened spontaneously because some of the organisers decided to do it. They did a good job, but one of the things that was lost was context - such as degrees of consensus around particular text (there was not a consensus on everything) and whether some text is a "last resort" position, etc. Part of the context that was lost for the IP text was that it was a "last resort" for how we could balance out the IP language if it was included by industry. So it is correct of you (Achal) to say that this proposing protection of IP rights is not a civil society position. I considered the text from the pre-meeting as more of a rough roadmap or guide for our interventions, rather than as an agreed text. Similarly the closing statement, which also happened spontaneously, cannot be considered as representing a civil society consensus. > -- > Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp . > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nb at bollow.ch Tue Apr 29 09:04:28 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 15:04:28 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] What is civil society's position on copyright in Internet governance? In-Reply-To: References: <535F7267.70207@apc.org> Message-ID: <20140429150428.780f65e1@quill> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > > The deadlock was broken by us using text that was suggested, or > > proposed by Jeremy Malcolm on the second day. I can't remember > > exactly what Jeremy had said, but is input implied that some > > protection for authors would be acceptable. > > I lost my verbatim note of what I said due to a crash, but from > Pranesh's log of the transcript (at > https://prakash.im/text-netmundial-day1.html) here it is as delivered: > > [...] THAT DOES, HOWEVER, RAISE THE SECONDARY POINT OF WHETHER IP > RIGHTS SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE LIST OF HUMAN RIGHTS, AS SOME HAVE > CONTENDED. AGAIN, I DON'T SEE HOW THAT IS NECESSARY BECAUSE THE LIST > OF RIGHTS IS ALREADY EXPLICITLY NONEXCLUSIVE, AND NOTHING THAT WE > AGREE AT NETmundial CAN DETRACT FROM WHAT'S ALREADY IN THE UDHR. SO I > WOULD OPPOSE ADDING A POINT ON IP, BUT IF ONE WAS ADDED NEVERTHELESS > IT WOULD, AT THE VERY LEAST, BE NECESSARY TO QUALIFY IT TO REFLECT > THE NEED TO BALANCE PRIVATE IP RIGHTS WITH THE BROADER PUBLIC > INTEREST. Having been a remote participant, I recall being quite shocked at that point. Copyrights are not among the human rights!!! In practice they are mainly rights of corporations, of what is called the “copyright industry”. It is true, as Jeremy noted later in his intervention, that there is a human right that “Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author” and that, as Jeremy also noted, this is balanced in the UDHR and in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights by the statement on a complementary right to take part in cultural life. Human rights can be balanced and limited by what is implied by other human rights. They cannot be balanced and limited by rights of corporations, no matter how strongly established such rights may be in international law, and no matter how well-funded the lobbying drive behind the continuous process of expanding and strengthening those rights is. The human right to protection of “the material interests of authors” according to article 27 of the UDHR and according to article 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights says that it is a human right that there must a regime that protects the interests of authors against unfair commercial exploitation of their work. This does not imply that this regime must be of the type of today's copyright system. And it certainly does not elevate any rights of corporation to the level of human rights. One area in which overzealous legal protection for rights of copyright holders can easily result in the violation of human rights is in the context of so-called “technical protection measures”. If there is a law against the circumvention of “technical protection measures” which makes it illegal to e.g. quote a sentence from a document to which a copyright holder has applied “technical protection measures”, in order to convey the information about someone having made such and such a statement, then that law is a human rights violation. And I would argue that circumventing the “technical protection measures” and conveying the information is legal despite the law that states the opposite. International human rights law trumps any other type of law. An even more dangerous area where we're going to lose significant ground if we allow copyright industry interests to “balance” human rights is privacy protection. If copyright gets elevated in importance to a level comparable to that of human rights, then it will follow logically that some compromises on privacy are reasonable and proportionate in order to allow copyright holders to combat “piracy” more effectively. I of course believe that no one in the drafting group had any intentions to create such problems, and that nothing was intended besides a restatement of the exiting legal situation, with a goal to avoid the risk of a certain type of misunderstandings. However, if going forward, the NetMundial outcome document ends up being taken serious, I expect this to be a part of the text that does significant harm, through muddying the water. Human rights can only be effective to the extent that they are clearly understood, and only when it is clearly understood that they trump other kinds of laws. > There was no plan to produce a text, consensus or otherwise, out of > the pre-meeting. This was something that happened spontaneously > because some of the organisers decided to do it. In my view, something went really really seriously wrong there, and I'd be very interested in some kind of careful post mortem analysis of what exactly happened. I'd also like to know how it came to pass that apparently no one in the drafting group had an in depth understanding of human rights. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 190 bytes Desc: not available URL: From anriette at apc.org Tue Apr 29 09:18:42 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 15:18:42 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] What is civil society's position on copyright in Internet governance? In-Reply-To: <145ad1efb60.27c9.9387b8a9f30986f905fcc4cfa238b71f@consensus.pro> References: <535F7267.70207@apc.org> <145ad1efb60.27c9.9387b8a9f30986f905fcc4cfa238b71f@consensus.pro> Message-ID: <535FA6B2.5040107@apc.org> Dear all I can confirm what Nick is saying here based on our experience during the drafting. It was not business in general that insisted on strong IP text, it was very specifically Hollywood interests. Civil society actors tend to forget that there are strongly divergent intersts among business stakeholders in the IG community. Anriette On 29/04/2014 12:54, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > > For what it is worth, on the industry side that was a compromise. Many > of us argued that IP didn't belong in the document at all, but as > usual the Hollywood interests insisted. That phrase was a considerable > reduction from what was originally proposed. > > On 29 April 2014 11:36:05 Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > >> Dear Achal >> >> I was not involved in preparing the civil society inputs. >> >> I was co-chair of the drafting group for the 'principles' section of >> the document, and I actually with great frustration tried to find the >> text you had proposed during our pre-meeting. It was not on the Best >> Bits pad. >> >> When the 'Article 27' text was proposed during the drafting I did >> vigorously oppose it. I did not actually realise it was proposed by >> civil society as on the second day of the drafting my laptop had >> died, and I had no access to the online document. >> >> My personal concerns with the text in Article 27 was shared by some >> of the CS people who were observing. Business was strongly in favour >> of us inserting that text and we almost had deadlock on it. It is >> always easy to use existing language, and in most of the other >> rights, we did resort to UDHR language. On that one I held out. >> >> The deadlock was broken by us using text that was suggested, or >> proposed by Jeremy Malcolm on the second day. I can't remember >> exactly what Jeremy had said, but is input implied that some >> protection for authors would be acceptable. >> >> Therefore "consistent with the rights of authors and creators" was >> added to the original text (which was actually proposed by civil >> society very early on: " >> Everyone should have the right to access, share, create and >> distribute information on the Internet". The final phrase "as >> established in law" was demanded by business, if I remember correctly. >> >> So, in the end, this text was not too bad. And we managed to keep >> 'permissionless innovation' in another part of the document. The BAD >> news is that the text on internet intermediary liability which was >> only finalised after the high level committee meeting is the same >> OECD text which civil society opposed in 2011. France and the US were >> insisted it be included. It is text that links intermediary liability >> to economic growth and that opens the doors to intermediaries being >> made responsible for enforcing copyright. For me that was a huge, >> huge blow. >> >> I am not in a position to respond to your other questions as I was >> not involved in finalising the civil society inputs. >> >> My personal view however is that disproportionate enforcement of >> intellectual property rights is one of the greatest threats to >> 'internet freedom' we are facing, if not the greatest. Unlike >> limitations on free expression which is broadly considered to be >> inappropriate, there is widespread support by powerful governments >> and by a large part of internet industry (not all) for stronger >> enforcement of these rights, and for making intermediaries >> responsible doing so. >> >> Anriette >> >> >> On 29/04/2014 07:41, Achal Prabhala wrote: >>> >>> I have been trying to understand what civil society's position on >>> copyright in Internet governance is, esp. in the aftermath of >>> NETmundial. >>> >>> On April 22, I took part in a civil society meeting along with many >>> of you, when the following language was suggested to be included in >>> civil society feedback to the draft outcome document: "resisting the >>> expansion of a sovereign application of copyright on to the global >>> online landscape." >>> >>> The language came from the recent, vivid and very real threats posed >>> by the almost-legislated SOPA/PIPA in the US. >>> >>> Then it seems civil society changed it's mind: this is the language >>> used in the final feedback document: >>> (http://bestbits.net/netmundial-proposals/) >>> >>> "Right to participate in cultural life: everyone has the right >>> freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to >>> enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its >>> benefits, and this right extends to the Internet. Everyone has the >>> right to the protection of the moral and material interests >>> resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of >>> which he is the author. This protection must be balanced with the >>> larger public interest and human rights, including the rights to >>> education, freedom of expression and information and the right to >>> privacy." >>> >>> This is the language from the final NETmundial outcome document: >>> (http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf) >>> >>> "Everyone should havethe right to access, share, create and >>> distribute information on the Internet, consistent with the rights >>> of authors and creators as established in law." >>> >>> Inexplicably, the language on "protection" of intellectual property >>> is stronger in the civil society statement than in the NETmundial >>> document. >>> >>> Following from this, naturally, weak or nonexistent language >>> *against* a restrictive, censorious and unilaterally decided global >>> intellectual property regime did not figure anywhere in the list of >>> official civil society complaints against the final NETmundial >>> outcome document. (http://bestbits.net/netmundial-response/) >>> >>> I'd like to understand from someone who led this civil society >>> document as to: >>> >>> a) Whether you considered the copyright threat sufficiently >>> addresses in the language around freedom of expression and access to >>> information, as well as ISP liability (even though the legal scope >>> in these three ideas, as expressed in the statement from you, is >>> fuzzy and does not use the word 'copyright') and therefore chose to >>> explicitly leave it out of consideration? >>> >>> b) Or whether you deem the unjustified unilateral enforcement of >>> copyright protection an insufficient threat to global online freedom >>> and access to knowledge, despite the almost-legislated SOPA/PIPA >>> from not that long ago. >>> >>> c) And lastly, whether (and how), despite the copyright issue having >>> been raised - and seemingly accepted - in the meetings running up to >>> the document, "civil society" believed there was "consensus" around >>> leaving the copyright issue out of its demands. >>> >>> Thank you, >>> Achal >>> >>> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From becky.lentz at mcgill.ca Tue Apr 29 10:11:18 2014 From: becky.lentz at mcgill.ca (Becky Lentz, Dr.) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 14:11:18 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] What about promoting media and information POLICY literacy? Suggestion: "ICT+M policy literacy" Message-ID: <4562DF2F52066C4F8B1EE3A35B808D6536EC2222@EXMBX2010-7.campus.MCGILL.CA> This is a fantastic discussion thread and long overdue. However, I'd like to propose considering singling out the 'policy' dimension in the evolution of this conversation, i.e., being more explicit that what we're talking about is literacy 'about' the policymaking and policy advocacy aspects of this field. With some very important exceptions, media education and media literacy conversations, traditionally, seem to have been captured by a protectionist and/or a skills agenda...how to 'use' media and technology more skillfully, carefully, etc. In the five years I've been teaching 'media governance' at an international university, I'm still amazed at students from development studies, political science, sociology, and other disciplines who say that they never heard about 'this' policy studies area, until taking my courses. After exposure, they're keen to get involved, but what's the 'path' for this? Some started a campus-based chapter of openmedia.ca as one step while still in university. Others have gone on to intern and so on, but again, few of the NGOs in this field have outreach programs that allow academics to facilitate linking their students with experiential opportunities to learn more. Diplo does some of this, as we know, but it's aimed primarily at diplomats, not university students keen to get involved in the future of the internet as they are eager to imagine it. At the same time, many NGOs have considerable human resource needs that continue to go unfunded. There is a way to work on this, if we make it an area 'to be worked on.' By comparison, the environmental protection, public health, and human rights policy fields enjoy much more infrastructure for educating about the policy dimensions of their sectors...so, environmental literacy might mean becoming more aware of the environment, but there's also an educational and professional path (even degree programs, certificates, etc.) to pursue if one is interested in becoming part of that field as a career path. And as we know, "human rights education" (HRE) is a mini-industry of its own with sustainable funding from the UN to advance its goals, agendas, etc. Many groups incorporate policy literacy in their work, so why not make more explicit partnerships between academia (where the younger folks someone mentioned already 'are') with NGOs doing policy work so that we can cultivate a stronger 'pipeline/feeder system/pathway' TO media policy advocacy in the public interest? I guess what I'm suggesting is that we consider talking about 'information, communication, technology, and media (ICT+M) policy literacy' to begin to try to address the capacity building challenges inherent in ICT+M policy change, more broadly. What about a new IGF dynamic coalition around 'capacity building', that includes ICT+M policy literacy? That said, what parts of existing dynamic coalitions are already explicitly dealing with capacity building programs, issues, agendas? Might there be a way to connect that work horizontally across DN's? Becky Lentz McGill University [X] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From geetha at cis-india.org Tue Apr 29 13:21:25 2014 From: geetha at cis-india.org (Geetha Hariharan) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 22:51:25 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] What is civil society's position on copyright in Internet governance? In-Reply-To: <535FA6B2.5040107@apc.org> References: <535F7267.70207@apc.org> <145ad1efb60.27c9.9387b8a9f30986f905fcc4cfa238b71f@consensus.pro> <535FA6B2.5040107@apc.org> Message-ID: <535FDF95.7080501@cis-india.org> Dear all, Please find below a document compiling all comments to the draft Article 13 on enabling environment for innovation and creativity. This may prove useful while tracing the evolution of the Article to its present form. http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/netmundial-outcome-document-draft-article-13/at_download/file Best, Geetha. On Tue Apr 29 18:48:42 2014, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear all > > I can confirm what Nick is saying here based on our experience during > the drafting. It was not business in general that insisted on strong IP > text, it was very specifically Hollywood interests. > > Civil society actors tend to forget that there are strongly divergent > intersts among business stakeholders in the IG community. > > Anriette > > > On 29/04/2014 12:54, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >> >> For what it is worth, on the industry side that was a compromise. Many >> of us argued that IP didn't belong in the document at all, but as >> usual the Hollywood interests insisted. That phrase was a considerable >> reduction from what was originally proposed. >> >> On 29 April 2014 11:36:05 Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> >>> Dear Achal >>> >>> I was not involved in preparing the civil society inputs. >>> >>> I was co-chair of the drafting group for the 'principles' section of >>> the document, and I actually with great frustration tried to find the >>> text you had proposed during our pre-meeting. It was not on the Best >>> Bits pad. >>> >>> When the 'Article 27' text was proposed during the drafting I did >>> vigorously oppose it. I did not actually realise it was proposed by >>> civil society as on the second day of the drafting my laptop had >>> died, and I had no access to the online document. >>> >>> My personal concerns with the text in Article 27 was shared by some >>> of the CS people who were observing. Business was strongly in favour >>> of us inserting that text and we almost had deadlock on it. It is >>> always easy to use existing language, and in most of the other >>> rights, we did resort to UDHR language. On that one I held out. >>> >>> The deadlock was broken by us using text that was suggested, or >>> proposed by Jeremy Malcolm on the second day. I can't remember >>> exactly what Jeremy had said, but is input implied that some >>> protection for authors would be acceptable. >>> >>> Therefore "consistent with the rights of authors and creators" was >>> added to the original text (which was actually proposed by civil >>> society very early on: " >>> Everyone should have the right to access, share, create and >>> distribute information on the Internet". The final phrase "as >>> established in law" was demanded by business, if I remember correctly. >>> >>> So, in the end, this text was not too bad. And we managed to keep >>> 'permissionless innovation' in another part of the document. The BAD >>> news is that the text on internet intermediary liability which was >>> only finalised after the high level committee meeting is the same >>> OECD text which civil society opposed in 2011. France and the US were >>> insisted it be included. It is text that links intermediary liability >>> to economic growth and that opens the doors to intermediaries being >>> made responsible for enforcing copyright. For me that was a huge, >>> huge blow. >>> >>> I am not in a position to respond to your other questions as I was >>> not involved in finalising the civil society inputs. >>> >>> My personal view however is that disproportionate enforcement of >>> intellectual property rights is one of the greatest threats to >>> 'internet freedom' we are facing, if not the greatest. Unlike >>> limitations on free expression which is broadly considered to be >>> inappropriate, there is widespread support by powerful governments >>> and by a large part of internet industry (not all) for stronger >>> enforcement of these rights, and for making intermediaries >>> responsible doing so. >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> On 29/04/2014 07:41, Achal Prabhala wrote: >>>> >>>> I have been trying to understand what civil society's position on >>>> copyright in Internet governance is, esp. in the aftermath of >>>> NETmundial. >>>> >>>> On April 22, I took part in a civil society meeting along with many >>>> of you, when the following language was suggested to be included in >>>> civil society feedback to the draft outcome document: "resisting the >>>> expansion of a sovereign application of copyright on to the global >>>> online landscape." >>>> >>>> The language came from the recent, vivid and very real threats posed >>>> by the almost-legislated SOPA/PIPA in the US. >>>> >>>> Then it seems civil society changed it's mind: this is the language >>>> used in the final feedback document: >>>> (http://bestbits.net/netmundial-proposals/) >>>> >>>> "Right to participate in cultural life: everyone has the right >>>> freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to >>>> enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its >>>> benefits, and this right extends to the Internet. Everyone has the >>>> right to the protection of the moral and material interests >>>> resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of >>>> which he is the author. This protection must be balanced with the >>>> larger public interest and human rights, including the rights to >>>> education, freedom of expression and information and the right to >>>> privacy." >>>> >>>> This is the language from the final NETmundial outcome document: >>>> (http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf) >>>> >>>> "Everyone should havethe right to access, share, create and >>>> distribute information on the Internet, consistent with the rights >>>> of authors and creators as established in law." >>>> >>>> Inexplicably, the language on "protection" of intellectual property >>>> is stronger in the civil society statement than in the NETmundial >>>> document. >>>> >>>> Following from this, naturally, weak or nonexistent language >>>> *against* a restrictive, censorious and unilaterally decided global >>>> intellectual property regime did not figure anywhere in the list of >>>> official civil society complaints against the final NETmundial >>>> outcome document. (http://bestbits.net/netmundial-response/) >>>> >>>> I'd like to understand from someone who led this civil society >>>> document as to: >>>> >>>> a) Whether you considered the copyright threat sufficiently >>>> addresses in the language around freedom of expression and access to >>>> information, as well as ISP liability (even though the legal scope >>>> in these three ideas, as expressed in the statement from you, is >>>> fuzzy and does not use the word 'copyright') and therefore chose to >>>> explicitly leave it out of consideration? >>>> >>>> b) Or whether you deem the unjustified unilateral enforcement of >>>> copyright protection an insufficient threat to global online freedom >>>> and access to knowledge, despite the almost-legislated SOPA/PIPA >>>> from not that long ago. >>>> >>>> c) And lastly, whether (and how), despite the copyright issue having >>>> been raised - and seemingly accepted - in the meetings running up to >>>> the document, "civil society" believed there was "consensus" around >>>> leaving the copyright issue out of its demands. >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> Achal >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> 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 > -- Geetha Hariharan Programme Officer Centre for Internet and Society W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 8860 360717 From lsh at asc.upenn.edu Tue Apr 29 14:28:19 2014 From: lsh at asc.upenn.edu (lsh at asc.upenn.edu) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 14:28:19 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [bestbits] Call for Internet Policy Research Proposals Message-ID: The Center for Global Communication Studies is pleased to announce a call for proposals for its Internet Policy Observatory to organizations and individuals conducting research on the conditions, processes, and stakeholders that drive the development of internet policies at the national, regional, and international level. This call is particularly relevant to organizations and individuals interested in what countries do to influence the global internet, what we are calling the 'foreign policies of the internet.' Particular attention will be paid to proposals that look beyond the policies and narratives of European and North American actors to examine how 'emerging' actors and countries are influencing the debate. The thematic focus of the proposals may include, but is not limited to, one of the general areas: *Who and what are the conditions, processes, and stakeholders that are influencing the development of the internet nationally, regionally, and globally? *How are countries and other strategic global players using the internet to reach foreign policy objectives? *The effects of Snowden and the NSA revelations on the creation of internet policies and narratives about the internet in national/regional/and international contexts *An analysis of ‘multistakeholder’ internet governance fora and the stakeholders involved in the global internet governance debate *How normative frameworks and narratives about the internet are “exported” from one country or region to others *Cross-national or national surveys of internet users’ perceptions of key aspects of internet policy including trust, security, and censorship. *The negotiation between public and private governance online. Applications will be accepted on a rolling basis until May 30, 2014. For more information about this call and submission guidelines please see http://globalnetpolicy.org/our-research/call-for-proposals/ From mishi at softwarefreedom.org Tue Apr 29 15:05:41 2014 From: mishi at softwarefreedom.org (Mishi Choudhary) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 15:05:41 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] netmundial 0.1 In-Reply-To: <01BE62EF8F934D26A1BB69F0E21F4718@Toshiba> References: <711E9EB7F5E943F5A59A34D6E8BA98C7@Toshiba> <80721637783F4D14A2432596FE7A49C1@Toshiba> <0B507AA0-EBE9-4329-BCD0-CCB9A63FD867@mail.utoronto.ca> <120D1577-CF06-4CB9-9FEB-C3F21F933A0D@glocom.ac.jp> <535BCA67.8070308@wzb.eu> <01BE62EF8F934D26A1BB69F0E21F4718@Toshiba> Message-ID: <535FF805.8000600@softwarefreedom.org> I completely agree with Jeanette's suggestions. We had great ideas but lacked coordination and did not suggest concrete wording. We should divide responsibility amongst each other for specific topics and have a team working on alternative language. The team should have already done in-depth work on understanding the stance of other stakeholders at other fora including the UN on that particular topic. The CS chairs need to be assisted the way business reps were assisting their person. There needs to be real time coordination between the reps , the team working on a specific issue and lawyers' who can advise on alternative proposals along with other contributors. On 04/26/2014 04:28 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Thanks for that Jeanette, that fills in a lot of detail. And having > observed you working during the final drafting compilation session (or > at least we thought it was) I know you would not have given in on some > of these points easily. There will probably be a few other things > about the HLMC and its composition (50% government) we could look at > in refining the model. > > You mentioned two things which I quote below as good lessons for us to > learn > > 1. (Jeanette's words) In other parts, civil society could have done > better by simply > submitting concrete wording and back that up with several statements by > several organizations. So many interventions during the track sessions > were made for the transcript only since they did not refer to specific > paragraphs or did not suggest concrete wording! > > IP - I agree completely. (even if some of the specific words we did > come up with made it through the multistakeholder drafting process but > got killed at the HLMC) > > 2. (Jeanette's words) > Instead of lamenting about the specific outcome, I think we should be > more pragmatic and have a discussion about how to do better and become > more effective when the next opportunity of multistakeholder drafting > comes up. > > IP - I agree again. > > 3. My first suggestion. It would be helpful in a two day meeting > structure if we could start discussing the text before 5.30pm on Day > One. The time lost through endless speeches and plenaries and running > overtime on first day was not helpful. > > 4. My second suggestion. The time allowed for drafting was > insufficient. As in most writing situations, a second draft for > comment is useful. And the opportunity to comment on a final draft > before publication and final endorsement would also be useful. That > might take more time and such a process might actually need another > day. But it would lead to better outcomes. > > Anyway - we did really well in many ways, but yes we can learn from > this experience. > > > Ian > > > > -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann > Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2014 1:01 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; best Bits > Subject: Re: [governance] netmundial 0.1 > > From my perspective, it is not correct to say that the process was not > open. There were many people in the room when we modified the text after > the first and the second set of track sessions. > > During the second drafting session on the afternoon of the 24th there > were conversations taking place as to whether or not the HLMC would > insist on a final round of looking at the draft statement before it > would be announced. I don't know where this conversation took place and > who exactly talked to whom but the result was that the governments > engaged in the HLMC wanted to see the document beforehand. In a way this > was only fair since they were tasked with "setting the tone" of the text. > > That last session before we presented the statement was semi-public. > Many people were in the room and listened in to the discussion among > people around the table. The people around the table were members of > HLMC but also session chairs such as Anriette and me and the board. > > What happened there is that some governments expressed vetos to specific > wording of the draft doc. One country expressed reservations to the > entire document. The ICANN CEO wanted one sentence to be changed and > one word removed. At that point, it seemed at least to me that the > process was about to collapse. The only chance to prevent the whole > process from failing was to remove or tone down certain paragraphs. > > What I got to understand during the text editing process is that many if > not all governments would not be able to go beyond text and positions > that are part of agreed language as expressed in UN resolutions etc. The > gov reps simply don't have the mandate or authority to go beyond agreed > language in areas that matter to them. > > Frankly, I don't find this surprising. Multistakeholder implies taking > into account the constraints of the other stakeholders. Within the > process of collectively drafting a statement, such limits obviously > become very visible. > > So, the best we could do during the editing process is phrasing our > positions in ways that would resonate with established multilateral > language. In some areas, this worked quite well. The obvious example is > the UN resolution on privacy in the digital age. Here we could clearly > go beyond that what the private sector wanted to see in the document. > > Some of the last minute changes could have been prevented if we had > better understood the limits of what government reps in this process can > do. > > In other parts, civil society could have done better by simply > submitting concrete wording and back that up with several statements by > several organizations. So many interventions during the track sessions > were made for the transcript only since they did not refer to specific > paragraphs or did not suggest concrete wording! > > Instead of lamenting about the specific outcome, I think we should be > more pragmatic and have a discussion about how to do better and become > more effective when the next opportunity of multistakeholder drafting > comes up. > > Jeanette > > Am 26.04.14 19:30, schrieb Adam Peake: >> The last meeting of the HLMC was open to observers. But it was a >> shame we didn't think to put cameras and mics in the room for the >> drafting sessions so they could have been webcast. Just that it >> wasn't thought of at the time. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> On Apr 27, 2014, at 12:33 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> >>> Unfortunately that process was not open, and perhaps for good >>> reason. They also realize they made an error in the last minute >>> rush, and put the wrong older text in for one clause. Business is >>> actually arguing to put a better one for us back in. Will let the >>> list know if it happens. >>> Despite the hairiness of this process, I think folks should remember >>> that there was a remarkable production of good will achieved by all >>> the open drafting sessions….this is really an unusual way to do >>> business. Rome wasn’t built in a day… >>> Stephanie Perrin >>> Cheers stephanie >>> On Apr 25, 2014, at 2:38 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >>> >>>> First, Thanks to ALL who made this impossible possible. >>>> >>>> I was wondering during the last hours of confusion about the >>>> last-minute change, as well as sort of HLMC overriding the >>>> preceding process. >>>> >>>> My question 1 was, was this finalizing the Outcome document open to >>>> observers? >>>> (I still don't know and appreciate if someone teach me). >>>> >>>> I was wondering, and also now like to propose in the future similar >>>> event, to use the >>>> online tool, I mean online Notepad. >>>> >>>> In addition to the real-time scribes, and using projectors to put >>>> the text on the screen, >>>> it will be very effective to use the online notepad (such as Google >>>> Doc or something similar), over the Internet, as we draft. Everyone >>>> online can see the process of changing >>>> the words or sentences, they can keep track of all the changes. >>>> >>>> It will be useful for all the remote participants, or those in >>>> different rooms of the same >>>> venue while small number of drafting committee people do the work, >>>> that make it transparent. >>>> >>>> Just a suggestion. >>>> >>>> izumi >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2014-04-26 2:30 GMT+09:00 Ian Peter : >>>> and I should have added – thanks too to the BestBits people for a >>>> really constructive pre conference get together. Without that we >>>> could not have worked together so well at the main event. >>>> >>>> From: Ian Peter >>>> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 11:17 PM >>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>> Subject: [governance] netmundial 0.1 >>>> >>>> The conference is now over, and many of us now go into travel and >>>> long flights. But before I do, I want to say that during this >>>> conference, and the meeting beforehand, civil society people really >>>> worked incredibly well together – far more so than other >>>> constituencies. It was great to work with a group of such talented >>>> and knowledgeable people. There was a high volume of exchange and >>>> consultation between people and speakers on our behalf, with a >>>> willingness to take on other perspectives from the group, to stand >>>> down to allow a more relevant speaker to address a subject etc. >>>> great team work. >>>> >>>> As regards the results – this was version 0.1 of this very >>>> interesting – and i think promising – version of multistakeholder >>>> consultation. So like all versions 0.1, it was full of bugs and >>>> there are a few changes that should be made and improvements. I >>>> might say a thing or two about that after I have cleared my head. >>>> So I think the process has some lessons for us, and is worth >>>> repeating. >>>> >>>> As regards the outputs – as the civil society statement said, there >>>> were areas of disappointment. I would say personally that I was >>>> very angry at last minute changes made to some sections after the >>>> formal processes of drafting and consolidating text had ended and >>>> passed through those committees to the final approval stage. This >>>> was an example of some governmental players being more equal than >>>> others. As one colleague said, more like imperialism than >>>> multistakeholderism, from a party who preaches the religion. Oh >>>> well. In time I might say more about the detail of that. >>>> >>>> But for now – there was much good as well, and it was fantastic to >>>> be involved in this with such a great group of people. All our >>>> Brazilian reps, and also our selected reps on various committees, >>>> did a fantastic job – ad it was privilege to see how well they did. >>>> They worked long and hard on our behalf and deserve a lot of >>>> praise. If I start names I will miss someone, but to everyone who >>>> represented us, I must say job extremely well done. >>>> >>>> Now to wind down after three days of intense activities. Great work >>>> everyone, really worthwhile event. >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >> Izumi Aizu << >>>> >>>> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >>>> >>>> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >>>> Japan >>>> * * * * * >>>> << Writing the Future of the History >> >>>> www.anr.org >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> 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 -- Warm Regards Mishi Choudhary, Esq. Legal Director Software Freedom Law Center 1995 Broadway Floor 17 New York, NY-10023 (tel) 212-461-1912 (fax) 212-580-0898 www.softwarefreedom.org Executive Director SFLC.IN K-9, Second Floor Jangpura Extn. New Delhi-110014 (tel) +91-11-43587126 (fax) +91-11-24323530 www.sflc.in From anriette at apc.org Tue Apr 29 15:14:19 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 21:14:19 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] What is civil society's position on copyright in Internet governance? In-Reply-To: References: <535F7267.70207@apc.org> Message-ID: <535FFA0B.3060106@apc.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Thanks for posting this Jeremy. And I should clarify that the text that made it into the draft, was not your text, but was added in the context of people in the drafting group referring to Jeremy's inputs. And in this sense Jeremy's inputs worked well, as he made a convincing argument that we did not need to insert a special heading for IP rights. What we have is better than what we would have had if an IP clause was added. I think Jeremy's assessment of the civil society input process, and the initial output statement is fair and correct. But I think our inputs could have been handled better. The problem is not so much that we did not have full consensus on everything. We could have done that bit better, but I think the real problem was that the drafting process did not allow for sufficient integration of our input. Other stakeholders groups will probably feel the same. We should have had someone on the drafting group - other than myself who was a chair and Adam who was playing a secretariat role - who could systematically point our attention to text from CS on a particular issue. We all did try to refer to all the inputs, but there were so much, and, we did not have the transcript for much of the second round of text editing. And one other point, it would have helped if the text on the Pad was annotated more fully and presented in a way that included - for each section of the document - key messages and draft text. In spite of all this hindsight, I think our preparatory meeting worked well overall, and aside from some important issues, we managed to substantially influence the outcome documents. Anriette On 29/04/2014 13:20, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 29 Apr 2014, at 5:35 pm, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: > >> The deadlock was broken by us using text that was suggested, or proposed by Jeremy Malcolm on the second day. I can't remember exactly what Jeremy had said, but is input implied that some protection for authors would be acceptable. > > I lost my verbatim note of what I said due to a crash, but from Pranesh's log of the transcript (at https://prakash.im/text-netmundial-day1.html) here it is as delivered: > > THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. MY NAME IS JEREMY---- ON AN ENABLING ENVIRONMENT FOR INNOVATION AND CREATIVITY, WHICH AS YOUR CO-CHAIR NOTED GENERATED THE MOST COMMENTS OF ANY PARAGRAPH. DUE TO THE MISCONCEPTION THAT REFERENCE TO PERMISSIONLESS INNOVATION WAS ABOUT THE USE OF CREATIVE CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION. > NOW VORRING'S WHEN WE THINK OF INNOVATION, APART FROM SCIENTISTS, WE THINK OF ARTISTS AND PERMISSIONLESS INNOVATION IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE A FAMILIAR CONCEPT TO ARTISTS BECAUSE THERE IS NO PERMISSION REQUIRED TO WRITE A SONG OR A PLAY OR A NOVEL. YOU JUST DO IT. AND INNOVATION ON THE INTERNET SHOULD WORK THE SAME WAY. NOW INNOVATION IS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO THE RULE OF LAW. THAT GOES WITHOUT SAYING. I DON'T, THEREFORE, THINK IT'S NECESSARY TO SPELL OUT ALL THE LEGAL LIMITS TO INNOVATION THAT MAY EXIST, OF WHICH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE JUST ONE. THOUGH IF WE WERE TO ADD THE WORDS "CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER PRINCIPLES IN THIS DOCUMENT," I DON'T SEE WHAT HARM THAT COULD DO. > THAT DOES, HOWEVER, RAISE THE SECONDARY POINT OF WHETHER IP RIGHTS SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE LIST OF HUMAN RIGHTS, AS SOME HAVE CONTENDED. > AGAIN, I DON'T SEE HOW THAT IS NECESSARY BECAUSE THE LIST OF RIGHTS IS ALREADY EXPLICITLY NONEXCLUSIVE, AND NOTHING THAT WE AGREE AT NETmundial CAN DETRACT FROM WHAT'S ALREADY IN THE UDHR. > SO I WOULD OPPOSE ADDING A POINT ON IP, BUT IF ONE WAS ADDED NEVERTHELESS IT WOULD, AT THE VERY LEAST, BE NECESSARY TO QUALIFY IT TO REFLECT THE NEED TO BALANCE PRIVATE IP RIGHTS WITH THE BROADER PUBLIC INTEREST. > INDEED, PARAGRAPH 27 OF THE UDHR ITSELF BALANCES IP RIGHTS WITH THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CULTURAL LIFE OF THE COMMUNITY, SO WE SHOULD MENTION THAT, ALONG WITH THE RIGHTS TO EDUCATION, FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND INFORMATION, AND THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY. > I CAN SEND SOME PARTICULAR TEXT SUGGESTIONS, BUT WE -- WE DO -- AS A -- AS A STARTING POINT, WE OPPOSE THE ADDITION OF A RIGHT TO IP. > SO IN CONCLUSION, WE DO SUPPORT THE RETENTION OF PERMISSIONLESS INNOVATION, AND WE BELIEVE THAT MINIMAL, IF ANY, CHANGES ARE NECESSARY TO CLARIFY THAT THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO OVERRIDE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS -- > [TIMER SOUNDS ] > -- THANK YOU. > >> So, in the end, this text was not too bad. And we managed to keep 'permissionless innovation' in another part of the document. The BAD news is that the text on internet intermediary liability which was only finalised after the high level committee meeting is the same OECD text which civil society opposed in 2011. France and the US were insisted it be included. It is text that links intermediary liability to economic growth and that opens the doors to intermediaries being made responsible for enforcing copyright. For me that was a huge, huge blow. >> >> I am not in a position to respond to your other questions as I was not involved in finalising the civil society inputs. > > There was no plan to produce a text, consensus or otherwise, out of the pre-meeting. This was something that happened spontaneously because some of the organisers decided to do it. They did a good job, but one of the things that was lost was context - such as degrees of consensus around particular text (there was not a consensus on everything) and whether some text is a "last resort" position, etc. Part of the context that was lost for the IP text was that it was a "last resort" for how we could balance out the IP language if it was included by industry. So it is correct of you (Achal) to say that this proposing protection of IP rights is not a civil society position. I considered the text from the pre-meeting as more of a rough roadmap or guide for our interventions, rather than as an agreed text. Similarly the closing statement, which also happened spontaneously, cannot be considered as representing a civil society consensus. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp. > - -- - ------------------------------------------------------ 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 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTX/oKAAoJEJ0z+TtuxKewo+0IAN32aZkN+6TU+YpBicSVYOqs hTX3H6Gjx9A+yvRQd+MWpw5Ff5wk/4AosINDLsM/KqAy9UYFyVxv2hX4urx6KR0t j8NTXsWB1F4aTZ3G0jCQmyChTAHlJ7PiFu3MK5Un20rkIOGEdjaRCieLkvr6BiZP n6IYweYzFF18I7z7ff3LhD+tmmasMDbg7+bit4cDF59MouhiHcQeoxJ0K12x94GW c9Zl4isQY0nICnyPyxsLgk8urIvfebziemZdaAwE3vuKuOJcD9wr8XCziaPJziUO FUSCljR8B6SmN6Xu8qA6oypPI/EkTgOjahbn/TvDkHMU5QQ9mNWm6eSxW1G/JSs= =39Kf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mishi at softwarefreedom.org Tue Apr 29 15:17:45 2014 From: mishi at softwarefreedom.org (Mishi Choudhary) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 15:17:45 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] What is civil society's position on copyright in Internet governance? In-Reply-To: <535F7267.70207@apc.org> References: <535F7267.70207@apc.org> Message-ID: <535FFAD9.8000602@softwarefreedom.org> I am with Achal on this and had strongly recommended his name during the strategy meeting of CS on April 22 to speak on this issue (three working groups had highlighted the importance of this question). The next day I heard for the first time in an email about some talks on Article 27, conversations with Disney, the details of which were not clear but I had expressed strong reservation about the language without "a right to share". I witnessed Anriette resisting additions in the drafting process without much assistance from any other civil society members on actual wording. Robin Gross and I had tried to say a few things but we weren't allowed to interfere from the floor. I am unsure myself as to the stance of civil society on this and think it is deeply disturbing that our views aren't clear on an agenda item and an Article that received most interest from the business for obvious reasons. On 04/29/2014 05:35 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear Achal > > I was not involved in preparing the civil society inputs. > > I was co-chair of the drafting group for the 'principles' section of > the document, and I actually with great frustration tried to find the > text you had proposed during our pre-meeting. It was not on the Best > Bits pad. > > When the 'Article 27' text was proposed during the drafting I did > vigorously oppose it. I did not actually realise it was proposed by > civil society as on the second day of the drafting my laptop had died, > and I had no access to the online document. > > My personal concerns with the text in Article 27 was shared by some of > the CS people who were observing. Business was strongly in favour of > us inserting that text and we almost had deadlock on it. It is always > easy to use existing language, and in most of the other rights, we did > resort to UDHR language. On that one I held out. > > The deadlock was broken by us using text that was suggested, or > proposed by Jeremy Malcolm on the second day. I can't remember exactly > what Jeremy had said, but is input implied that some protection for > authors would be acceptable. > > Therefore "consistent with the rights of authors and creators" was > added to the original text (which was actually proposed by civil > society very early on: " > Everyone should have the right to access, share, create and distribute > information on the Internet". The final phrase "as established in > law" was demanded by business, if I remember correctly. > > So, in the end, this text was not too bad. And we managed to keep > 'permissionless innovation' in another part of the document. The BAD > news is that the text on internet intermediary liability which was > only finalised after the high level committee meeting is the same OECD > text which civil society opposed in 2011. France and the US were > insisted it be included. It is text that links intermediary liability > to economic growth and that opens the doors to intermediaries being > made responsible for enforcing copyright. For me that was a huge, > huge blow. > > I am not in a position to respond to your other questions as I was not > involved in finalising the civil society inputs. > > My personal view however is that disproportionate enforcement of > intellectual property rights is one of the greatest threats to > 'internet freedom' we are facing, if not the greatest. Unlike > limitations on free expression which is broadly considered to be > inappropriate, there is widespread support by powerful governments and > by a large part of internet industry (not all) for stronger > enforcement of these rights, and for making intermediaries responsible > doing so. > > Anriette > > > On 29/04/2014 07:41, Achal Prabhala wrote: >> >> I have been trying to understand what civil society's position on >> copyright in Internet governance is, esp. in the aftermath of NETmundial. >> >> On April 22, I took part in a civil society meeting along with many >> of you, when the following language was suggested to be included in >> civil society feedback to the draft outcome document: "resisting the >> expansion of a sovereign application of copyright on to the global >> online landscape." >> >> The language came from the recent, vivid and very real threats posed >> by the almost-legislated SOPA/PIPA in the US. >> >> Then it seems civil society changed it's mind: this is the language >> used in the final feedback document: >> (http://bestbits.net/netmundial-proposals/) >> >> "Right to participate in cultural life: everyone has the right freely >> to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the >> arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits, and >> this right extends to the Internet. Everyone has the right to the >> protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any >> scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the >> author. This protection must be balanced with the larger public >> interest and human rights, including the rights to education, freedom >> of expression and information and the right to privacy." >> >> This is the language from the final NETmundial outcome document: >> (http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf) >> >> "Everyone should havethe right to access, share, create and >> distribute information on the Internet, consistent with the rights of >> authors and creators as established in law." >> >> Inexplicably, the language on "protection" of intellectual property >> is stronger in the civil society statement than in the NETmundial >> document. >> >> Following from this, naturally, weak or nonexistent language >> *against* a restrictive, censorious and unilaterally decided global >> intellectual property regime did not figure anywhere in the list of >> official civil society complaints against the final NETmundial >> outcome document. (http://bestbits.net/netmundial-response/) >> >> I'd like to understand from someone who led this civil society >> document as to: >> >> a) Whether you considered the copyright threat sufficiently addresses >> in the language around freedom of expression and access to >> information, as well as ISP liability (even though the legal scope in >> these three ideas, as expressed in the statement from you, is fuzzy >> and does not use the word 'copyright') and therefore chose to >> explicitly leave it out of consideration? >> >> b) Or whether you deem the unjustified unilateral enforcement of >> copyright protection an insufficient threat to global online freedom >> and access to knowledge, despite the almost-legislated SOPA/PIPA from >> not that long ago. >> >> c) And lastly, whether (and how), despite the copyright issue having >> been raised - and seemingly accepted - in the meetings running up to >> the document, "civil society" believed there was "consensus" around >> leaving the copyright issue out of its demands. >> >> Thank you, >> Achal >> >> > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > 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 -- Warm Regards Mishi Choudhary, Esq. Legal Director Software Freedom Law Center 1995 Broadway Floor 17 New York, NY-10023 (tel) 212-461-1912 (fax) 212-580-0898 www.softwarefreedom.org Executive Director SFLC.IN K-9, Second Floor Jangpura Extn. New Delhi-110014 (tel) +91-11-43587126 (fax) +91-11-24323530 www.sflc.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mishi at softwarefreedom.org Tue Apr 29 15:20:31 2014 From: mishi at softwarefreedom.org (Mishi Choudhary) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 15:20:31 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] What is civil society's position on copyright in Internet governance? In-Reply-To: References: <535F7267.70207@apc.org> Message-ID: <535FFB7F.20901@softwarefreedom.org> Thanks Jeremy, I had missed out on this traffic to understand how this all worked but I would still like thorough discussions on this issue for future if others agree. On 04/29/2014 07:20 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 29 Apr 2014, at 5:35 pm, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: > >> The deadlock was broken by us using text that was suggested, or >> proposed by Jeremy Malcolm on the second day. I can't remember >> exactly what Jeremy had said, but is input implied that some >> protection for authors would be acceptable. > > I lost my verbatim note of what I said due to a crash, but from > Pranesh's log of the transcript (at > https://prakash.im/text-netmundial-day1.html) here it is as delivered: > > THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. MY NAME IS JEREMY---- ON AN > ENABLING ENVIRONMENT FOR INNOVATION AND CREATIVITY, WHICH AS YOUR > CO-CHAIR NOTED GENERATED THE MOST COMMENTS OF ANY PARAGRAPH. DUE TO > THE MISCONCEPTION THAT REFERENCE TO PERMISSIONLESS INNOVATION WAS > ABOUT THE USE OF CREATIVE CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION. > NOW VORRING'S WHEN WE THINK OF INNOVATION, APART FROM SCIENTISTS, > WE THINK OF ARTISTS AND PERMISSIONLESS INNOVATION IS SOMETHING THAT > SHOULD BE A FAMILIAR CONCEPT TO ARTISTS BECAUSE THERE IS NO > PERMISSION REQUIRED TO WRITE A SONG OR A PLAY OR A NOVEL. YOU JUST DO > IT. AND INNOVATION ON THE INTERNET SHOULD WORK THE SAME > WAY. NOW INNOVATION IS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO THE RULE OF LAW. THAT GOES > WITHOUT SAYING. I DON'T, THEREFORE, THINK IT'S NECESSARY TO SPELL OUT > ALL THE LEGAL LIMITS TO INNOVATION THAT MAY EXIST, OF WHICH > INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE JUST ONE. THOUGH IF WE WERE TO ADD > THE WORDS "CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER PRINCIPLES IN THIS DOCUMENT," I > DON'T SEE WHAT HARM THAT COULD DO. > THAT DOES, HOWEVER, RAISE THE SECONDARY POINT OF WHETHER IP > RIGHTS SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE LIST OF HUMAN RIGHTS, AS SOME HAVE > CONTENDED. > AGAIN, I DON'T SEE HOW THAT IS NECESSARY BECAUSE THE LIST OF RIGHTS IS > ALREADY EXPLICITLY NONEXCLUSIVE, AND NOTHING THAT WE AGREE > AT NETmundial CAN DETRACT FROM WHAT'S ALREADY IN THE UDHR. > SO I WOULD OPPOSE ADDING A POINT ON IP, BUT IF ONE WAS > ADDED NEVERTHELESS IT WOULD, AT THE VERY LEAST, BE NECESSARY TO > QUALIFY IT TO REFLECT THE NEED TO BALANCE PRIVATE IP RIGHTS WITH THE > BROADER PUBLIC INTEREST. > INDEED, PARAGRAPH 27 OF THE UDHR ITSELF BALANCES IP RIGHTS WITH > THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CULTURAL LIFE OF THE COMMUNITY, SO WE > SHOULD MENTION THAT, ALONG WITH THE RIGHTS TO EDUCATION, FREEDOM OF > EXPRESSION AND INFORMATION, AND THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY. > I CAN SEND SOME PARTICULAR TEXT SUGGESTIONS, BUT WE -- WE DO -- AS > A -- AS A STARTING POINT, WE OPPOSE THE ADDITION OF A RIGHT TO IP. > SO IN CONCLUSION, WE DO SUPPORT THE RETENTION OF > PERMISSIONLESS INNOVATION, AND WE BELIEVE THAT MINIMAL, IF > ANY, CHANGES ARE NECESSARY TO CLARIFY THAT THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO > OVERRIDE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS -- > [TIMER SOUNDS ] > -- THANK YOU. > >> So, in the end, this text was not too bad. And we managed to keep >> 'permissionless innovation' in another part of the document. The BAD >> news is that the text on internet intermediary liability which was >> only finalised after the high level committee meeting is the same >> OECD text which civil society opposed in 2011. France and the US were >> insisted it be included. It is text that links intermediary liability >> to economic growth and that opens the doors to intermediaries being >> made responsible for enforcing copyright. For me that was a huge, >> huge blow. >> >> I am not in a position to respond to your other questions as I was >> not involved in finalising the civil society inputs. > > There was no plan to produce a text, consensus or otherwise, out of > the pre-meeting. This was something that happened spontaneously > because some of the organisers decided to do it. They did a good job, > but one of the things that was lost was context - such as degrees of > consensus around particular text (there was not a consensus on > everything) and whether some text is a "last resort" position, etc. > Part of the context that was lost for the IP text was that it was a > "last resort" for how we could balance out the IP language if it was > included by industry. So it is correct of you (Achal) to say that > this proposing protection of IP rights is not a civil society > position. I considered the text from the pre-meeting as more of a > rough roadmap or guide for our interventions, rather than as an agreed > text. Similarly the closing statement, which also happened > spontaneously, cannot be considered as representing a civil society > consensus. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see > http://jere.my/l/pgp. > -- Warm Regards Mishi Choudhary, Esq. Legal Director Software Freedom Law Center 1995 Broadway Floor 17 New York, NY-10023 (tel) 212-461-1912 (fax) 212-580-0898 www.softwarefreedom.org Executive Director SFLC.IN K-9, Second Floor Jangpura Extn. New Delhi-110014 (tel) +91-11-43587126 (fax) +91-11-24323530 www.sflc.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 901 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Tue Apr 29 15:21:51 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 20:21:51 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] netmundial 0.1 In-Reply-To: <120D1577-CF06-4CB9-9FEB-C3F21F933A0D@glocom.ac.jp> References: <711E9EB7F5E943F5A59A34D6E8BA98C7@Toshiba> <80721637783F4D14A2432596FE7A49C1@Toshiba> <0B507AA0-EBE9-4329-BCD0-CCB9A63FD867@mail.utoronto.ca> <120D1577-CF06-4CB9-9FEB-C3F21F933A0D@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: +1 from a remote participant like me ;) In any case since it was an observer I wonder how much difference it would have made, although it would have been good to witness the mechanisms used during the drafting. All that is history now I guess and getting to improve on the strong foundation is the way forward. Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 27 Apr 2014 21:12, "Adam Peake" wrote: > The last meeting of the HLMC was open to observers. But it was a shame we > didn't think to put cameras and mics in the room for the drafting sessions > so they could have been webcast. Just that it wasn't thought of at the > time. > > Adam > > > > > On Apr 27, 2014, at 12:33 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > > Unfortunately that process was not open, and perhaps for good reason. > They also realize they made an error in the last minute rush, and put the > wrong older text in for one clause. Business is actually arguing to put a > better one for us back in. Will let the list know if it happens. > > Despite the hairiness of this process, I think folks should remember > that there was a remarkable production of good will achieved by all the > open drafting sessions….this is really an unusual way to do business. Rome > wasn’t built in a day… > > Stephanie Perrin > > Cheers stephanie > > On Apr 25, 2014, at 2:38 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > > >> First, Thanks to ALL who made this impossible possible. > >> > >> I was wondering during the last hours of confusion about the > last-minute change, as well as sort of HLMC overriding the preceding > process. > >> > >> My question 1 was, was this finalizing the Outcome document open to > observers? > >> (I still don't know and appreciate if someone teach me). > >> > >> I was wondering, and also now like to propose in the future similar > event, to use the > >> online tool, I mean online Notepad. > >> > >> In addition to the real-time scribes, and using projectors to put the > text on the screen, > >> it will be very effective to use the online notepad (such as Google Doc > or something similar), over the Internet, as we draft. Everyone online can > see the process of changing > >> the words or sentences, they can keep track of all the changes. > >> > >> It will be useful for all the remote participants, or those in > different rooms of the same > >> venue while small number of drafting committee people do the work, that > make it transparent. > >> > >> Just a suggestion. > >> > >> izumi > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> 2014-04-26 2:30 GMT+09:00 Ian Peter : > >> and I should have added – thanks too to the BestBits people for a > really constructive pre conference get together. Without that we could not > have worked together so well at the main event. > >> > >> From: Ian Peter > >> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 11:17 PM > >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > >> Subject: [governance] netmundial 0.1 > >> > >> The conference is now over, and many of us now go into travel and long > flights. But before I do, I want to say that during this conference, and > the meeting beforehand, civil society people really worked incredibly well > together – far more so than other constituencies. It was great to work with > a group of such talented and knowledgeable people. There was a high volume > of exchange and consultation between people and speakers on our behalf, > with a willingness to take on other perspectives from the group, to stand > down to allow a more relevant speaker to address a subject etc. great team > work. > >> > >> As regards the results – this was version 0.1 of this very interesting > – and i think promising – version of multistakeholder consultation. So like > all versions 0.1, it was full of bugs and there are a few changes that > should be made and improvements. I might say a thing or two about that > after I have cleared my head. So I think the process has some lessons for > us, and is worth repeating. > >> > >> As regards the outputs – as the civil society statement said, there > were areas of disappointment. I would say personally that I was very angry > at last minute changes made to some sections after the formal processes of > drafting and consolidating text had ended and passed through those > committees to the final approval stage. This was an example of some > governmental players being more equal than others. As one colleague said, > more like imperialism than multistakeholderism, from a party who preaches > the religion. Oh well. In time I might say more about the detail of that. > >> > >> But for now – there was much good as well, and it was fantastic to be > involved in this with such a great group of people. All our Brazilian reps, > and also our selected reps on various committees, did a fantastic job – ad > it was privilege to see how well they did. They worked long and hard on our > behalf and deserve a lot of praise. If I start names I will miss someone, > but to everyone who represented us, I must say job extremely well done. > >> > >> Now to wind down after three days of intense activities. Great work > everyone, really worthwhile event. > >> > >> 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 > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> 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 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> >> Izumi Aizu << > >> > >> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > >> > >> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > >> Japan > >> * * * * * > >> << Writing the Future of the History >> > >> www.anr.org > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> 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: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mishi at softwarefreedom.org Tue Apr 29 15:24:06 2014 From: mishi at softwarefreedom.org (Mishi Choudhary) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 15:24:06 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] netmundial 0.1 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <535FFC56.70005@softwarefreedom.org> +1 On 04/27/2014 08:08 AM, genekimmelman at gmail.com wrote: > Robin, thanks so much for doing this. I'd like to add a few > additional observations: > > 1. Good thing CS met the day before to discuss perspectives and > strategy. It seemed to build increased trust and respect, focus > attention for presentation on key issues, and begin to get us organized. > > 2. We probably needed an additional day of meeetings to further refine > strategy and how to maximize our influence . > > 3. Given the totally fluid nature and opaqueness of how a final > document would come together, all stakeholder groups were nervous but > we were most disadvantaged by not having a last minute "power push" to > match government and corporate efforts. > > 4. We might have been able to do slightly better on wording but in the > end, the leverage of key governments and corporate interests was > always going to win the battle IF consensus was the goal. That's just > a reminder of the ongoing political power deficit we always face and > must continue the fight to overcome. > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Robin Gross > Date: 04/27/2014 12:13 AM (GMT-05:00) > To: Stephanie Perrin > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Izumi AIZU ,Adam Peake > ," <" > ,NCSG List > Subject: Re: [governance] netmundial 0.1 > > > Thanks! I just posted a cleaned-up version of this earlier > big-picture analysis to the web: http://tinyurl.com/ll9wnuq > > > A Civil Society Perspective on NETmundial 2014 Final Outcome > Document: A Remarkable Achievement, Despite Losses to Hollywood & > Govts Over Specific Language on Most Controversial Issues > > A few high-level thoughts on the Netmundial meeting in Brazil this > week and its final outcome document, adopted by its high level > committee. Overall, there are some truly amazing and forward-looking > principles supported in the "Netmundial Multi-Stakeholder Statement" > that we as civil society should proud of, and especially our civil > society representatives who worked tirelessly for this achievement. > > Specifically, the Internet governance principles of human rights, > democracy, equality, openness, transparency, accountability, > decentralization, and the Internet as a global resource to be managed > in the public interest are all supported in the final outcome > document. These principles are all wonderful achievements for social > justice and an important pivot point in the evolution of global > governance principles and mechanisms. > > Civil society lost ground on the specific wording over the most > contentious issues, such as surveillance, copyright, permissionless > innovation, intermediary protections, net neutrality, and separation > of policy & operations in IANA, but the fact that these controversial > issues were mentioned at all in the statement, is a significant > advancement (except for the ode to copyright). So on some key > substantive policy issues, the statement reflects a remarkable > positive achievement, despite a few critical losses on the specific > wording where civil society got out-lobbied, out-muscled, & > out-manuevered in the last minute, in less transparent and less > organized processes. Civil society gained great experience from > engaging in the process and learned a number of places were > improvements can be made in future discussions and processes. Perhaps > the losses on specific wording on the most contentious issues was the > price to pay to obtain the larger and more numerous high-level > principles supporting social justice goals and the positive > development of the Internet. > > The simple fact the govts and business had to negotiate with civil > society over final text language (and govts wait in line at the mic to > speak) is another step-forward in Internet governance. Even with > short comings, there was more transparency over the drafting and final > high level committee’s weakening and adoption of the document than > there is in other global governance regimes, where we can’t see the > drafting at all, since a few of us could watch (those who could walk > into the room) in NETmundial final high level committee and drafting > sessions. There is demonstrated need for improved transparency in > these critical decision-making moments in the process going forward. > And the inability to anticipate the process also impeded civil > society, who tends to be significantly under-represented in > decision-making positions and among the insiders. > > I don’t want us to lose sight of the big picture, and fail to see the > really encouraging parts of this document, and that in many ways, this > was a positive advancement in the evolution of Internet governance and > Internet freedom. > > Without question, civil society was under-represented on panels, in > committees, and key decision-making positions - everyone knows that - > and we need to keep pushing on that critical point; this statement > supports "equality", so we’ve got our hook for that key civil society > goal in here too. The last minute (significantly weakening or) > insertion of new language, for which there was no consensus or > previous discussion, by powerful interests (generally Hollywood, Govt, > ICANN) on the document’s most controversial issues was one of the > process’ biggest break down points. > > Even with the process issues and painful losses on specific language > on the most controversial issues, on balance, this document is a > pretty good starting point for further discussions on Internet > governance and its positive evolution. > > "Netmundial Multistakeholder Statement" > > On Apr 26, 2014, at 8:53 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > >> +1! >> Stephanie P >> On Apr 26, 2014, at 9:44 PM, Robin Gross > > wrote: >> >>> A few thoughts on the outcome doc and Netmundial generally, after >>> the benefit of a plane ride to process the experience. Overall, >>> there are some truly amazing principles supported in the Netmundial >>> Multi-Stakeholder Statement that we as civil society should proud of >>> and especially our representatives who got this achievement. >>> >>> The Internet governance principles of human rights, democracy, >>> equality, openness, transparency, accountability, decentralized, >>> Internet as global resource to be managed in the public interest are >>> all supported in the final outcome document. These are all truly >>> amazing achievements and an important pivot point in the evolution >>> of the global governance ecosystem. >>> >>> Civil society lost ground on the specific wording over the most >>> contentious issues, such as surveillance, copyright, permissionless >>> innovation, intermediary liability, net neutrality, and separation >>> of policy & operations in IANA, but the fact that these issues were >>> mentioned in the governance document itself, is a significant >>> advancement (except for the ode to copyright). So on some key >>> substantive policy issues, the document reflects a remarkable >>> achievement, despite a few critical losses where civil society got >>> out-lobbied, out-muscled, & out-manuevered in the last minute behind >>> less transparent and less organized processes on the specific wording. >>> >>> But the simple fact the govts and biz had to negotiate with civil >>> society over key language (and wait in line to speak) is another >>> rather remarkable step-forward. There was more transparency over >>> the drafting and adoption of the document than there is in other >>> global governance regimes where we can't see the drafting at all, >>> since a few of us could watch. We now see the need for improved >>> transparency in these key critical decision-making moments in this >>> going forward. And the process frustrated and impeded civil >>> society, who tends not be in current decision-making positions on >>> these important process decisions. >>> >>> I don't want us to lose sight of the big picture, and fail to see >>> the really great parts of this document, and that in many ways, this >>> was a very positive step forward in the evolution of the Internet >>> governance and Internet freedom. >>> >>> Yes, civil society was under-represented on panels, in committees, >>> and key decision-making positions - everyone knows that - and we >>> need to keep pushing on that point too; this doc supports >>> "equality", so we've got our hook for that goal here too. >>> >>> On balance, this document is a pretty good starting point for >>> further discussions on Internet governance and its positive evolution. >>> >>> My 2 cents, >>> Robin >>> >>> >>> On Apr 26, 2014, at 3:28 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >>> >>>> Thank you Stephanie and Adam for your clarifications. >>>> >>>> I still have the "impression" that the last session was not quite >>>> as open as it could be. >>>> >>>> Firstly, there was not announcement, or explanation, as to how the >>>> final document would be dealt by HLMC in advance, or even on the >>>> fly, for those who were in the Main Room. >>>> >>>> Yes, it would be much better to have live streaming and scribed >>>> texts online for those who were not in the small drafting room. >>>> >>>> I would say even in the small room, it was VERY difficult to figure >>>> out what exactly they are discussing unless you have good hearing >>>> ability and understanding of the English since they were not using >>>> the microphone and sometimes audiences making some noise. >>>> It was semi transparent in my view. >>>> >>>> I do not mean for criticism, but for lessons going forward. >>>> >>>> More than 10 years ago, we had WSIS prep meeting in Tokyo and we >>>> insisted that Drafting session by governments plus civil society >>>> and private sector be open to all who want to participate. It >>>> worked well. We had big screen in front of all, and everyone could >>>> speak up once chair allow, there were some distinction between the >>>> official member of the drafting committee and others, but not much, >>>> In the end the result of this informal drafting committee was sent >>>> to the government only negotiation, which was open and transparent, >>>> but no-government stakeholders including IGOs could have no say. >>>> We asked government people to "honor" the works of this >>>> multistakeholder draft document and in my view we got 85%, if not >>>> 90%. (could not get good language for Human rights and Freedom of >>>> Expression). >>>> >>>> Now, after more than 10 years, we have, as I wrote, better online >>>> tool, much better working experience among CS members with other >>>> stakeholders, better recognition on CS and MSH to advance our work. >>>> >>>> As Jeanette and Ian point out, we could have done better if we had >>>> better prepared and also better prepared on the fly. >>>> >>>> But overall, I think civil society did a very good job, together >>>> with Brazilian host, but also I like to mention the other >>>> stakeholders, governments, business, tech and academic community >>>> also deserve the recognition together, >>>> >>>> As we were discussing during the dinner right after the closure, we >>>> could and should understand some government folks who really had >>>> constraints under their mandate, therefore had to put their >>>> reservations on the record. And even so, I think their behaviors >>>> were not that disruptive, at the last stage, to honor Brazilian >>>> host and also all of us engaged there. >>>> >>>> izumi >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2014-04-27 2:30 GMT+09:00 Adam Peake >>> >: >>>> >>>> The last meeting of the HLMC was open to observers. But it was >>>> a shame we didn't think to put cameras and mics in the room for >>>> the drafting sessions so they could have been webcast. Just >>>> that it wasn't thought of at the time. >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Apr 27, 2014, at 12:33 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>>> >>>> > Unfortunately that process was not open, and perhaps for good >>>> reason. They also realize they made an error in the last >>>> minute rush, and put the wrong older text in for one clause. >>>> Business is actually arguing to put a better one for us back >>>> in. Will let the list know if it happens. >>>> > Despite the hairiness of this process, I think folks should >>>> remember that there was a remarkable production of good will >>>> achieved by all the open drafting sessions….this is really an >>>> unusual way to do business. Rome wasn’t built in a day… >>>> > Stephanie Perrin >>>> > Cheers stephanie >>>> > On Apr 25, 2014, at 2:38 PM, Izumi AIZU >>> > wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> First, Thanks to ALL who made this impossible possible. >>>> >> >>>> >> I was wondering during the last hours of confusion about the >>>> last-minute change, as well as sort of HLMC overriding the >>>> preceding process. >>>> >> >>>> >> My question 1 was, was this finalizing the Outcome document >>>> open to observers? >>>> >> (I still don't know and appreciate if someone teach me). >>>> >> >>>> >> I was wondering, and also now like to propose in the future >>>> similar event, to use the >>>> >> online tool, I mean online Notepad. >>>> >> >>>> >> In addition to the real-time scribes, and using projectors >>>> to put the text on the screen, >>>> >> it will be very effective to use the online notepad (such as >>>> Google Doc or something similar), over the Internet, as we >>>> draft. Everyone online can see the process of changing >>>> >> the words or sentences, they can keep track of all the changes. >>>> >> >>>> >> It will be useful for all the remote participants, or those >>>> in different rooms of the same >>>> >> venue while small number of drafting committee people do the >>>> work, that make it transparent. >>>> >> >>>> >> Just a suggestion. >>>> >> >>>> >> izumi >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> 2014-04-26 2:30 GMT+09:00 Ian Peter >>> >: >>>> >> and I should have added – thanks too to the BestBits people >>>> for a really constructive pre conference get together. Without >>>> that we could not have worked together so well at the main event. >>>> >> >>>> >> From: Ian Peter >>>> >> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 11:17 PM >>>> >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> ; >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>> >> Subject: [governance] netmundial 0.1 >>>> >> >>>> >> The conference is now over, and many of us now go into >>>> travel and long flights. But before I do, I want to say that >>>> during this conference, and the meeting beforehand, civil >>>> society people really worked incredibly well together – far >>>> more so than other constituencies. It was great to work with a >>>> group of such talented and knowledgeable people. There was a >>>> high volume of exchange and consultation between people and >>>> speakers on our behalf, with a willingness to take on other >>>> perspectives from the group, to stand down to allow a more >>>> relevant speaker to address a subject etc. great team work. >>>> >> >>>> >> As regards the results – this was version 0.1 of this very >>>> interesting – and i think promising – version of >>>> multistakeholder consultation. So like all versions 0.1, it was >>>> full of bugs and there are a few changes that should be made >>>> and improvements. I might say a thing or two about that after I >>>> have cleared my head. So I think the process has some lessons >>>> for us, and is worth repeating. >>>> >> >>>> >> As regards the outputs – as the civil society statement >>>> said, there were areas of disappointment. I would say >>>> personally that I was very angry at last minute changes made to >>>> some sections after the formal processes of drafting and >>>> consolidating text had ended and passed through those >>>> committees to the final approval stage. This was an example of >>>> some governmental players being more equal than others. As one >>>> colleague said, more like imperialism than multistakeholderism, >>>> from a party who preaches the religion. Oh well. In time I >>>> might say more about the detail of that. >>>> >> >>>> >> But for now – there was much good as well, and it was >>>> fantastic to be involved in this with such a great group of >>>> people. All our Brazilian reps, and also our selected reps on >>>> various committees, did a fantastic job – ad it was privilege >>>> to see how well they did. They worked long and hard on our >>>> behalf and deserve a lot of praise. If I start names I will >>>> miss someone, but to everyone who represented us, I must say >>>> job extremely well done. >>>> >> >>>> >> Now to wind down after three days of intense activities. >>>> Great work everyone, really worthwhile event. >>>> >> >>>> >> 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 >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> >> 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 >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> -- >>>> >> >> Izumi Aizu << >>>> >> >>>> >> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >>>> >> >>>> >> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >>>> >> Japan >>>> >> * * * * * >>>> >> << Writing the Future of the History >> >>>> >> www.anr.org >>>> >>>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> >> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >> Izumi Aizu << >>>> >>>> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >>>> >>>> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >>>> Japan >>>> * * * * * >>>> << Writing the Future of the History >> >>>> www.anr.org >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>> >> > -- Warm Regards Mishi Choudhary, Esq. Legal Director Software Freedom Law Center 1995 Broadway Floor 17 New York, NY-10023 (tel) 212-461-1912 (fax) 212-580-0898 www.softwarefreedom.org Executive Director SFLC.IN K-9, Second Floor Jangpura Extn. New Delhi-110014 (tel) +91-11-43587126 (fax) +91-11-24323530 www.sflc.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Tue Apr 29 15:28:12 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 20:28:12 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] netmundial 0.1 In-Reply-To: <01BE62EF8F934D26A1BB69F0E21F4718@Toshiba> References: <711E9EB7F5E943F5A59A34D6E8BA98C7@Toshiba> <80721637783F4D14A2432596FE7A49C1@Toshiba> <0B507AA0-EBE9-4329-BCD0-CCB9A63FD867@mail.utoronto.ca> <120D1577-CF06-4CB9-9FEB-C3F21F933A0D@glocom.ac.jp> <535BCA67.8070308@wzb.eu> <01BE62EF8F934D26A1BB69F0E21F4718@Toshiba> Message-ID: sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 27 Apr 2014 21:12, "Ian Peter" wrote: > 3. My first suggestion. It would be helpful in a two day meeting structure if we could start discussing the text before 5.30pm on Day One. The time lost through endless speeches and plenaries and running overtime on first day was not helpful. > +1 > 4. My second suggestion. The time allowed for drafting was insufficient. As in most writing situations, a second draft for comment is useful. And the opportunity to comment on a final draft before publication and final endorsement would also be useful. That might take more time and such a process might actually need another day. But it would lead to better outcomes. > ++1 from day 1 of the f2f I had mentioned this and also after the event as feedback. However it seem it was viewed as not appreciating the effort of the NETMundial team which is actually not the case. I for one don't see why comments made during the call period needed to be repeated at the f2f; it almost defeated the aim of the comment period. > Anyway - we did really well in many ways, but yes we can learn from this experience. > +1 Regards > > Ian > > > > -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann > Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2014 1:01 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; best Bits > Subject: Re: [governance] netmundial 0.1 > > > From my perspective, it is not correct to say that the process was not > open. There were many people in the room when we modified the text after > the first and the second set of track sessions. > > During the second drafting session on the afternoon of the 24th there > were conversations taking place as to whether or not the HLMC would > insist on a final round of looking at the draft statement before it > would be announced. I don't know where this conversation took place and > who exactly talked to whom but the result was that the governments > engaged in the HLMC wanted to see the document beforehand. In a way this > was only fair since they were tasked with "setting the tone" of the text. > > That last session before we presented the statement was semi-public. > Many people were in the room and listened in to the discussion among > people around the table. The people around the table were members of > HLMC but also session chairs such as Anriette and me and the board. > > What happened there is that some governments expressed vetos to specific > wording of the draft doc. One country expressed reservations to the > entire document. The ICANN CEO wanted one sentence to be changed and > one word removed. At that point, it seemed at least to me that the > process was about to collapse. The only chance to prevent the whole > process from failing was to remove or tone down certain paragraphs. > > What I got to understand during the text editing process is that many if > not all governments would not be able to go beyond text and positions > that are part of agreed language as expressed in UN resolutions etc. The > gov reps simply don't have the mandate or authority to go beyond agreed > language in areas that matter to them. > > Frankly, I don't find this surprising. Multistakeholder implies taking > into account the constraints of the other stakeholders. Within the > process of collectively drafting a statement, such limits obviously > become very visible. > > So, the best we could do during the editing process is phrasing our > positions in ways that would resonate with established multilateral > language. In some areas, this worked quite well. The obvious example is > the UN resolution on privacy in the digital age. Here we could clearly > go beyond that what the private sector wanted to see in the document. > > Some of the last minute changes could have been prevented if we had > better understood the limits of what government reps in this process can > do. > > In other parts, civil society could have done better by simply > submitting concrete wording and back that up with several statements by > several organizations. So many interventions during the track sessions > were made for the transcript only since they did not refer to specific > paragraphs or did not suggest concrete wording! > > Instead of lamenting about the specific outcome, I think we should be > more pragmatic and have a discussion about how to do better and become > more effective when the next opportunity of multistakeholder drafting > comes up. > > Jeanette > > Am 26.04.14 19:30, schrieb Adam Peake: >> >> The last meeting of the HLMC was open to observers. But it was a shame we didn't think to put cameras and mics in the room for the drafting sessions so they could have been webcast. Just that it wasn't thought of at the time. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> On Apr 27, 2014, at 12:33 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> >>> Unfortunately that process was not open, and perhaps for good reason. They also realize they made an error in the last minute rush, and put the wrong older text in for one clause. Business is actually arguing to put a better one for us back in. Will let the list know if it happens. >>> Despite the hairiness of this process, I think folks should remember that there was a remarkable production of good will achieved by all the open drafting sessions….this is really an unusual way to do business. Rome wasn’t built in a day… >>> Stephanie Perrin >>> Cheers stephanie >>> On Apr 25, 2014, at 2:38 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >>> >>>> First, Thanks to ALL who made this impossible possible. >>>> >>>> I was wondering during the last hours of confusion about the last-minute change, as well as sort of HLMC overriding the preceding process. >>>> >>>> My question 1 was, was this finalizing the Outcome document open to observers? >>>> (I still don't know and appreciate if someone teach me). >>>> >>>> I was wondering, and also now like to propose in the future similar event, to use the >>>> online tool, I mean online Notepad. >>>> >>>> In addition to the real-time scribes, and using projectors to put the text on the screen, >>>> it will be very effective to use the online notepad (such as Google Doc or something similar), over the Internet, as we draft. Everyone online can see the process of changing >>>> the words or sentences, they can keep track of all the changes. >>>> >>>> It will be useful for all the remote participants, or those in different rooms of the same >>>> venue while small number of drafting committee people do the work, that make it transparent. >>>> >>>> Just a suggestion. >>>> >>>> izumi >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2014-04-26 2:30 GMT+09:00 Ian Peter : >>>> and I should have added – thanks too to the BestBits people for a really constructive pre conference get together. Without that we could not have worked together so well at the main event. >>>> >>>> From: Ian Peter >>>> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 11:17 PM >>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>> Subject: [governance] netmundial 0.1 >>>> >>>> The conference is now over, and many of us now go into travel and long flights. But before I do, I want to say that during this conference, and the meeting beforehand, civil society people really worked incredibly well together – far more so than other constituencies. It was great to work with a group of such talented and knowledgeable people. There was a high volume of exchange and consultation between people and speakers on our behalf, with a willingness to take on other perspectives from the group, to stand down to allow a more relevant speaker to address a subject etc. great team work. >>>> >>>> As regards the results – this was version 0.1 of this very interesting – and i think promising – version of multistakeholder consultation. So like all versions 0.1, it was full of bugs and there are a few changes that should be made and improvements. I might say a thing or two about that after I have cleared my head. So I think the process has some lessons for us, and is worth repeating. >>>> >>>> As regards the outputs – as the civil society statement said, there were areas of disappointment. I would say personally that I was very angry at last minute changes made to some sections after the formal processes of drafting and consolidating text had ended and passed through those committees to the final approval stage. This was an example of some governmental players being more equal than others. As one colleague said, more like imperialism than multistakeholderism, from a party who preaches the religion. Oh well. In time I might say more about the detail of that. >>>> >>>> But for now – there was much good as well, and it was fantastic to be involved in this with such a great group of people. All our Brazilian reps, and also our selected reps on various committees, did a fantastic job – ad it was privilege to see how well they did. They worked long and hard on our behalf and deserve a lot of praise. If I start names I will miss someone, but to everyone who represented us, I must say job extremely well done. >>>> >>>> Now to wind down after three days of intense activities. Great work everyone, really worthwhile event. >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >> Izumi Aizu << >>>> >>>> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >>>> >>>> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >>>> Japan >>>> * * * * * >>>> << Writing the Future of the History >> >>>> www.anr.org >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lorena at collaboratory.de Tue Apr 29 16:19:45 2014 From: lorena at collaboratory.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 22:19:45 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] netmundial 0.1 In-Reply-To: <535FF805.8000600@softwarefreedom.org> References: <711E9EB7F5E943F5A59A34D6E8BA98C7@Toshiba> <80721637783F4D14A2432596FE7A49C1@Toshiba> <0B507AA0-EBE9-4329-BCD0-CCB9A63FD867@mail.utoronto.ca> <120D1577-CF06-4CB9-9FEB-C3F21F933A0D@glocom.ac.jp> <535BCA67.8070308@wzb.eu> <01BE62EF8F934D26A1BB69F0E21F4718@Toshiba> <535FF805.8000600@softwarefreedom.org> Message-ID: +1 +congratulations Jeanette Hofmann and all other civil society, academia & technical community representatives you made multistakeholder a fact. Sure, there is room for improvement (the multistakeholder model is still a baby) but with your work it is definitely here to stay. Thanks to you and also to all predecesors who seeded the path! 2014-04-29 21:05 GMT+02:00 Mishi Choudhary : > > > I completely agree with Jeanette's suggestions. We had great ideas but > lacked coordination and did not suggest concrete wording. > > We should divide responsibility amongst each other for specific topics > and have a team working on alternative language. The team should have > already done in-depth work on understanding the stance of other > stakeholders at other fora including the UN on that particular topic. > The CS chairs need to be assisted the way business reps were assisting > their person. There needs to be real time coordination between the reps > , the team working on a specific issue and lawyers' who can advise on > alternative proposals along with other contributors. > > > > > > On 04/26/2014 04:28 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > Thanks for that Jeanette, that fills in a lot of detail. And having > > observed you working during the final drafting compilation session (or > > at least we thought it was) I know you would not have given in on some > > of these points easily. There will probably be a few other things > > about the HLMC and its composition (50% government) we could look at > > in refining the model. > > > > You mentioned two things which I quote below as good lessons for us to > > learn > > > > 1. (Jeanette's words) In other parts, civil society could have done > > better by simply > > submitting concrete wording and back that up with several statements by > > several organizations. So many interventions during the track sessions > > were made for the transcript only since they did not refer to specific > > paragraphs or did not suggest concrete wording! > > > > IP - I agree completely. (even if some of the specific words we did > > come up with made it through the multistakeholder drafting process but > > got killed at the HLMC) > > > > 2. (Jeanette's words) > > Instead of lamenting about the specific outcome, I think we should be > > more pragmatic and have a discussion about how to do better and become > > more effective when the next opportunity of multistakeholder drafting > > comes up. > > > > IP - I agree again. > > > > 3. My first suggestion. It would be helpful in a two day meeting > > structure if we could start discussing the text before 5.30pm on Day > > One. The time lost through endless speeches and plenaries and running > > overtime on first day was not helpful. > > > > 4. My second suggestion. The time allowed for drafting was > > insufficient. As in most writing situations, a second draft for > > comment is useful. And the opportunity to comment on a final draft > > before publication and final endorsement would also be useful. That > > might take more time and such a process might actually need another > > day. But it would lead to better outcomes. > > > > Anyway - we did really well in many ways, but yes we can learn from > > this experience. > > > > > > Ian > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann > > Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2014 1:01 AM > > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; best Bits > > Subject: Re: [governance] netmundial 0.1 > > > > From my perspective, it is not correct to say that the process was not > > open. There were many people in the room when we modified the text after > > the first and the second set of track sessions. > > > > During the second drafting session on the afternoon of the 24th there > > were conversations taking place as to whether or not the HLMC would > > insist on a final round of looking at the draft statement before it > > would be announced. I don't know where this conversation took place and > > who exactly talked to whom but the result was that the governments > > engaged in the HLMC wanted to see the document beforehand. In a way this > > was only fair since they were tasked with "setting the tone" of the text. > > > > That last session before we presented the statement was semi-public. > > Many people were in the room and listened in to the discussion among > > people around the table. The people around the table were members of > > HLMC but also session chairs such as Anriette and me and the board. > > > > What happened there is that some governments expressed vetos to specific > > wording of the draft doc. One country expressed reservations to the > > entire document. The ICANN CEO wanted one sentence to be changed and > > one word removed. At that point, it seemed at least to me that the > > process was about to collapse. The only chance to prevent the whole > > process from failing was to remove or tone down certain paragraphs. > > > > What I got to understand during the text editing process is that many if > > not all governments would not be able to go beyond text and positions > > that are part of agreed language as expressed in UN resolutions etc. The > > gov reps simply don't have the mandate or authority to go beyond agreed > > language in areas that matter to them. > > > > Frankly, I don't find this surprising. Multistakeholder implies taking > > into account the constraints of the other stakeholders. Within the > > process of collectively drafting a statement, such limits obviously > > become very visible. > > > > So, the best we could do during the editing process is phrasing our > > positions in ways that would resonate with established multilateral > > language. In some areas, this worked quite well. The obvious example is > > the UN resolution on privacy in the digital age. Here we could clearly > > go beyond that what the private sector wanted to see in the document. > > > > Some of the last minute changes could have been prevented if we had > > better understood the limits of what government reps in this process can > > do. > > > > In other parts, civil society could have done better by simply > > submitting concrete wording and back that up with several statements by > > several organizations. So many interventions during the track sessions > > were made for the transcript only since they did not refer to specific > > paragraphs or did not suggest concrete wording! > > > > Instead of lamenting about the specific outcome, I think we should be > > more pragmatic and have a discussion about how to do better and become > > more effective when the next opportunity of multistakeholder drafting > > comes up. > > > > Jeanette > > > > Am 26.04.14 19:30, schrieb Adam Peake: > >> The last meeting of the HLMC was open to observers. But it was a > >> shame we didn't think to put cameras and mics in the room for the > >> drafting sessions so they could have been webcast. Just that it > >> wasn't thought of at the time. > >> > >> Adam > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Apr 27, 2014, at 12:33 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > >> > >>> Unfortunately that process was not open, and perhaps for good > >>> reason. They also realize they made an error in the last minute > >>> rush, and put the wrong older text in for one clause. Business is > >>> actually arguing to put a better one for us back in. Will let the > >>> list know if it happens. > >>> Despite the hairiness of this process, I think folks should remember > >>> that there was a remarkable production of good will achieved by all > >>> the open drafting sessions….this is really an unusual way to do > >>> business. Rome wasn’t built in a day… > >>> Stephanie Perrin > >>> Cheers stephanie > >>> On Apr 25, 2014, at 2:38 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >>> > >>>> First, Thanks to ALL who made this impossible possible. > >>>> > >>>> I was wondering during the last hours of confusion about the > >>>> last-minute change, as well as sort of HLMC overriding the > >>>> preceding process. > >>>> > >>>> My question 1 was, was this finalizing the Outcome document open to > >>>> observers? > >>>> (I still don't know and appreciate if someone teach me). > >>>> > >>>> I was wondering, and also now like to propose in the future similar > >>>> event, to use the > >>>> online tool, I mean online Notepad. > >>>> > >>>> In addition to the real-time scribes, and using projectors to put > >>>> the text on the screen, > >>>> it will be very effective to use the online notepad (such as Google > >>>> Doc or something similar), over the Internet, as we draft. Everyone > >>>> online can see the process of changing > >>>> the words or sentences, they can keep track of all the changes. > >>>> > >>>> It will be useful for all the remote participants, or those in > >>>> different rooms of the same > >>>> venue while small number of drafting committee people do the work, > >>>> that make it transparent. > >>>> > >>>> Just a suggestion. > >>>> > >>>> izumi > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 2014-04-26 2:30 GMT+09:00 Ian Peter : > >>>> and I should have added – thanks too to the BestBits people for a > >>>> really constructive pre conference get together. Without that we > >>>> could not have worked together so well at the main event. > >>>> > >>>> From: Ian Peter > >>>> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 11:17 PM > >>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > >>>> Subject: [governance] netmundial 0.1 > >>>> > >>>> The conference is now over, and many of us now go into travel and > >>>> long flights. But before I do, I want to say that during this > >>>> conference, and the meeting beforehand, civil society people really > >>>> worked incredibly well together – far more so than other > >>>> constituencies. It was great to work with a group of such talented > >>>> and knowledgeable people. There was a high volume of exchange and > >>>> consultation between people and speakers on our behalf, with a > >>>> willingness to take on other perspectives from the group, to stand > >>>> down to allow a more relevant speaker to address a subject etc. > >>>> great team work. > >>>> > >>>> As regards the results – this was version 0.1 of this very > >>>> interesting – and i think promising – version of multistakeholder > >>>> consultation. So like all versions 0.1, it was full of bugs and > >>>> there are a few changes that should be made and improvements. I > >>>> might say a thing or two about that after I have cleared my head. > >>>> So I think the process has some lessons for us, and is worth > >>>> repeating. > >>>> > >>>> As regards the outputs – as the civil society statement said, there > >>>> were areas of disappointment. I would say personally that I was > >>>> very angry at last minute changes made to some sections after the > >>>> formal processes of drafting and consolidating text had ended and > >>>> passed through those committees to the final approval stage. This > >>>> was an example of some governmental players being more equal than > >>>> others. As one colleague said, more like imperialism than > >>>> multistakeholderism, from a party who preaches the religion. Oh > >>>> well. In time I might say more about the detail of that. > >>>> > >>>> But for now – there was much good as well, and it was fantastic to > >>>> be involved in this with such a great group of people. All our > >>>> Brazilian reps, and also our selected reps on various committees, > >>>> did a fantastic job – ad it was privilege to see how well they did. > >>>> They worked long and hard on our behalf and deserve a lot of > >>>> praise. If I start names I will miss someone, but to everyone who > >>>> represented us, I must say job extremely well done. > >>>> > >>>> Now to wind down after three days of intense activities. Great work > >>>> everyone, really worthwhile event. > >>>> > >>>> 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 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> 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 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> >> Izumi Aizu << > >>>> > >>>> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > >>>> > >>>> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > >>>> Japan > >>>> * * * * * > >>>> << Writing the Future of the History >> > >>>> www.anr.org > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> 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 > > > -- > Warm Regards > Mishi Choudhary, Esq. > Legal Director > Software Freedom Law Center > 1995 Broadway Floor 17 > New York, NY-10023 > (tel) 212-461-1912 > (fax) 212-580-0898 > www.softwarefreedom.org > > > Executive Director > SFLC.IN > K-9, Second Floor > Jangpura Extn. > New Delhi-110014 > (tel) +91-11-43587126 > (fax) +91-11-24323530 > www.sflc.in > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Lorena Jaume-Palasí, M.A. ∙ Coordinator of the Global Internet Governance (GIG) Ohu Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. www.collaboratory.de ∙ Newsletter ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ Youtube -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Wed Apr 30 02:57:30 2014 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 02:57:30 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] WEBCAST TODAY: Scenarios for the Future of Internet Governance Message-ID: Two panels focus on the proposed transition of the IANA functions stewardship from the USA to the global Internet community. The first such event since the recent NetMundial conference. joly posted: "Today Wednesday 30 April 2014, from 9:30am-2pm EDT, the Washington DC Chapter of the Internet Society (ISOC-DC) and the Institute for International Economic Policy, George Washington University will present Scenarios for the Future of Internet Governance " [image: ISOC-DC - Internet Governance]Today *Wednesday 30 April 2014*, from *9:30am-2pm* EDT, the Washington DC Chapter of the Internet Society (ISOC-DC) and the Institute for International Economic Policy, George Washington Universitywill present *Scenarios for the Future of Internet Governance*- a dual-panel conference on the proposed IANA transition . Speakers include *Fiona Alexander*of the NTIA, *Milton Mueller* of the NCUC, *Richard Jimmerson* of ARIN, and ISOC's own *Raquel Gatto* from Brazil. The event will be webcast live via the Internet Society livestream channel . *What*: Scenarios for the Future of Internet Governance *Where*: GWU, Washington DC *When*: Wednesday 30 April 2014, 9:30am-2pm EDT | 1330-1800 UTC *Agenda*: http://www.isoc-dc.org/2014/04/isoc-dc-event-scenarios-for-the-future-of-internet-governance/ *Webcast*: https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/internetscenarios *Twitter*: @isocdc | @iiepgw | #iana Comment See all comments *Trouble clicking?* Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6583 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aprabhala at gmail.com Wed Apr 30 03:25:05 2014 From: aprabhala at gmail.com (Achal Prabhala) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 12:55:05 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] What is civil society's position on copyright in Internet governance? In-Reply-To: <535FFB7F.20901@softwarefreedom.org> References: <535F7267.70207@apc.org> <535FFB7F.20901@softwarefreedom.org> Message-ID: From nb at bollow.ch Wed Apr 30 05:40:54 2014 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 11:40:54 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] What is civil society's position on copyright in Internet governance? In-Reply-To: References: <535F7267.70207@apc.org> <535FFB7F.20901@softwarefreedom.org> Message-ID: <20140430114054.21aa4cab@quill> Thank you so much Achal for doing this analysis, and making the lessens clear that need to be learned from this!!! Greetings, Norbert (who participated in NetMundial only as a remote participant, thus lacking any firt-hand impressions on the concerned civil society processes) Am Wed, 30 Apr 2014 12:55:05 +0530 schrieb Achal Prabhala : > >From my understanding (through Anriette, Jeremy, Mishi and others) > >this is > what seems to have happened within civil society re: copyright/IP > these last few weeks: > > 1) Civil society went into this hoping to keep copyright and IP "out" > of the language, both civil society language + NETmundial outcome doc > language, as a strategy to avoid the inclusion of "protection" > clauses. > > 2) However well-intentioned, I think this was an unwise strategy, > since there had already been so much discussion on the > copyright-IP-connected text in the draft NETmundial outcome doc, > overwhelmingly dominated by rights-holders or their advocates, all in > favour of explicitly protectionist language - which is to say it > seemed inevitable that this would be lobbied strongly. A wiser > strategy, given the run-up to NETmundial, would have been for civil > society to have had a clear pro-sharing, anti- unilateral imposition > of arbitrarily restrictive copyright position to stick to. > > 3) Some text to this effect was suggested by me and others at the > April 22 meeting but was later discarded or lost. The text that was > eventually used to articulate the civil society position discounted > the importance of a stand against restrictive copyright/IP > application, and seemed to have been written with a view to > pre-empting what some saw as the eventual negotiated outcome of > NETmundial. > > 4) Somehow (I say this because I don't understand it, and the few who > participated in the process can't either; I won't assume bad faith, > but I will assume an inadequate understanding of the issues at stake > by some of the civil society people involved in drafting) the civil > society *position* > - uninfluenced by negotiation, in effect a statement of principles, > released on April 23, 2014 (one full day before the NETmundial > official outcome doc was negotiated and released) - contained > inexcusable language around copyright, essentially endorsing a > protectionist position on IP, in effect giving *in* to a negotiation > with rights-holders and/or NETmundial *before a negotiation was even > had*. ( http://bestbits.net/netmundial-proposals/) > > 5) Since there are several of us in civil society who have worked > within FOSS, on copyright, IP and access to knowledge, since there > are more of us who lived through the SOPA/PIPA discussions and > participated in actions against them and have a strong understanding > of the catastrophic effects of restrictively wielded IP rules, *and* > since the IP-connected sections of the draft NETmundial outcome > document were by far the most-commented sections in that text, *and* > given that many of us in civil society feel that the IP issue in > Internet governance ranks up there with surveillance and net > neutrality as an overarching, immediate threat to online freedom > across the world, the civil society position on this issue was > shockingly inadequate, harmful and just plain bad. > > 6) You *must* therefore find a better process to represent constituent > positions in any joint submission or statement in the future. I came > to NETmundial fully expecting to be disappointed by the official > NETmundial outcome document (as I was), because that's the way things > are. But I did not expect to be even more disappointed by the > pre-negotiation, pre-outcome, civil society position statement - and > I was. Deeply. > > 7) I am unmoved by congratulatory statements that this meeting was > "not so bad" and a "good start" or whatever: there were far too few > of us who participated in protest actions at the meeting, and civil > society was more anodyne than called for. (On a related note: the > surveillance protests with Snowden masks were on the cover of every > single Brazilian newspaper the next day). I'm relatively new to > Internet governance, but not to activism around issues connected to > the Internet. As an activist, I understand my role as having to be > better prepared, more informed, more forceful, more sharp, more > clever and more ingenious than anything governments and business can > come up with, given that I command none of the vast resources of > money and power they have. I'd urge this group to seriously consider > complementing its more thoughtful interventions with dramatic, > unreasonable action if it wants to not only get a seat at the table > but actually be *heard*. > > All those distinguished master's degrees we've painstakingly > accumulated won't be diminished by being a little cheeky :) > > Good wishes, > Achal > > > > On 30 April 2014 00:50, Mishi Choudhary > wrote: > > > Thanks Jeremy, > > > > I had missed out on this traffic to understand how this all worked > > but I would still like thorough discussions on this issue for > > future if others agree. > > > > > > On 04/29/2014 07:20 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > > > On 29 Apr 2014, at 5:35 pm, Anriette Esterhuysen > > wrote: > > > > The deadlock was broken by us using text that was suggested, or > > proposed by Jeremy Malcolm on the second day. I can't remember > > exactly what Jeremy had said, but is input implied that some > > protection for authors would be acceptable. > > > > > > I lost my verbatim note of what I said due to a crash, but from > > Pranesh's log of the transcript (at > > https://prakash.im/text-netmundial-day1.html) here it is as > > delivered: > > > > THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. MY NAME IS JEREMY---- ON AN ENABLING > > ENVIRONMENT FOR INNOVATION AND CREATIVITY, WHICH AS YOUR CO-CHAIR > > NOTED GENERATED THE MOST COMMENTS OF ANY PARAGRAPH. DUE TO THE > > MISCONCEPTION THAT REFERENCE TO PERMISSIONLESS INNOVATION WAS ABOUT > > THE USE OF CREATIVE CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION. > > NOW VORRING'S WHEN WE THINK OF INNOVATION, APART FROM SCIENTISTS, > > WE THINK OF ARTISTS AND PERMISSIONLESS INNOVATION IS SOMETHING THAT > > SHOULD BE A FAMILIAR CONCEPT TO ARTISTS BECAUSE THERE IS NO > > PERMISSION REQUIRED TO WRITE A SONG OR A PLAY OR A NOVEL. YOU JUST > > DO IT. AND INNOVATION ON THE INTERNET SHOULD WORK THE SAME WAY. NOW > > INNOVATION IS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO THE RULE OF LAW. THAT GOES WITHOUT > > SAYING. I DON'T, THEREFORE, THINK IT'S NECESSARY TO SPELL OUT ALL > > THE LEGAL LIMITS TO INNOVATION THAT MAY EXIST, OF WHICH > > INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE JUST ONE. THOUGH IF WE WERE TO ADD > > THE WORDS "CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER PRINCIPLES IN THIS DOCUMENT," > > I DON'T SEE WHAT HARM THAT COULD DO. THAT DOES, HOWEVER, RAISE THE > > SECONDARY POINT OF WHETHER IP RIGHTS SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE LIST OF > > HUMAN RIGHTS, AS SOME HAVE CONTENDED. AGAIN, I DON'T SEE HOW THAT > > IS NECESSARY BECAUSE THE LIST OF RIGHTS IS ALREADY EXPLICITLY > > NONEXCLUSIVE, AND NOTHING THAT WE AGREE AT NETmundial CAN DETRACT > > FROM WHAT'S ALREADY IN THE UDHR. SO I WOULD OPPOSE ADDING A POINT > > ON IP, BUT IF ONE WAS ADDED NEVERTHELESS IT WOULD, AT THE VERY > > LEAST, BE NECESSARY TO QUALIFY IT TO REFLECT THE NEED TO BALANCE > > PRIVATE IP RIGHTS WITH THE BROADER PUBLIC INTEREST. INDEED, > > PARAGRAPH 27 OF THE UDHR ITSELF BALANCES IP RIGHTS WITH THE RIGHT > > TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CULTURAL LIFE OF THE COMMUNITY, SO WE SHOULD > > MENTION THAT, ALONG WITH THE RIGHTS TO EDUCATION, FREEDOM OF > > EXPRESSION AND INFORMATION, AND THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY. I CAN SEND > > SOME PARTICULAR TEXT SUGGESTIONS, BUT WE -- WE DO -- AS A -- AS A > > STARTING POINT, WE OPPOSE THE ADDITION OF A RIGHT TO IP. SO IN > > CONCLUSION, WE DO SUPPORT THE RETENTION OF PERMISSIONLESS > > INNOVATION, AND WE BELIEVE THAT MINIMAL, IF ANY, CHANGES ARE > > NECESSARY TO CLARIFY THAT THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO OVERRIDE > > INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS -- [TIMER SOUNDS ] > > -- THANK YOU. > > > > So, in the end, this text was not too bad. And we managed to keep > > 'permissionless innovation' in another part of the document. The > > BAD news is that the text on internet intermediary liability which > > was only finalised after the high level committee meeting is the > > same OECD text which civil society opposed in 2011. France and the > > US were insisted it be included. It is text that links intermediary > > liability to economic growth and that opens the doors to > > intermediaries being made responsible for enforcing copyright. For > > me that was a huge, huge blow. > > > > I am not in a position to respond to your other questions as I was > > not involved in finalising the civil society inputs. > > > > > > There was no plan to produce a text, consensus or otherwise, out > > of the pre-meeting. This was something that happened spontaneously > > because some of the organisers decided to do it. They did a good > > job, but one of the things that was lost was context - such as > > degrees of consensus around particular text (there was not a > > consensus on everything) and whether some text is a "last resort" > > position, etc. Part of the context that was lost for the IP text > > was that it was a "last resort" for how we could balance out the IP > > language if it was included by industry. So it is correct of you > > (Achal) to say that this proposing protection of IP rights is not a > > civil society position. I considered the text from the pre-meeting > > as more of a rough roadmap or guide for our interventions, rather > > than as an agreed text. Similarly the closing statement, which > > also happened spontaneously, cannot be considered as representing a > > civil society consensus. > > > > -- > > Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com > > Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see > > http://jere.my/l/pgp. > > > > > > > > -- > > Warm Regards > > Mishi Choudhary, Esq. > > Legal Director > > Software Freedom Law Center > > 1995 Broadway Floor 17 > > New York, NY-10023 > > (tel) 212-461-1912 > > (fax) 212-580-0898www.softwarefreedom.org > > > > > > Executive Director SFLC.IN > > K-9, Second Floor > > Jangpura Extn. > > New Delhi-110014 > > (tel) +91-11-43587126 > > (fax) +91-11-24323530www.sflc.in > > > > From anriette at apc.org Wed Apr 30 07:27:41 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 13:27:41 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] APC Chris Nicol FLOSS Prize: Please spread and apply! Message-ID: <5360DE2D.6050608@apc.org> Apologies for repeat and cross posts. Anriette ------------- MONTREAL, Canada, Mar 26 *Deadline has been extended to 5 May.* The APC Chris Nicol FLOSS Prize recognises initiatives that are making it easy for people to start using free/libre and open source software (FLOSS). The prize will be awarded to a person or group doing extraordinary work to make FLOSS accessible to ordinary computer users. The APC FLOSS Prize has been established to honour Chris Nicol, a longtime FLOSS advocate and activist who for many years worked with APC. Extraordinary initiatives that promote FLOSS are those that: * Improve the accessibility to, knowledge of and/or usability of FLOSS * Are user-oriented * Are documented so that others can learn from and replicate the model * Have demonstrable impact and have increased the number of people using FLOSS on a day-to-day basis. The successful initiative will be awarded a cash prize of USD 4,000 at a reception event in Barcelona, Spain on 6 June 2014. In addition to the global prize, APC will also be recognising exceptional work in FLOSS promotion with a USD 1,500 award to an individual or organisation from within its network. The prize is open to any person or group anywhere in the world who supports or promotes user-oriented free and open source software. The application form must be completed in either English or Spanish; however, there are no language restrictions regarding the language of the project. Small-scale activities are encouraged to apply. *Nominations for the prize will be collected until 5 May 2014 at midnight UTC.* *About Chris Nicol* Chris Nicol, an Australian educator and activist who made Barcelona his home in the early 1980s, was a member of the APC community from the mid-1990s until his untimely death on 29 August 2005. Chris believed that computers and the internet should be used for making the world a better place and that FLOSS was a way in which the communications for social change movement could integrate sustainable and alternative choices in its use and development of tools and technology. flossprize.apc.org *About the Association For Progressive Communications (APC)* The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) is an international network and non-profit organisation founded in 1990 that wants everyone to have access to a free and open internet to improve lives and create a more just world. apc.org *Media contact* Mallory Knodel Montreal +1514-573-6340 mallory at apc.org (END/2014) -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Apr 30 07:31:52 2014 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 20:31:52 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 outcome text open for endorsement In-Reply-To: <7F5E3A1C-BC6D-4943-9484-92E3AE91A50C@Malcolm.id.au> References: <72FFE465-05FF-43A3-8737-B98FED084065@Malcolm.id.au> <7F5E3A1C-BC6D-4943-9484-92E3AE91A50C@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: On Apr 25, 2014, at 7:24 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > I haven't endorsed it either for the same reason. > Would have been nice to know who Niels was speaking for -- gave the impression of civil society broadly. Who asked for the opportunity to speak and who did they say they represented? Adam > -- > Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp. > > > On 25 Apr 2014, at 7:20 am, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > >> I think this is much too negative and fails to reflect the amount of positive agenda and genuinely good things that came out of the whole process. I can’t support this statement >> >> Andrew Puddephatt >> Global Partners Digital >> Andrew at gp-digital.org >> Tel mobile +44 (0)771 339 9597 >> Tel office +44 (0)207 549 0350 >> >> >> From: Jeremy Malcolm >> Reply-To: Jeremy Malcolm >> Date: Friday, 25 April 2014 01:44 >> To: "" >> Subject: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 outcome text open for endorsement >> >> The following initial response to the NETmundial 2014 outcome text was agreed in the room at NETmundial by about 25 civil society representatives and was read out in the session by Niels ten Oever from Article 19. If you are in agreement, please endorse and share: >> >> http://bestbits.net/netmundial-response >> >> This need not prevent the development of a more substantive civil society response later. >> >> -- >> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com >> Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp. >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Wed Apr 30 07:43:22 2014 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 12:43:22 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 outcome text open for endorsement In-Reply-To: References: <72FFE465-05FF-43A3-8737-B98FED084065@Malcolm.id.au> <7F5E3A1C-BC6D-4943-9484-92E3AE91A50C@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: +1 if it will make a difference. Cheers! - From non-political individual ;) On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > > > > On Apr 25, 2014, at 7:24 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > > I haven't endorsed it either for the same reason. > > > > > Would have been nice to know who Niels was speaking for -- gave the > impression of civil society broadly. Who asked for the opportunity to > speak and who did they say they represented? > > Adam > > > > > -- > > Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com > > Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see > http://jere.my/l/pgp. > > > > > > On 25 Apr 2014, at 7:20 am, Andrew Puddephatt > wrote: > > > >> I think this is much too negative and fails to reflect the amount of > positive agenda and genuinely good things that came out of the whole > process. I can’t support this statement > >> > >> Andrew Puddephatt > >> Global Partners Digital > >> Andrew at gp-digital.org > >> Tel mobile +44 (0)771 339 9597 > >> Tel office +44 (0)207 549 0350 > >> > >> > >> From: Jeremy Malcolm > >> Reply-To: Jeremy Malcolm > >> Date: Friday, 25 April 2014 01:44 > >> To: "" > >> Subject: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 outcome > text open for endorsement > >> > >> The following initial response to the NETmundial 2014 outcome text was > agreed in the room at NETmundial by about 25 civil society representatives > and was read out in the session by Niels ten Oever from Article 19. If you > are in agreement, please endorse and share: > >> > >> http://bestbits.net/netmundial-response > >> > >> This need not prevent the development of a more substantive civil > society response later. > >> > >> -- > >> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com > >> Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see > http://jere.my/l/pgp. > >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * The key to understanding is humility - my view ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From genekimmelman at gmail.com Wed Apr 30 08:17:50 2014 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 08:17:50 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 outcome text open for endorsement Message-ID: Some if us are working on an alternative formulation.  It will be made available for sign on. Better late than never. ... I hope Many cso statements during the conference were directly connected to the consensus document formulated on the 21st ,  and presenters described themselves as speaking for a broad set of cs voices. I don't believe the final statements had that broad support.  -------- Original message -------- From: Adam Peake Date: 04/30/2014 7:31 AM (GMT-05:00) To: Jeremy Malcolm Cc: Andrew Puddephatt ,"bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> <" Subject: Re: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 outcome text open for endorsement On Apr 25, 2014, at 7:24 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > I haven't endorsed it either for the same reason. > Would have been nice to know who Niels was speaking for -- gave the impression of civil society broadly.  Who asked for the opportunity to speak and who did they say they represented?    Adam > -- > Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp. > > > On 25 Apr 2014, at 7:20 am, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > >> I think this is much too negative and fails to reflect the amount of positive agenda and genuinely good things that came out of the whole process.  I can’t support this statement >> >> Andrew Puddephatt >> Global Partners Digital >> Andrew at gp-digital.org >> Tel mobile +44 (0)771 339 9597 >> Tel office   +44 (0)207 549 0350 >> >> >> From: Jeremy Malcolm >> Reply-To: Jeremy Malcolm >> Date: Friday, 25 April 2014 01:44 >> To: "" >> Subject: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 outcome text open for endorsement >> >> The following initial response to the NETmundial 2014 outcome text was agreed in the room at NETmundial by about 25 civil society representatives and was read out in the session by Niels ten Oever from Article 19.  If you are in agreement, please endorse and share: >> >> http://bestbits.net/netmundial-response >> >> This need not prevent the development of a more substantive civil society response later. >> >> -- >> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com >> Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp. >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ca at cafonso.ca Wed Apr 30 09:06:52 2014 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 10:06:52 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 outcome text open for endorsement In-Reply-To: References: <72FFE465-05FF-43A3-8737-B98FED084065@Malcolm.id.au> <7F5E3A1C-BC6D-4943-9484-92E3AE91A50C@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <5360F56C.8020002@cafonso.ca> Hi, Niels is from Article 19 -- their Brazilian chapter was involved in the campaign to ask for president Rousseff to veto an article, so it would go back to the Chamber of Deputies and would possibly never be approved. The curious thing (showing complete lack of political tactics) is that they wanted Dilma to announce she would veto the article *during NETmundial*. Can anyone imagine that Dilma, after the brutal political struggle to get MC approved by the Senate just in time for signing at NETmundial, would instead declare she would veto one article and blow up the tremendous political opportunity to sign a worldwide landmark document of principles? Also, Niels should describe more precisely who were signing the declaration. Finally, it is wrong to say (as they did) that net neutrality was not included in the NETmundial document. Unless they cannot understand English, this is the paragraph on it: "UNIFIED AND UNFRAGMENTED SPACE -- Internet should continue to be a globally coherent, interconnected, stable, unfragmented, scalable and accessible network-of-networks, based on a common set of unique identifiers and that allows data packets/information to flow freely end-to-end regardless of the lawful content." Since the term "net neutrality" was causing problems for consensus-building, that was what we (the executive committee) managed to do. It was also recognized that the issue is not simple and merits further discussion, as stated in the Roadmap document. But one cannot say it was not reasonably dealt with in the Principles document. Stephanie Perrin saved the [civil society's] day by following up with a very balanced and positive speech. frt rgds --c.a. On 04/30/2014 08:31 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > > > > On Apr 25, 2014, at 7:24 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> I haven't endorsed it either for the same reason. >> > > > Would have been nice to know who Niels was speaking for -- gave the impression of civil society broadly. Who asked for the opportunity to speak and who did they say they represented? > > Adam > > > >> -- >> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com >> Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp. >> >> >> On 25 Apr 2014, at 7:20 am, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: >> >>> I think this is much too negative and fails to reflect the amount of positive agenda and genuinely good things that came out of the whole process. I can’t support this statement >>> >>> Andrew Puddephatt >>> Global Partners Digital >>> Andrew at gp-digital.org >>> Tel mobile +44 (0)771 339 9597 >>> Tel office +44 (0)207 549 0350 >>> >>> >>> From: Jeremy Malcolm >>> Reply-To: Jeremy Malcolm >>> Date: Friday, 25 April 2014 01:44 >>> To: "" >>> Subject: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 outcome text open for endorsement >>> >>> The following initial response to the NETmundial 2014 outcome text was agreed in the room at NETmundial by about 25 civil society representatives and was read out in the session by Niels ten Oever from Article 19. If you are in agreement, please endorse and share: >>> >>> http://bestbits.net/netmundial-response >>> >>> This need not prevent the development of a more substantive civil society response later. >>> >>> -- >>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com >>> Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp. >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Apr 30 09:32:36 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 09:32:36 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 outcome text open for endorsement In-Reply-To: <5360F56C.8020002@cafonso.ca> References: <72FFE465-05FF-43A3-8737-B98FED084065@Malcolm.id.au> <7F5E3A1C-BC6D-4943-9484-92E3AE91A50C@Malcolm.id.au> <5360F56C.8020002@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Thank you c.a. I deeply agree with you and with your evaluation of the political process. A new statement will be inserted later today at the BB platform that I hope mirrors the sentiment of many of us - who did not feel the statement done by Niels was representative of our understanding of the results of NM. On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Hi, > > Niels is from Article 19 -- their Brazilian chapter was involved in the > campaign to ask for president Rousseff to veto an article, so it would go > back to the Chamber of Deputies and would possibly never be approved. The > curious thing (showing complete lack of political tactics) is that they > wanted Dilma to announce she would veto the article *during NETmundial*. > > Can anyone imagine that Dilma, after the brutal political struggle to get > MC approved by the Senate just in time for signing at NETmundial, would > instead declare she would veto one article and blow up the tremendous > political opportunity to sign a worldwide landmark document of principles? > > Also, Niels should describe more precisely who were signing the > declaration. > > Finally, it is wrong to say (as they did) that net neutrality was not > included in the NETmundial document. Unless they cannot understand English, > this is the paragraph on it: > > "UNIFIED AND UNFRAGMENTED SPACE -- Internet should continue to be a > globally coherent, interconnected, stable, unfragmented, scalable and > accessible network-of-networks, based on a common set of unique identifiers > and that allows data packets/information to flow freely end-to-end > regardless of the lawful content." > > Since the term "net neutrality" was causing problems for > consensus-building, that was what we (the executive committee) managed to > do. It was also recognized that the issue is not simple and merits further > discussion, as stated in the Roadmap document. But one cannot say it was > not reasonably dealt with in the Principles document. > > Stephanie Perrin saved the [civil society's] day by following up with a > very balanced and positive speech. > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > > On 04/30/2014 08:31 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Apr 25, 2014, at 7:24 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> I haven't endorsed it either for the same reason. >>> >>> >> >> Would have been nice to know who Niels was speaking for -- gave the >> impression of civil society broadly. Who asked for the opportunity to >> speak and who did they say they represented? >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> -- >>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com >>> Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see >>> http://jere.my/l/pgp. >>> >>> >>> On 25 Apr 2014, at 7:20 am, Andrew Puddephatt >>> wrote: >>> >>> I think this is much too negative and fails to reflect the amount of >>>> positive agenda and genuinely good things that came out of the whole >>>> process. I can’t support this statement >>>> >>>> Andrew Puddephatt >>>> Global Partners Digital >>>> Andrew at gp-digital.org >>>> Tel mobile +44 (0)771 339 9597 >>>> Tel office +44 (0)207 549 0350 >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Jeremy Malcolm >>>> Reply-To: Jeremy Malcolm >>>> Date: Friday, 25 April 2014 01:44 >>>> To: "" >>>> Subject: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 outcome >>>> text open for endorsement >>>> >>>> The following initial response to the NETmundial 2014 outcome text was >>>> agreed in the room at NETmundial by about 25 civil society representatives >>>> and was read out in the session by Niels ten Oever from Article 19. If you >>>> are in agreement, please endorse and share: >>>> >>>> http://bestbits.net/netmundial-response >>>> >>>> This need not prevent the development of a more substantive civil >>>> society response later. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com >>>> Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see >>>> http://jere.my/l/pgp. >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- *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: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Apr 30 15:14:20 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 15:14:20 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] =?UTF-8?Q?Fwd=3A_NETmundial_=E2=80=93_the_Global_Multi?= =?UTF-8?Q?stakeholder_Meeting_on_the_Future_of_Internet_Governance?= In-Reply-To: <4C9DC620CB79B046B338EB28FB475D0A1B95A4DC@phxmb2.corp.fleishman.com> References: <4C9DC620CB79B046B338EB28FB475D0A1B95A4DC@phxmb2.corp.fleishman.com> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Bushelow, Elizabeth" Date: Apr 30, 2014 3:00 PM Subject: NETmundial – the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance To: "rossini at newamerica.net" Cc: “Internet regulation must ensure freedom of expression, respect for human rights and sovereignty of countries” President Dilma Rousseff Dear Madam: On behalf of the Secretariat for Social Communication of the Presidency of Brazil (SECOM), I thought you might be interested in the important outcome of *NETmundial – the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance *that took place in São Paulo, Brazil last week*.* Photo by Fernando Torres As you may be aware, responsibility for the supervision of the domain-name system will transfer from the United States to an international group in September 2015. The next year and a half is therefore crucial to redrawing the map of global Internet governance. On April 23 and 24, NETmundial provided a forum to discuss new Internet governance principles as well as propose a roadmap for the further evolution of Internet governance. The global multistakeholder meeting brought together influencers from the private sector, civil society, governments, academia and the technology community. In total, 830 participants from 97 countries attended NETmundial in São Paulo, while 33 hubs for remote participation in 30 cities of 23 nations were open during the conference. Here is a link to the final NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement, which is the non-binding outcome of a bottom-up, open, and participatory process involving thousands of people from around the world: http://netmundial.br/netmundial-multistakeholder-statement/ The document includes Internet governance principles such as: human rights and shared values; protection of intermediaries; culture and linguistic diversity; unified and unfragmented space; security, stability and resilience of the Internet; open and distributed architecture; enabling an environment for sustainable innovation and creativity; process principles; and open standards. The Statement also outlines a roadmap for the future evolution of Internet governance, addressing: · Issues that deserve attention of all stakeholders in the future evolution of Internet governance · Issues dealing with institutional improvements · Issues dealing with specific Internet Governance topics · Points to be further discussed beyond NETmundial · The way forward Recognizing that the Internet creates new opportunities and challenges to both societies and governments, the Brazilian stance on Internet governance is enshrined in the recently enacted Brazilian Civil Framework Act on the Internet – Marco Civil da Internet -- , which lays the legal framework to ensure that in Brazil the Internet remains a democratic, multistakeholder space of openness, collaboration and innovation. Click here to access the Marco Civil law (available in Portuguese): https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2011-2014/2014/lei/l12965.htm We have also included below the full transcript of President Dilma Rousseff’s opening speech to the NETmundial conference participants. As the world now comes together to develop the principles and mechanisms that will guide the Internet of the future, Brazil is committed to setting the pace of this discussion. For additional information about Brazil’s leadership with regard to the future of Internet governance, or initiatives of the Brazilian federal government in general, please do not hesitate to get in touch. Thank you. The Secretariat for Social Communication (SECOM) of the Presidency of Brazil ++ [image: header_brazil_govbr.jpg] *TRANSCRIPT OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION* *NETmundial – President Dilma Rousseff's Opening Speech* *Wednesday, April 23, 2014 - 10:00 to 11:30 BRT* *NETmundial - São Paulo, Brazil* Good morning to one and all. I would like to thank those who spoke before me for perfectly pronouncing "good morning" in Portuguese, “Bom Dia”, as voiced by our dear representative from Africa, Nnenna Nwakanma. And by greeting her, I would like to extend my greetings to all women who are currently active on the Web. Both the girls and the guys who are equally active on the Web. Greetings, likewise, to the mayor of Sao Paulo who has so kindly welcomed us. And above all, I would like to, first of all, greet two members of Congress from Brazil. Namely, Mr. Alessandro Molon, representing the House of Representatives, who served as rapporteur of the bill which led up to the passing yesterday of the Internet civil framework, as well as Representative -- rather Senator -- Walter Pinheiro, and through him, I would like to further extend my greetings, likewise, to the Senate rapporteurs who were able to pass this piece of legislation in record time. Senator Vital do Rego, Senator José Perrella, Senator Ricardo Ferraço. Thank you. And to Senator Walter Pinheiro and to Representative Alessandro Molon, I would like to voice my thanks for your efforts in passing the Internet civil framework. Greetings, likewise, to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Wu Hong Bo. Special greetings, likewise, to the inventor of the Internet, Tim Berners-Lee. I would like to greet the Vice-President of Google and a key person in the establishment of the Internet, Mr. Vint Cerf. Greetings, once again, to Mr. Fadi Chehade, who, on October 8th 2013 -- correct, Fadi? -- if I'm not mistaken, met with me in Brasília, on which occasion the seminal idea surfaced of establishing this Internet governance meeting being held here today. So thank you very much to all of you, including cabinet ministers and foreign delegates attending this session today – and may I also use the opportunity to greet all cabinet ministers who have been actively involved in the process that led up to the passing of the Internet governance civil framework, an effort which of course involved all stakeholders and society. Special thanks to Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Figueiredo; to Minister of Justice José Eduardo Cardoso; also to Minister of Communications Paulo Bernardo and Minister of Science and Technology Clélio Campolina Diniz; and may I also greet and thank Senator and Minister of Culture Marta Suplicy and the Brazilian Secretary-General of the President's Office, Gilberto Carvalho. Greetings, likewise, to all attendees, particularly the media professionals, journalists, photographers, cameramen and camerawomen. I would like to say that you are all most welcome to Brazil as attendees to this Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance, the so-called NETmundial (as we call it in Portuguese). At this point in time I would also like to voice my greetings to the organizers; i.e. the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee and the 1net Committee. It gives me great joy to see in this plenary hall representatives of all the different sectors somehow involved in Internet governance. In this hall today we have civil society, academia, the technical community, businesses and governments at large all represented. This healthy diversity -- and I stress it is a healthy diversity -- is also a hallmark of those groups that have joined us through the Internet, and I would like to use the opportunity to establish a dialogue on the issues and the purposes that bring us together in Sao Paulo today. Back in mid-2013, revelations of comprehensive mechanisms for mass spying and surveillance of communications caused anger and repudiation in vast circles of public opinion, both in Brazil and in the world at large. In Brazil, citizens, companies, diplomatic representations and even the presidency of the republic itself were targeted, and their communications intercepted. These events are not acceptable, were not acceptable in the past and remain unacceptable today, in that they are an affront against the very nature of the Internet as a democratic, free, and pluralistic platform. The Internet we want is only possible in a scenario where human rights are respected, particularly the right to privacy and to one's freedom of expression. Accordingly, in my address to the 68th General Assembly of the United Nations I put forth a proposal to tackle such practices. I then proposed a discussion on establishing a global civil framework for Internet governance and use, as well as measures to ensure actual protection of the data that travels through the Internet. Also, working together with German chancellor Angela Merkel, we submitted to the United Nations a draft resolution on the right to privacy in the digital age. The resolution was passed by consensus, as proposed, and we also passed a call for States to discontinue any arbitrary or illegal collection of personal data and to enforce users' rights to privacy. I must stress the fact that the same rights that people are entitled to offline should be likewise protected online. This meeting today, the NETmundial, provides further momentum to that effort. It also responds to a global yearning for changes in the current scenario, for ongoing, consistent strengthening of freedom of expression on the Internet and for efforts that ultimately protect basic human rights such as one's right to privacy. That is also, without a shadow of a doubt, the case of one's right to having web-based discussions treated in a respectful manner to ensure its democratic and open nature. We have all, therefore, come to Sao Paulo with a shared purpose: that of enhancing and democratizing Internet governance by building consensus, consensus around principles and around a roadmap to be developed for its future evolution. A point I'd like to make plain and clear is that the idea here is not, of course, to replace the countless fora out there that already address the topic or the matter at hand today. The idea, rather, is to lend new momentum and a much needed sense of urgency to the ongoing discussion. We, therefore, work from two premises or key assumptions. The first such premise is that we all want to protect the Internet as a democratic space, available to use by all, as a shared asset, as a true heritage of humankind. More than simply a work tool and way beyond its well-known contribution for economic growth (provided, of course, that it be increasingly inclusive), the Internet has enabled the constant reinvention of the way people and institutions interact, produce culture and organize, even politically. An open and decent network architecture favors greater access to knowledge. It helps make communications more democratic and also fosters constant innovation. These basic features are the features that we want, and that should be preserved under any circumstances and in any scenario in order to ultimately guarantee the future of the Internet and thus leverage its transformative effects for and in societies. The second premise is the desire we all share to incorporate an increasingly broader audience into this process. Our commitment to an open and inclusive debate has guided the efforts to organize this meeting in Sao Paulo today. All related sectors have taken part in its preparation and are duly represented in this plenary hall today. We are talking about thousands of participants from all over the world who are joined together by virtual connections in several different points of the planet. The topics to be discussed have been the subject of broad and prior international public consultation, and have received inputs from players or stakeholders located in several different countries and in different geographies. These proposals or inputs, in turn, have served as the foundation to develop a draft document, the draft document to be discussed and further enhanced here in the next few days. I would like to congratulate The Executive Multisectoral Committee as well as the High-level Multisectoral Committee for this joint effort. The interest of Brazilians in the Internet was reflected on the substantial participation by Brazilian nationals in the participa.br public consultation platform. At this point in time, civil society is organized in this forum under the so-called NETmundial Arena, which is the Brazilian locus for access to today's sessions. I would like to express to all ladies and gentlemen and to all friends attending this session, that Brazil advocates that Internet governance should be multisectoral, multilateral, democratic and transparent in nature. It is our view that the multisectoral model is the best way to exercise Internet governance. Very much in accordance with that view, our local governance system, which has been in operation for 20 years, has relied on actual participation of representatives from civil society, members of academia, the business community, and the government at large at the Internet management committee. Fully in line with what I just said, I also attach a great deal of importance to the multilateral perspective, according to which government participation should occur on an equal footing among governments in such a way as to ensure that no one country will have or bear greater weight vis-a-vis other countries. Our advocacy of the multilateral model is the natural consequence of an elementary principle that should govern today's international relations, one enshrined in the Brazilian Federal Constitution: I'm talking about equality among States. We, therefore, see no opposition whatsoever between multilateralism and multisectoralism. In fact, the opposite of that, a unilateral Internet, is what we deem untenable. An Internet that is ultimately subject to intergovernmental arrangements to the exclusion of other sectors of society is not a democratic Internet. Multisectoral arrangements that are, in turn, subject to oversight by one or few states are not acceptable either. We truly want to make the relations between governments and societies, as well those between governments, more democratic. We want more democracy, not less. The task of affording a global nature to the organizations currently responsible for the core functions of the Internet is not only a necessary task, but also an unpostponable one. The complexity of the transition at hand - which involves jurisdictional competence, accountability and agreements with multiple stakeholders - does not, nevertheless, make it less urgent a task. That is why I'd like to again welcome the intention recently voiced by the United States government to replace its institutional links with the Internet Authority for Number Assignment (IANA) and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, ICANN, with a global management model for these institutions. From now onwards, a new instrumental and legal arrangement of the Domain Name System, today under the responsibility of IANA and ICANN, must be built with broad-ranging involvement of all sectors that have an interest in the matter, way beyond the traditional stakeholders or players traditionally involved. Each sector, of course, performs different roles based on likewise differentiated responsibilities. The operational management of the Internet should continue to be led by its technical community. I’d like to, at this point, voice my public recognition -- on behalf of my government -- to these people who devote their time and energy on a day-to-day basis to keeping the Internet as an open, stable, and secure platform, a key effort which remains largely invisible in the eyes of most of us end users. Matters pertaining to sovereignty, such as cybercrime, breach of rights, economic issues or transnational economic issues and threats of cyber­attacks are the primary responsibility of States. The task at hand is, above all, to ensure that States will have at their avail the tools that will allow them to fulfill their responsibilities before their citizens, including the guarantee of fundamental rights. Rights which are ensured offline should be equally ensured online. These rights thrive under the shelter (and not in the absence) of the State. In order for global Internet governance to be truly democratic, mechanisms are required to enable greater participation of developing countries in all different sectors. The matters that are in the interest of these countries (which are heavy users of the Internet), such as expanding connectivity, accessibility, and ensuring respect to diversity, should be central on the international agenda. It is not enough for fora to be open from a purely formal standpoint. We must further identify and remove the visible and invisible barriers to actual participation of the entire population of every country in the Internet, or else we would be ultimately restricting or limiting the democratic role and the social and cultural reach of the Internet. The effort at hand further requires that the Internet Governance Forum be further strengthened as a dialogue forum capable of producing results and recommendations. It also requires a comprehensive, broad-ranging 10-year review of the World Summit on Information Society, as well as a deeper discussion on ethics and privacy at the UNESCO level. Given the above, I would like to say that we strongly believe that the cyber­space -- and I'm sure that belief is shared by all of you -- should be the territory of trust, human rights, citizenship, collaboration, and peace. To achieve these objectives, we must agree on basic principles that will ultimately guide Internet governance. As regards privacy, the resolution passed by the United Nations organization was an important step in the right direction, but we still have much progress to make. Any data collection or treatment should only be carried out with full agreement of the parties involved or as legally provided for. However, the discussion on principles is much more comprehensive. It must -- and I stress it *must* -- include universal Internet access, which is absolutely key for the Web to serve as a tool for human and social development that can ultimately help build inclusive, nondiscriminatory societies. It should also include freedom of expression and net neutrality as sine qua non conditions. Brazil has its contributions to make, following a broad-ranging domestic discussion process that has ultimately led to the passing of the Internet Civil Framework Act enacted yesterday by Congress, which I had the honor of sanctioning just a few minutes ago. The law - ­and may I quote Sir Tim Berners-Lee who viewed it “as a gift to the web for its 25th Anniversary” - clearly shows the feasibility and success of open multisectoral discussions and of the innovative use of the Internet to discuss its own nature, as a tool and an interactive discussion platform. I think it is fair to say that the process that led up to the Civil Framework Act, as it currently stands, has been even further appreciated given the process that preceded the efforts to establish it as such. Our civil framework establishes principles, guarantees and user rights, clearly assigning duties and responsibilities to the different stakeholders and government agencies acting on an online environment. And equally important, it enshrines net neutrality as a key principle, a major gain which we were able to materialize as a consensus in the process. It enshrines net neutrality by establishing that telecommunications companies must treat any data packages equally, without any distinction whatsoever of content, origin, destination, terminal or application. Furthermore, companies may not block, monitor, filter or analyze the content of data packages. The Civil Framework protects citizens' privacy, not only in the relations with the governments but also in relations with the Internet companies. Communications are by definition non-violable, except by specific court order to that effect. The recently passed law further contains clear rules governing the removal of content from the Internet, always ensuring it may only happen with a court order. The civil framework is an example of the fact that the Internet’s development cannot do without a discussion process and the involvement of national States. As such, it stands as an innovative benchmark milestone because the voices of the streets, of the networks and of different institutions were all heard in its conception. For all of the above, it is our firm conviction that on a network, each node matters. The large nodes, such as the megaportals to which a substantial amount of world traffic converges, and the small nodes are equally important. At this time, I would like to bring to the fore a key fundamental issue. Our country has taken a major step forward by guaranteeing a steady stream of income and ensuring inclusion to a substantial share of our population. Income and Internet access are equally important. Ensuring we have a place in society where citizens have their own views and are able to freely voice their views is equally important. Hence the invaluable degree of importance we attach to the Internet in our society. We also have yet another major asset. I'm talking about Brazil's ethnic, cultural, political, and religious diversity. It is our duty to not only respect but also to promote and foster our diversity. We do not wish to impose beliefs, customs, values or political views on anyone. And I want to once again highlight the thousands of users that multiply on a day-to-day basis, not only here but in all the developing countries, in the outskirts of large urban centers and also in traditional communities out there. All of these new users enrich the Internet with new alternative ideas and accounts of the world, with new world visions. These people make the Internet a stronger and more universal platform. And it is on their behalf, and because of them, that I would like to again voice my gratitude to all of you for attending this meeting in Sao Paulo. For us, the Internet is a modern-day pro-emancipation, pro-­transformation tool that changes society. Sweeping changes are introduced through the Internet. You are all most welcome. And I hope you will all come back for the World Cup, to the Cup of all Cups. If not, make sure you watch it through the Internet. Thank you very much again. *Source: *SECOM *** *About SECOM* The Secretariat for Social Communication (SECOM) of the Presidency of Brazil is responsible for coordinating the public relations activities for the government of Brazil. The official website of the Brazilian State is: www.brasil.gov.br. The official social media accounts for SECOM International are on Facebook and Twitter at http://www.facebook.com/BrazilGovNews and twitter.com/BrazilGovNews. For further inquiries, please contact: *Elizabeth Bushelow* *FleishmanHillard* *+1-212-453-2203 <%2B1-212-453-2203>* *elizabeth.bushelow at fleishman.com* *This material is distributed by Fleishman-Hillard Inc. on behalf of the Secretariat for Social Communication (SECOM) of the Presidency of Brazil. Additional information about FleishmanHillard’s work for SECOM is available at the Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2208 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 28338 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2003 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 4699 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2499 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Apr 30 15:44:32 2014 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 05:44:32 +1000 Subject: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 outcome text open for endorsement In-Reply-To: References: <72FFE465-05FF-43A3-8737-B98FED084065@Malcolm.id.au> <7F5E3A1C-BC6D-4943-9484-92E3AE91A50C@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <1730D2C6C18F478D82ECB2944949E780@Toshiba> The Niels statement was drawn up quickly by a group of about 30 of us sitting in the CS quarters of the conference hall after the changed text was leaked showing the last minute changes after the text left the two drafting committees. Some of us would have gone further. Some were considering a walk out. The text was probably indicative of a more balanced approach given the mood at the time. With a bit of distance from the disappointment at those changes, perhaps many feel differently. But it was an honest attempt to capture the mood at the time and I am personally glad civil society said something rather than nothing. But with a bit of distance from the event perhaps many of us have other thoughts. Ian Peter -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 9:31 PM To: Jeremy Malcolm Cc: Andrew Puddephatt ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> < Subject: Re: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 outcome text open for endorsement On Apr 25, 2014, at 7:24 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > I haven't endorsed it either for the same reason. > Would have been nice to know who Niels was speaking for -- gave the impression of civil society broadly. Who asked for the opportunity to speak and who did they say they represented? Adam > -- > Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see > http://jere.my/l/pgp. > > > On 25 Apr 2014, at 7:20 am, Andrew Puddephatt > wrote: > >> I think this is much too negative and fails to reflect the amount of >> positive agenda and genuinely good things that came out of the whole >> process. I can’t support this statement >> >> Andrew Puddephatt >> Global Partners Digital >> Andrew at gp-digital.org >> Tel mobile +44 (0)771 339 9597 >> Tel office +44 (0)207 549 0350 >> >> >> From: Jeremy Malcolm >> Reply-To: Jeremy Malcolm >> Date: Friday, 25 April 2014 01:44 >> To: "" >> Subject: [bestbits] Civil society response to NETmundial 2014 outcome >> text open for endorsement >> >> The following initial response to the NETmundial 2014 outcome text was >> agreed in the room at NETmundial by about 25 civil society >> representatives and was read out in the session by Niels ten Oever from >> Article 19. If you are in agreement, please endorse and share: >> >> http://bestbits.net/netmundial-response >> >> This need not prevent the development of a more substantive civil society >> response later. >> >> -- >> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com >> Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, see >> http://jere.my/l/pgp. >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From anriette at apc.org Wed Apr 30 15:51:05 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 21:51:05 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] APC's response to NETmundial 2014 In-Reply-To: <1730D2C6C18F478D82ECB2944949E780@Toshiba> References: <72FFE465-05FF-43A3-8737-B98FED084065@Malcolm.id.au> <7F5E3A1C-BC6D-4943-9484-92E3AE91A50C@Malcolm.id.au> <1730D2C6C18F478D82ECB2944949E780@Toshiba> Message-ID: <53615429.4030305@apc.org> Dear all Response from the Association for Communications on the outcome of NETMUndial 2014. Anriette http://www.apc.org/en/node/19224/ By (APC) Johannesburg, April 2014 NETmundial was a remarkable and historic event. To give it its due and build on it going forward, it is necessary to acknowledge its achievements as well as its flaws. *Affirming the “publicness” of the internet: Gains and gaps* The NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement represents substantial progress towards public interest-driven internet governance. It recognises the internet as a common resource that should be managed in the public interest. “Public good”, or Neelie Kroes’ term , “global, common, public resource”, would have been preferable, but this is nevertheless a powerful step towards protecting the “publicness” of the internet. Linked to this is affirmation of the value of openness and interoperability, of “permissionless innovation”, and the need to support public access to the internet (one of APC’s priorities). It is disappointing, however, that protection for intermediaries from liability was mentioned not as a precondition of protecting rights such as free expression and association, but as linked to “economic growth, innovation, creativity and free flow of information”. There can be little doubt that this text expresses the interest of the entertainment industry. APC believes this framing opens the door to requiring internet intermediaries to enforce intellectual property rights in ways that interfere with rights to free expression and access to knowledge. Consensus was not reached on network neutrality, or the principle of free flow of information, and non-discriminatory flow of data packets across the network. This was ironic, as this principle was enshrined in the Brazilian Marco Civil da Internet (Civil Rights Framework for the Internet), enacted by President Dilma Rousseff during the opening of NETMundial. While not discounting the commercial interests at stake in avoiding inclusion of network neutrality as a principle, its discussion is also complicated by different definitions of what the concept means, and of how it applies in various contexts. We applaud that the NETmundial Statement roadmap identifies net neutrality as an area for further discussion and look forward to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) taking this up in the near future. We would have liked to see more reference to development, social justice, the integration of the concerns of people from the developing world, and the role the internet can play to support a more just and sustainable world. Quoting from Nnenna Nwakanma’s inspiring opening speech : “The Internet is fast becoming the dominant means for wealth creation. The ‘Right to Development’ needs to include social justice. It is not enough to do a superficial ‘capacity building’ for a few persons. We are looking at a mechanism that allows for the highest number of persons to be included, the largest number of voices to be heard, the widest extent of talents to access innovation, and the deepest creativity of the human minds to flourish. For these, we need to start considering the Internet as public commons.” *Human rights apply offline and online!* NETmundial identified fundamental human rights as key principles for internet governance and states that governments have specific accountability for upholding and protecting individual human rights on the internet. We applaud this, but believe that the roadmap section of the document needed to consider internet-specific aspects of human rights protection in greater detail ‒ in particular, rights which are needed to ensure free expression and association on the internet such as the right to anonymity and the right to use encryption. *Deepening democracy in multi-stakeholder internet governance* A further breakthrough in the document is recognition that internet governance needs to be democratic as well as multi-stakeholder, and that the former is not necessarily synonymous with the latter. It identified the need for mechanisms that ensure accountability, review and redress in internet governance, as well as for gender balance in discussions and decision making. The NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement builds positively on the Tunis Agenda in its recognition that stakeholder groups do not always have fixed roles, but that these “respective roles and responsibilities of stakeholders should be interpreted in a flexible manner with reference to the issue under discussion.” This paves the way for constructive discussion of the specific roles of stakeholders in different parts of the internet governance ecosystem, with reference to the issue and process under discussion. In other words, rather than talk about whether governments should have a role or not, we can focus on what this role is and where and when it is most needed. *Mass surveillance: The elephant that left the room* Most disappointing is that mass surveillance was not condemned more strongly in the final version of the Statement, with some of the governmental participants insisting at the last minute that the phrase “mass surveillance is fundamentally inconsistent with the right to privacy and the principle of proportionality” be removed from the document. Considering that the event emerged from outrage following Edward Snowden’s revelations, and that mass surveillance was cited as a major concern in inputs received on the draft documents, this issue can best be described as the elephant which started out inside the room, but which was then lifted and carried out ‒ by suitably powerful forces ‒ before the event’s conclusion. The document does state that “mass and arbitrary surveillance undermines trust in the Internet and trust in the Internet governance ecosystem” and cooperation – forced or voluntary – between states and business is addressed by the requirement that the “collection and processing of personal data by state and non-state actors should be conducted in accordance with international human rights law,” but this does not address the protection of individual rights that are violated on an extraterritorial basis. Also included is a renewed call upon states from the 2013 UN General Assembly Resolution for the review of “their procedures, practices and legislation regarding the surveillance of communications, their interception and collection of personal data, including mass surveillance, interception and collection,.with a view to upholding the right to privacy by ensuring the full and effective implementation of all their obligations under international human rights law.” This provides an opening for follow-up action which rights activists should pursue with vigour. *IANA accountability* We are encouraged that the issue of Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) accountability will be an integral part of the discussions on the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) transition. We look forward to the continuation of the process once the terms of the accountability process are published. We rely on the unfolding of a neutral process to review the accountable transition of IANA stewardship with the full participation of all global stakeholders and with due consideration given to the importance of structural separation between policy and operational levels. *What was avoided?* The most striking absence at NETmundial, in spite of several submissions raising this as a concern, is a call to put a stop to the increasing militarisation of the internet. Clearly this is an issue that should be taken up through the IGF process. *NETmundial as a process: Leaps, lessons and let-downs* We want to express our appreciation for the hard work that the organising team put into the NETmundial process, in particular CGI.br and the event chairperson, Virgilio A. F. Almeida, Secretary for Information Technology Policy of the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation of Brazil. NETmundial represents great leaps forward for multi-stakeholder decision making, building on inclusive, multi-stakeholder habits developed during eight editions of the IGF, and providing useful lessons for the future. More time and better planning was needed to integrate inputs – received through an excellent online platform – into the final outcome documents. It would also have been good to use the face-to-face event for more discussion rather than for open-microphone sessions in which most of what had been said online already was repeated. Drafting of the outcome document could also have been done in a more systematic manner, ensuring that people with the necessary area knowledge were available to the chairs of the two drafting groups (Principles and Roadmap). The let-down was that at the end, when the pre-final text was being presented to the High Level Multistakeholder Committee, the process suddenly felt quite familiar, as, at the last minute, a few governments insisted on changes to the text, demanding either deletions or modifications to statements that they were not comfortable with. We understand that government representatives are constrained by instructions from their capitals or by existing agreements; but if we are to deepen democracy in global internet governance, we do need to find ways to move beyond these constraints when finalising such a non-binding document, as they serve to limit more balanced stakeholder input and influence. If powerful governments, whose views often coincide with those of some parts of internet industry, can still exercise a veto – even if informally – at the last minute, we have quite a way to go towards fully inclusive and democratic internet governance. Intergovernmental processes are often criticised for producing lower common denominator consensus agreements. Democratic, multi-stakeholder decision-making processes must strive to avoid this. *What next?* There is much to celebrate. A group of very diverse stakeholders worked together to produce a document which has the potential to create a more robust and human rights- and public interest-oriented approach to internet policy and management. The Government of Brazil showed grace, leadership and deep commitment to inclusive processes by being willing to concede on a range of issues, most particularly network neutrality. The question now is: What next? How do we follow through to implement the good in the NETmundial document and how do we strengthen the existing IGF to play a role in this? Surveillance is the obvious place to start, with governments heeding the call to review all collection, processing and surveillance of personal data to ensure that these processes comply with human rights standards, such as the ones stated in the Necessary and Proportionate principles . Promoting awareness of the issues behind the network neutrality debate are also a ripe area for focus, as they provide a valuable entry point into a number of basic challenges in dealing with conflict of interest around private enterprise and promoting the publicness of the internet. And of course we cannot rest until, as the declaration states, we have “universal, equal opportunity, affordable and high quality Internet access”, so that we can all participate more equally in the debate. -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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: From mishi at softwarefreedom.org Wed Apr 30 17:29:55 2014 From: mishi at softwarefreedom.org (Mishi Choudhary) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 17:29:55 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] What is civil society's position on copyright in Internet governance? In-Reply-To: References: <535F7267.70207@apc.org> <535FFB7F.20901@softwarefreedom.org> Message-ID: <53616B53.1070404@softwarefreedom.org> I also want to understand the background of "Intermediary Liabilities " language and the associated discourse if those involved can shed some light on it. Thanks! On 04/30/2014 03:25 AM, Achal Prabhala wrote: > From my understanding (through Anriette, Jeremy, Mishi and others) > this is what seems to have happened within civil society re: > copyright/IP these last few weeks: > > 1) Civil society went into this hoping to keep copyright and IP "out" > of the language, both civil society language + NETmundial outcome doc > language, as a strategy to avoid the inclusion of "protection" clauses. > > 2) However well-intentioned, I think this was an unwise strategy, > since there had already been so much discussion on the > copyright-IP-connected text in the draft NETmundial outcome doc, > overwhelmingly dominated by rights-holders or their advocates, all in > favour of explicitly protectionist language - which is to say it > seemed inevitable that this would be lobbied strongly. A wiser > strategy, given the run-up to NETmundial, would have been for civil > society to have had a clear pro-sharing, anti- unilateral imposition > of arbitrarily restrictive copyright position to stick to. > > 3) Some text to this effect was suggested by me and others at the > April 22 meeting but was later discarded or lost. The text that was > eventually used to articulate the civil society position discounted > the importance of a stand against restrictive copyright/IP > application, and seemed to have been written with a view to > pre-empting what some saw as the eventual negotiated outcome of > NETmundial. > > 4) Somehow (I say this because I don't understand it, and the few who > participated in the process can't either; I won't assume bad faith, > but I will assume an inadequate understanding of the issues at stake > by some of the civil society people involved in drafting) the civil > society *position* - uninfluenced by negotiation, in effect a > statement of principles, released on April 23, 2014 (one full day > before the NETmundial official outcome doc was negotiated and > released) - contained inexcusable language around copyright, > essentially endorsing a protectionist position on IP, in effect giving > *in* to a negotiation with rights-holders and/or NETmundial *before a > negotiation was even had*. (http://bestbits.net/netmundial-proposals/) > > 5) Since there are several of us in civil society who have worked > within FOSS, on copyright, IP and access to knowledge, since there are > more of us who lived through the SOPA/PIPA discussions and > participated in actions against them and have a strong understanding > of the catastrophic effects of restrictively wielded IP rules, *and* > since the IP-connected sections of the draft NETmundial outcome > document were by far the most-commented sections in that text, *and* > given that many of us in civil society feel that the IP issue in > Internet governance ranks up there with surveillance and net > neutrality as an overarching, immediate threat to online freedom > across the world, the civil society position on this issue was > shockingly inadequate, harmful and just plain bad. > > 6) You *must* therefore find a better process to represent constituent > positions in any joint submission or statement in the future. I came > to NETmundial fully expecting to be disappointed by the official > NETmundial outcome document (as I was), because that's the way things > are. But I did not expect to be even more disappointed by the > pre-negotiation, pre-outcome, civil society position statement - and I > was. Deeply. > > 7) I am unmoved by congratulatory statements that this meeting was > "not so bad" and a "good start" or whatever: there were far too few of > us who participated in protest actions at the meeting, and civil > society was more anodyne than called for. (On a related note: the > surveillance protests with Snowden masks were on the cover of every > single Brazilian newspaper the next day). I'm relatively new to > Internet governance, but not to activism around issues connected to > the Internet. As an activist, I understand my role as having to be > better prepared, more informed, more forceful, more sharp, more clever > and more ingenious than anything governments and business can come up > with, given that I command none of the vast resources of money and > power they have. I'd urge this group to seriously consider > complementing its more thoughtful interventions with dramatic, > unreasonable action if it wants to not only get a seat at the table > but actually be *heard*. > > All those distinguished master's degrees we've painstakingly > accumulated won't be diminished by being a little cheeky :) > > Good wishes, > Achal > > > > On 30 April 2014 00:50, Mishi Choudhary > wrote: > > Thanks Jeremy, > > I had missed out on this traffic to understand how this all worked > but I would still like thorough discussions on this issue for > future if others agree. > > > On 04/29/2014 07:20 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> On 29 Apr 2014, at 5:35 pm, Anriette Esterhuysen >> > wrote: >> >>> The deadlock was broken by us using text that was suggested, or >>> proposed by Jeremy Malcolm on the second day. I can't remember >>> exactly what Jeremy had said, but is input implied that some >>> protection for authors would be acceptable. >> >> I lost my verbatim note of what I said due to a crash, but from >> Pranesh's log of the transcript (at >> https://prakash.im/text-netmundial-day1.html) here it is as >> delivered: >> >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. MY NAME IS JEREMY---- ON AN >> ENABLING ENVIRONMENT FOR INNOVATION AND CREATIVITY, WHICH AS YOUR >> CO-CHAIR NOTED GENERATED THE MOST COMMENTS OF ANY PARAGRAPH. DUE >> TO THE MISCONCEPTION THAT REFERENCE TO PERMISSIONLESS INNOVATION >> WAS ABOUT THE USE OF CREATIVE CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION. >> NOW VORRING'S WHEN WE THINK OF INNOVATION, APART FROM SCIENTISTS, >> WE THINK OF ARTISTS AND PERMISSIONLESS INNOVATION IS SOMETHING >> THAT SHOULD BE A FAMILIAR CONCEPT TO ARTISTS BECAUSE THERE IS NO >> PERMISSION REQUIRED TO WRITE A SONG OR A PLAY OR A NOVEL. YOU >> JUST DO IT. AND INNOVATION ON THE INTERNET SHOULD WORK THE SAME >> WAY. NOW INNOVATION IS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO THE RULE OF LAW. THAT >> GOES WITHOUT SAYING. I DON'T, THEREFORE, THINK IT'S NECESSARY TO >> SPELL OUT ALL THE LEGAL LIMITS TO INNOVATION THAT MAY EXIST, OF >> WHICH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE JUST ONE. THOUGH IF WE >> WERE TO ADD THE WORDS "CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER PRINCIPLES IN >> THIS DOCUMENT," I DON'T SEE WHAT HARM THAT COULD DO. >> THAT DOES, HOWEVER, RAISE THE SECONDARY POINT OF WHETHER IP >> RIGHTS SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE LIST OF HUMAN RIGHTS, AS SOME HAVE >> CONTENDED. >> AGAIN, I DON'T SEE HOW THAT IS NECESSARY BECAUSE THE LIST OF >> RIGHTS IS ALREADY EXPLICITLY NONEXCLUSIVE, AND NOTHING THAT WE >> AGREE AT NETmundial CAN DETRACT FROM WHAT'S ALREADY IN THE UDHR. >> SO I WOULD OPPOSE ADDING A POINT ON IP, BUT IF ONE WAS >> ADDED NEVERTHELESS IT WOULD, AT THE VERY LEAST, BE NECESSARY TO >> QUALIFY IT TO REFLECT THE NEED TO BALANCE PRIVATE IP RIGHTS WITH >> THE BROADER PUBLIC INTEREST. >> INDEED, PARAGRAPH 27 OF THE UDHR ITSELF BALANCES IP RIGHTS WITH >> THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CULTURAL LIFE OF THE COMMUNITY, >> SO WE SHOULD MENTION THAT, ALONG WITH THE RIGHTS TO EDUCATION, >> FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND INFORMATION, AND THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY. >> I CAN SEND SOME PARTICULAR TEXT SUGGESTIONS, BUT WE -- WE DO -- >> AS A -- AS A STARTING POINT, WE OPPOSE THE ADDITION OF A RIGHT TO >> IP. >> SO IN CONCLUSION, WE DO SUPPORT THE RETENTION OF >> PERMISSIONLESS INNOVATION, AND WE BELIEVE THAT MINIMAL, IF >> ANY, CHANGES ARE NECESSARY TO CLARIFY THAT THIS IS NOT INTENDED >> TO OVERRIDE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS -- >> [TIMER SOUNDS ] >> -- THANK YOU. >> >>> So, in the end, this text was not too bad. And we managed to >>> keep 'permissionless innovation' in another part of the >>> document. The BAD news is that the text on internet >>> intermediary liability which was only finalised after the high >>> level committee meeting is the same OECD text which civil >>> society opposed in 2011. France and the US were insisted it be >>> included. It is text that links intermediary liability to >>> economic growth and that opens the doors to intermediaries being >>> made responsible for enforcing copyright. For me that was a >>> huge, huge blow. >>> >>> I am not in a position to respond to your other questions as I >>> was not involved in finalising the civil society inputs. >> >> There was no plan to produce a text, consensus or otherwise, out >> of the pre-meeting. This was something that happened >> spontaneously because some of the organisers decided to do it. >> They did a good job, but one of the things that was lost was >> context - such as degrees of consensus around particular text >> (there was not a consensus on everything) and whether some text >> is a "last resort" position, etc. Part of the context that was >> lost for the IP text was that it was a "last resort" for how we >> could balance out the IP language if it was included by industry. >> So it is correct of you (Achal) to say that this proposing >> protection of IP rights is not a civil society position. I >> considered the text from the pre-meeting as more of a rough >> roadmap or guide for our interventions, rather than as an agreed >> text. Similarly the closing statement, which also happened >> spontaneously, cannot be considered as representing a civil >> society consensus. >> >> -- >> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com >> Internet lawyer, ICT policy 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 encryption at your end. For instructions, >> see http://jere.my/l/pgp. >> > > > -- > Warm Regards > Mishi Choudhary, Esq. > Legal Director > Software Freedom Law Center > 1995 Broadway Floor 17 > New York, NY-10023 > (tel) 212-461-1912 > (fax) 212-580-0898 > www.softwarefreedom.org > > > Executive Director > SFLC.IN > K-9, Second Floor > Jangpura Extn. > New Delhi-110014 > (tel) +91-11-43587126 > (fax) +91-11-24323530 > www.sflc.in > > -- Warm Regards Mishi Choudhary, Esq. Legal Director Software Freedom Law Center 1995 Broadway Floor 17 New York, NY-10023 (tel) 212-461-1912 (fax) 212-580-0898 www.softwarefreedom.org Executive Director SFLC.IN K-9, Second Floor Jangpura Extn. New Delhi-110014 (tel) +91-11-43587126 (fax) +91-11-24323530 www.sflc.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Wed Apr 30 18:19:03 2014 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 00:19:03 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Quick update on WGEC meeting day 1 Message-ID: <536176D7.2020500@acm.org> Hi, Well day one came and went. We reviewed some of the recommendation that had not yet been reviewed, and once again got hung up on the fundamental differences: - Enhanced cooperation is only about governments - Enhanced cooperation is about all stakeholders. - Para 32 says all there is to say about Respective Roles and Responsibilities - Para 32 needs to be revisited to match reality. - WGEC needs to deliver a consensus report - WGEC can come out with a report that reports the varying models - We trust the chair and he can write a chapeau discussing the differences of viewpoint. - we like the chair, but he is just human, we need to write up our own viewpoints. - we should go back to our hotels and write up a brief (several line) opinion of Enhanced Cooperation and Multistakeholderism - we don't need to do this but should continue working on trying to find the item(s) we can reach consensus on. (I expect most groups have been doing the homework just in case there is a quiz) The Sessions are broadcast live. I do not know if there are archived recording, but there probably are - I will check. The CSTD secretariat has come a long way in the short year this WG has been working. From a first meeting where streaming was not possible, to a meeting 11 months later, with streaming and remote participation for absent WG members - not that any did participate as far as I know. Process wise, Observers are allowed to comment but only in a 15 minute slot just before breaks. While we had brief reports on NETmundial, the IGF, ITU activities etc, these were not discussed as there were those who argued that these were not immediately relevant to the work of the WGEC which has its own mandate. The chair concurred. Tomorrow is another day. avri (a cs nominated member of the wgec) From jcurran at istaff.org Wed Apr 30 22:39:59 2014 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 19:39:59 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Quick update on WGEC meeting day 1 In-Reply-To: <536176D7.2020500@acm.org> References: <536176D7.2020500@acm.org> Message-ID: Avri's quick summary likely understates the level of disconnect by some governments with multistakeholder principles (at least from the portion of session I listened in on), as well as her own admirable efforts to still seek common ground and make progress despite these obstacles... :-) FYI, /John On Apr 30, 2014, at 3:19 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Well day one came and went. > > We reviewed some of the recommendation that had not yet been reviewed, > and once again got hung up on the fundamental differences: > > - Enhanced cooperation is only about governments > - Enhanced cooperation is about all stakeholders. > > - Para 32 says all there is to say about Respective Roles and > Responsibilities > - Para 32 needs to be revisited to match reality. > > - WGEC needs to deliver a consensus report > - WGEC can come out with a report that reports the varying models > > - We trust the chair and he can write a chapeau discussing the > differences of viewpoint. > - we like the chair, but he is just human, we need to write up our own > viewpoints. > > - we should go back to our hotels and write up a brief (several line) > opinion of Enhanced Cooperation and Multistakeholderism > - we don't need to do this but should continue working on trying to find > the item(s) we can reach consensus on. > > (I expect most groups have been doing the homework just in case there is > a quiz) > > > The Sessions are broadcast live. I do not know if there are archived > recording, but there probably are - I will check. The CSTD secretariat > has come a long way in the short year this WG has been working. From a > first meeting where streaming was not possible, to a meeting 11 months > later, with streaming and remote participation for absent WG members - > not that any did participate as far as I know. > > Process wise, Observers are allowed to comment but only in a 15 minute > slot just before breaks. > > While we had brief reports on NETmundial, the IGF, ITU activities etc, > these were not discussed as there were those who argued that these were > not immediately relevant to the work of the WGEC which has its own > mandate. The chair concurred. > > Tomorrow is another day. > > avri > > (a cs nominated member of the wgec) > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 Wed Apr 30 23:27:55 2014 From: joy at apc.org (joy) Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 15:27:55 +1200 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Quick update on WGEC meeting day 1 In-Reply-To: <536176D7.2020500@acm.org> References: <536176D7.2020500@acm.org> Message-ID: <5361BF3B.1070008@apc.org> Thanks so much for this update Avri - a very deft summary. I am really sorry I could not attend this meeting of the Working Group. The originally agreed meeting dates for later in May, which I could attend, were changed and the new dates clashed with a long-standing personal commitment in New Zealand, so I have given my apologies. I'm fully supportive of the strong civil society stance you're on record as taking. Joy On 1/05/2014 10:19 a.m., Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Well day one came and went. > > We reviewed some of the recommendation that had not yet been reviewed, > and once again got hung up on the fundamental differences: > > - Enhanced cooperation is only about governments > - Enhanced cooperation is about all stakeholders. > > - Para 32 says all there is to say about Respective Roles and > Responsibilities > - Para 32 needs to be revisited to match reality. > > - WGEC needs to deliver a consensus report > - WGEC can come out with a report that reports the varying models > > - We trust the chair and he can write a chapeau discussing the > differences of viewpoint. > - we like the chair, but he is just human, we need to write up our own > viewpoints. > > - we should go back to our hotels and write up a brief (several line) > opinion of Enhanced Cooperation and Multistakeholderism > - we don't need to do this but should continue working on trying to find > the item(s) we can reach consensus on. > > (I expect most groups have been doing the homework just in case there is > a quiz) > > > The Sessions are broadcast live. I do not know if there are archived > recording, but there probably are - I will check. The CSTD secretariat > has come a long way in the short year this WG has been working. From a > first meeting where streaming was not possible, to a meeting 11 months > later, with streaming and remote participation for absent WG members - > not that any did participate as far as I know. > > Process wise, Observers are allowed to comment but only in a 15 minute > slot just before breaks. > > While we had brief reports on NETmundial, the IGF, ITU activities etc, > these were not discussed as there were those who argued that these were > not immediately relevant to the work of the WGEC which has its own > mandate. The chair concurred. > > Tomorrow is another day. > > avri > > (a cs nominated member of the wgec) > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: joy.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 239 bytes Desc: not available URL: From amedinagomez at gmail.com Wed Apr 2 16:32:02 2014 From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=F3mez?=) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 15:32:02 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] #GigaNet CALL FOR PAPERS 9th Annual Symposium In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Fatima muchas gracias por la información Antonio Medina Gomez Presidente Asociación Colombiana de Usuarios de Internet 2014-04-02 14:42 GMT-05:00 Fatima Cambronero : > [image: Bildschirmfoto 2012-03-12 um 09] > > > > > > CALL FOR PAPERS > > > > 9th Annual Symposium > > 1 September 2014 > > Istanbul, Turkey > > > > Deadline for abstract submissions: April 15 2014 > > > > > > The Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet) is seeking > research submissions about Internet Governance to be presented at its Ninth > Annual Symposium, held on 1 September 2014, one day before the United > Nations Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Istanbul, Turkey. > > > > GigaNet is a scholarly community that promotes the development of Internet > Governance as a recognized, interdisciplinary field of study and > facilitates informed dialogue on policy issues and related matters between > scholars and governments, international organizations, the private sector > and civil society. http://giga-net.org/ > > > > Since 2006, GigaNet has organized an Annual Symposium to showcase research > about Internet Governance, bringing together researchers and practitioners > from a wide range of disciplines and fields. As in previous years, the > symposium will provide room to discuss current and future questions as well > as the challenges encountered and results achieved in global Internet > governance. The 2014 GigaNet Symposium offers researchers a timely > opportunity to present their work on our rapidly changing field. > > > > Conference themes > > > > GigaNet is interested in receiving abstracts related to Internet > Governance themes, especially those containing innovative approaches and/or > emerging research areas. The program committee welcomes all proposals on > topics related to global Internet governance including such themes as: > > > > * The WGEC process and outcomes > > * The WSIS review process and outcomes > > * The mainstreaming and proliferation of "Internet Governance" > > * The institutionalization of internet governance > > * Analysis of the NETmundial meeting > > * Global Trade, Intellectual Property and Internet Governance > > * The ICANN separation roadmap from the NTIA > > > > We will continue to provide a venue for emerging scholars in the field by > offering select panels. Emerging Scholars are those individuals who have > received their Ph.D. within the past three years as well as current > doctoral students working on their approved doctoral research. > > > > Accepted papers from senior scholars will be presented and discussed in a > roundtable format involving business, government and technical community > representatives, while emerging scholars will present their work in a more > traditional academic panel. In both cases, presenters should expect to have > conversations about their work with people from a wide range of stakeholder > groups. > > > > > > Submissions > > Interested scholars should submit abstracts of their research paper at the > Easy Chair platform: > > > > https://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=giganet2014 > > Deadline for abstract submissions: April 15 2014 > > > > Paper proposals should be submitted following these requirements: > > § An abstract of 800-1000 words, in English, that describes the paper's > main research goal(s) and methodology employed > > § A short bio note focused on institutional affiliations, advanced > degrees, scholarly publications and work in the field of Internet > Governance and related issues (for example ICTs). Please include a link to > a more detailed CV. > > § Authors of accepted abstracts must submit their final papers by *15 > July 2014*. Those unable to do so will be removed from the program. > > > > Process and publication > > The Program Committee will evaluate submitted abstracts and inform > proposal authors of acceptance decisions by email before *1 June 2014*. > > > > Accepted submissions and final papers will be published on the GigaNet > website. An online publication with selected papers on the main challenges > of Internet Governance is also planned for the Istanbul IGF. > > > > Registration > > The GigaNet Annual Symposium is free of charge. However, registration will > be required to gain entry to the event venue. Please continue visiting our > website for further information about registration, venue and > accommodation. > > > > If you have any question related to the submission or the symposium > activities, please > > e-mail the Program Committee Chair: j-laprise at northwestern.edu. > > > -- > *Fatima Cambronero* > Abogada-Argentina > > Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 > Twitter: @facambronero > Skype: fatima.cambronero > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: From anriette at apc.org Tue Apr 1 05:31:53 2014 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2014 11:31:53 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] IGF Assessments Call for information In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <533A8789.20407@apc.org> Dear all this is important. Compiled responses would be good if possible. Anriette -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [IGFmaglist] Call for information Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 10:07:12 +0300 From: Janis Karklins To: igfmaglist at intgovforum.org Dear MAG members, As we discussed during the last conference call pls see the call for information concerning the concrete actions and decisions that have been taken as a result of the engagement at the various IGFs. Pls disseminate this call as wide as possible and encourage organization provide a brief account. Thank you JK The Internet Governance Forum was created by the World Summit on the Information Society as a multistakeholder discussion platform on Internet governance related issues. The goals of the IGF are to provide a platform for information exchange, identify emerging challenges and possible solutions to addressing them, provide capacity building, identify and disseminate best practices and forge partnerships for concrete actions. Over the past few years, some critics of the IGF have suggested that no actions have been taken and that no decisions are made at the IGF - that it is just a "talk shop". In order to dissipate those doubts about the "action orientation" of the IGF it would be useful to collect data about concrete actions and decisions that have been taken by different stakeholders as a result of the engagement and discussions of Internet related issues at the various IGFs (international, regional or national). In this respect, I would like to invite all of those organizations and institutions that would be willing to share information, *on a voluntary basis*, about concrete decisions or actions that have been taken as a result of engagement during the current mandate of the IGF the 2011, 2012 and 2013 IGFs to do so by sending brief information to the IGF Secretariat (insert the e-mail address) by 30 June 2014. The Secretariat will compile all information received and will present a synthesized report at the Istanbul IGF. Thank you for your participation Janis Karklins Interim Chair of the MAG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Igfmaglist mailing list Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Wed Apr 2 11:52:28 2014 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 17:52:28 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] REMINDER and CLARIFICATION / NETmundial / European Commission to facilitate a conference call for information sharing Message-ID: [ *Apologies if you receive this message multiple times. Please share with your contacts.* ] Please be reminded of the announcement below; please also note that due to daylight saving time, the correct time-zone for the call is actually CEST (Central European *Summer* Time, UTC +2 hours). To avoid any misunderstanding, just keep in mind that the host of the conference call is based in *Brussels,** Belgium*. +++ http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/netmundial-european-commission-facilitate-conference-call-information-sharing In view of the forthcoming Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (NETMundial, http://www.netmundial.br/) which will take place in Sao Paulo, Brazil, on 23-24 April 2014, the European Commission is organising an open conference call, with the purpose of sharing information among stakeholders. The online meeting will be facilitated by the European Commission, but we do expect stakeholders to actively contribute to the conversation. We kindly ask those who plan to attend the conference call and would like to share their views with other participants, possibly on the basis of their / their organisation's contribution to NETmundial, to *let us know in advance*so that we can allocate a fair number of slots for interventions. Details of the conference call (phone numbers, PIN, and Adobe Connect data) are below: · Date: 8 April 2014 · Time: 11:00 - 13:00 (CEST) · Telephone number: 02 808 1363 (if calling from Belgium - for a list of international number, please see the attached PDF document) · Conference room number: 1327846 · Adobe Connect URL: http://ec-wacs.adobeconnect.com/ag4682/(please note that you do *NOT* need to use Adobe Connect to participate in the teleconference - it's offered as an option) As background information, you might want to go through the contributions which have been submitted to NETmundial. They are available at http://content.netmundial.br/docs/contribs. The European Commission has submitted two contributions, which are available at http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/internet-governance-principles/176and http://content.netmundial.br/contribution/roadmap-for-the-further-evolution-of-the-internet-governance-ecosystem/177. Thanks for your kind attention. We hope you will join us for this discussion. Best regards, -- Andrea Glorioso (Mr) European Commission - DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology Unit D1 (International relations) + Task Force on Internet Policy Development Avenue de Beaulieu 25 (4/64) / B-1049 / Brussels / Belgium T: +32-2-29-97682 M: +32-460-797-682 E: Andrea.Glorioso at ec.europa.eu Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro The views expressed above are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission. Les opinions exprimées ci-dessus n'engagent que leur auteur et ne sauraient en aucun cas être assimilées à une position officielle de la Commission européenne. Be transparent - Sign up to the European Commission's Register of Interest Representatives http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regrin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 20120920_EU-InternationalAccessNumbers-EN.PDF Type: application/pdf Size: 115457 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rishab.bailey at gmail.com Wed Apr 2 13:25:38 2014 From: rishab.bailey at gmail.com (Rishab Bailey) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 22:55:38 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] NetMundial News Message-ID: Hi All, Please find appended below the first of an occasional update from Knowledge Common on the NetMundial meeting coming up in Sao Paolo. Warm Regards, Rishab (for the Society for Knowledge Commons, India) *Welcome to the first edition of NetMundial News from Knowledge Commons!* *********** Knowledge Commons is a consortium of community media, academics and technologists based in India and Brasil. For more information please visit www.knowledgecommons.in and www.kcbrasil.org and follow us on Twitter @KCNetMundial *********** President Dilma Roussef issued a strong call for a global compact on Internet Governance at her speech at the UN General Assembly in September 2013 following revelations about surveillance on various Brasilian institutions by the NSA. The NetMundial meeting to be held 23-24 April in Sao Paolo, will craft new Principles for governing the Internet and a road map for reform of current governance structures. NetMundial represents an important turning point in the debate on democratizing Internet Governance. The NetMundial diplomatic conference will be held at the Hyatt hotel and will negotiate the principles and road map. Several Knowledge Commons delegates have been accepted into the NetMundial and are keen to meet up with other like minded people and organisations! The ArenaNetMundial will be held at the Sao Paolo Cultural Centre starting 22 February and will feature a series of incredible panel events and speakers from around the world. *Stand by for the full program*! Knowledge Commons will be transmitting news and updates from the conference* - let us know if you would like to be on our mailing list by writing to: * info at knowledgecommons.in*. * Knowledge Commons has made two submissions to the meeting - on policy and technical issues - and has summarized all187 submissions from governments, NGOs and companies. Our analysis of the submissions, explained in this infographic, shows that - 31 came from governments (individual and group), 105 civil society, 42 private sector, 3 UN and 6 Multistakeholder - 99 from the North, 64 from the South, 24 from Global - 127 submitted by men, 51 by women, 9 non-gendered - 18 submissions mention gender - 50 out of 187 submissions protest mass surveillance - while almost all mention privacy - 110 out of 187 submissions insist that human rights online - 135 out of 187 submissions acknowledge that the multistakeholder model needs reform and improvement - 145 out of 187 submissions affirm the fact that governments have a role to play in internet governance - 63 out of 187 submissions explicitly support the globalization or internationalization of ICANN & its IANA function - 46 out of 187 submissions explicitly support the strengthening and reform of the Internet Governance Forum Many principles are under discussion in the submissions including: - Drag net surveillance is not legitimate and should be explicitly outlawed - Surveillance must be necessary, targeted, proportionate and with judicial oversight - Clandestine backdoors into software and hardware violate users human rights - We need new limits on information governments and companies collect, store and use - The Internet is a global knowledge commons not a market place or war theatre - The concentration of legal power and internet traffic through one state is dangerous - Competition and consumer law need to apply to online markets in light of monopolies - Fair and transparent cross border regulation and taxation of global internet businesses - Net neutrality must not be compromised - Digital colonialism of dominant cultures and languages online must be addressed. Of the 187 submissions, a full 135 acknowledge problems with the multistakeholder model of Internet governance, with reform urgently needed to: - Untangle the Internet from the laws of one country - ICANN and the NTIA also agree it's time for the US to withdraw from its role as trustee of the Internet. - Make ICANN in its new "globalized" form horizontally and vertically accountable; most suggest but some overtly state (CGI.br) that ICANN is captured by dominant industries - Many submissions describe how the "multistakeholder" model is suffering from: - *Lack of clear standard operating procedures* including transparent decision making and reporting - *Self selection instead of equitable representation* - many submissions note that those who can afford to be present in the myriad of multistakeholder encounters, usually held in the Global North, can participate, which impacts not only resourced challenged NGOs but also developing countries - *Structures that are not complimentary* - but are difficult to navigate with overlapping mandates - *Vague definitions* - "stakeholders" are not easily or simply defined. Different configurations are required in public policy or technical debates. The technical community is both private and part of civil society. Civil society comprises rights advocates, aid workers, philanthropic ventures, librarians and the media. Similarly, governments comprise bureaucrats, regulators, legislators, jurists, military, intelligence, data protection officers, and civil servants. Simplistically bundling all entities as equal has benefited some actors over others. Of the 187 submissions, 145 have acknowledged that governments have a role to play. - While the precise role is the subject of a long-standing, bitter and polarizing debate, President Rousseff's September 2013 speech at the UN General Assembly and many submissions (for instance that of the German government) call for governments to take up their role and responsibility as representatives of populations - While technical standards and protocols must continue to be framed in an institutionalized bottoms up manner, Knowledge Commons believes that certain public policy functions can only be adequately dealt with through governments working together on such issues as: - Legal and enforceable protection of human rights, including privacy - Cyber warfare and cyber attacks - Regularity issues such as cost of access and net neutrality - Common ownership of domain name spaces, including control of CCTLDs by the country concerned, international control, supervision and oversight of IANA functions - Protection and stability of international telecommunications services (the right against disconnection etc.) To further explain and demystify the above issues, Knowledge Commons has prepared a number of papers, including on: - What is wrong with Internet Governance? and - The false dichotomy between Multistakeholder and Multilateral models We encourage you to sign up and participate in the discussion - after all the Internet is our global knowledge commons! Knowledge Commons Team -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fatimacambronero at gmail.com Wed Apr 2 15:42:38 2014 From: fatimacambronero at gmail.com (Fatima Cambronero) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 16:42:38 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] #GigaNet CALL FOR PAPERS 9th Annual Symposium Message-ID: [image: Bildschirmfoto 2012-03-12 um 09] CALL FOR PAPERS 9th Annual Symposium 1 September 2014 Istanbul, Turkey Deadline for abstract submissions: April 15 2014 The Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet) is seeking research submissions about Internet Governance to be presented at its Ninth Annual Symposium, held on 1 September 2014, one day before the United Nations Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Istanbul, Turkey. GigaNet is a scholarly community that promotes the development of Internet Governance as a recognized, interdisciplinary field of study and facilitates informed dialogue on policy issues and related matters between scholars and governments, international organizations, the private sector and civil society. http://giga-net.org/ Since 2006, GigaNet has organized an Annual Symposium to showcase research about Internet Governance, bringing together researchers and practitioners from a wide range of disciplines and fields. As in previous years, the symposium will provide room to discuss current and future questions as well as the challenges encountered and results achieved in global Internet governance. The 2014 GigaNet Symposium offers researchers a timely opportunity to present their work on our rapidly changing field. Conference themes GigaNet is interested in receiving abstracts related to Internet Governance themes, especially those containing innovative approaches and/or emerging research areas. The program committee welcomes all proposals on topics related to global Internet governance including such themes as: * The WGEC process and outcomes * The WSIS review process and outcomes * The mainstreaming and proliferation of "Internet Governance" * The institutionalization of internet governance * Analysis of the NETmundial meeting * Global Trade, Intellectual Property and Internet Governance * The ICANN separation roadmap from the NTIA We will continue to provide a venue for emerging scholars in the field by offering select panels. Emerging Scholars are those individuals who have received their Ph.D. within the past three years as well as current doctoral students working on their approved doctoral research. Accepted papers from senior scholars will be presented and discussed in a roundtable format involving business, government and technical community representatives, while emerging scholars will present their work in a more traditional academic panel. In both cases, presenters should expect to have conversations about their work with people from a wide range of stakeholder groups. Submissions Interested scholars should submit abstracts of their research paper at the Easy Chair platform: https://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=giganet2014 Deadline for abstract submissions: April 15 2014 Paper proposals should be submitted following these requirements: § An abstract of 800-1000 words, in English, that describes the paper's main research goal(s) and methodology employed § A short bio note focused on institutional affiliations, advanced degrees, scholarly publications and work in the field of Internet Governance and related issues (for example ICTs). Please include a link to a more detailed CV. § Authors of accepted abstracts must submit their final papers by *15 July 2014*. Those unable to do so will be removed from the program. Process and publication The Program Committee will evaluate submitted abstracts and inform proposal authors of acceptance decisions by email before *1 June 2014*. Accepted submissions and final papers will be published on the GigaNet website. An online publication with selected papers on the main challenges of Internet Governance is also planned for the Istanbul IGF. Registration The GigaNet Annual Symposium is free of charge. However, registration will be required to gain entry to the event venue. Please continue visiting our website for further information about registration, venue and accommodation. If you have any question related to the submission or the symposium activities, please e-mail the Program Committee Chair: j-laprise at northwestern.edu. -- *Fatima Cambronero* Abogada-Argentina Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 Twitter: @facambronero Skype: fatima.cambronero -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Apr 2 19:11:02 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 16:11:02 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] =?UTF-8?Q?Putting_the_Public=E2=80=99s_Interest_Ba?= =?UTF-8?Q?ck_Into_the_=E2=80=9CPublic_Interest=E2=80=9D?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0c3101cf4ec8$d1e3d9b0$75ab8d10$@gmail.com> Thanks very much for this… and the discussion has very broad relevance to Internet Governance issues as well although I’m not sure how it fits with the “MS model” where the position of many is that if there is a “public interest” at all, it emerges like King Arthur’s sword, mystically out of the concatenation of individual private stakeholder interests. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolina Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 11:07 AM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Subject: [bestbits] Putting the Public’s Interest Back Into the “Public Interest” Putting the Public’s Interest Back Into the “Public Interest” [David Levine] What’s your definition of the “public interest” when it comes to law and lawmaking? Is it a unitary concept, where we consider the good of society as a whole? If so, you might think that the public’s interest is in a “public interest” which encompasses “cross-cutting issues” that transcend narrow considerations and allows debate about and among competing interests. On the other hand, do you view the “public interest” more narrowly? If so, you might view the public’s interest as served by placing “public interest” in a box separate from other interests, like environmental, labor or intellectual property policy. From that perspective, the “public interest” is just another consideration in the panoply of considerations that make up society. Click here for more. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pwilson at apnic.net Wed Apr 2 20:21:14 2014 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 10:21:14 +1000 Subject: [bestbits] New list - now regarding IANA's transition In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <22D67CB5-F71C-4AC4-BF9F-09A21D674177@apnic.net> Also FYI, APNIC has established an open list for our stakeholder community, here: http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer All the best! Paul. On 01/04/2014, at 12:27 PM, Carolina wrote: > Just want to be sure you are aware. > > ianatransition mailing list > ianatransition at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition > > Sent from my iPhone > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From fatimacambronero at gmail.com Thu Apr 3 08:55:27 2014 From: fatimacambronero at gmail.com (Fatima Cambronero) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 09:55:27 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF Assessments Call for information In-Reply-To: <533A8789.20407@apc.org> References: <533A8789.20407@apc.org> Message-ID: *(Sorry for cross posting. It includes a correct email address to send your comments).* *The Internet Governance Forum was created by the World Summit on the Information Society as a multistakeholder discussion platform on Internet governance related issues. The goals of the IGF are to provide a platform for information exchange, identify emerging challenges and possible solutions to addressing them, provide capacity building, identify and disseminate best practices and forge partnerships for concrete actions.* *Over the past few years, some sceptics of the IGF have suggested that no actions have been taken and that no decisions are made at the IGF - that it is just a "talk shop".* *In order to dissipate those doubts about the "action orientation" of the IGF it would be useful to collect data about concrete actions and decisions that have been taken by different stakeholders as a result of the engagement and discussions of Internet related issues at the various IGFs (international, regional or national).* *In this respect, I would like to invite all of those organizations and institutions that would be willing to share information, on a voluntary basis, about concrete decisions or actions that have been taken as a result of engagement during the current mandate of the IGF the 2011, 2012 and 2013 IGFs to do so by sending brief information to the IGF Secretariat (* *discussion_questions at intgovforum.org**) by 30 June 2014. The Secretariat will compile all information received and will present a synthesized report at the Istanbul IGF.* *Thank you for your participation* *Janis Karklins* *Interim Chair of the MAG* 2014-04-01 6:31 GMT-03:00 Anriette Esterhuysen : > Dear all this is important. Compiled responses would be good if possible. > > Anriette > > > > -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [IGFmaglist] Call for > information Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 10:07:12 +0300 From: Janis Karklins > To: > igfmaglist at intgovforum.org > > Dear MAG members, > As we discussed during the last conference call pls see the call for > information concerning the concrete actions and decisions that have been > taken as a result of the engagement at the various IGFs. > Pls disseminate this call as wide as possible and encourage organization > provide a brief account. > Thank you > JK > > > > The Internet Governance Forum was created by the World Summit on the > Information Society as a multistakeholder discussion platform on Internet > governance related issues. The goals of the IGF are to provide a platform > for information exchange, identify emerging challenges and possible > solutions to addressing them, provide capacity building, identify and > disseminate best practices and forge partnerships for concrete actions. > > > > Over the past few years, some critics of the IGF have suggested that no > actions have been taken and that no decisions are made at the IGF - that > it is just a "talk shop". > > > > In order to dissipate those doubts about the "action orientation" of the > IGF it would be useful to collect data about concrete actions and > decisions that have been taken by different stakeholders as a result of the > engagement and discussions of Internet related issues at the various IGFs(international, regional or national). > > > > In this respect, I would like to invite all of those organizations and > institutions that would be willing to share information, *on a voluntary > basis*, about concrete decisions or actions that have been taken as a > result of engagement during the current mandate of the IGF the 2011, 2012 > and 2013 IGFs to do so by sending brief information to the IGFSecretariat (insert the e-mail address) by 30 June 2014. The Secretariat > will compile all information received and will present a synthesized report > at the Istanbul IGF. > > > > Thank you for your participation > > > > Janis Karklins > > Interim Chair of the MAG > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp > > -- *Fatima Cambronero* Abogada-Argentina Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 Twitter: @facambronero Skype: fatima.cambronero -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mars.techno.cat at gmail.com Thu Apr 3 12:11:34 2014 From: mars.techno.cat at gmail.com (Techno CAT) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 11:11:34 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] FirstNet State/Territory Single Points of Contact from NTIA...free from ICANN Message-ID: FirstNet State/Territory Single Points of Contact from NTIA...free from ICANN http://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2014/firstnet-stateterritory-single-points-contact The legacy .COM DNS platform can be used for the transitions. It is a handy place to store old legacy ASCII DNS. Object-Oriented P2P DNS is Dynamic - It can not be taken down. http://TWISTER.net.co provides a "Flavor" for a Proof-of-Concept -- 3DNB - Real Banking for Your VIRTUAL Worlds http://3DNB.COM Login: ZOOM Password: BOX @Techno_CAT_r http://Twitter.com/Techno_CAT_r From mars.techno.cat at gmail.com Thu Apr 3 12:40:42 2014 From: mars.techno.cat at gmail.com (Techno CAT) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 11:40:42 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Letters to ALL 50 USA State Governors Message-ID: Dear Governor _______________: The Internet is in serious trouble. The legacy DOD DARPA Internet was built using a Tin-Can and Kite-String Architecture. Naive academics, computer hackers, idealistic opportunists and cut-throat business people combined to build the early Internet. People refer to this as the Multi-Stakeholder Model, Anyone with some low-cost computers and routers could connect to the edge of the legacy Internet, to add additional nodes and capacity. Unsuspecting consumers have no idea who is processing their packets. Internet Governance of Aritifically Scarce Network Resources emerged. A Cyber TAX system was constructed using Domain Names (DNS). An Internet Society was formed to protect jack-booted thugs who claimed to be Internet Engineers. Some did not not even have a high-school diploma. Vigilantes emerged as Internet self-government took on a life of its own. Socialist - Communist structures are pervasive with psuedo-Governance Officials [Private Citizens] making up the rules, to suit their financial needs. Corruption, kick-backs, black-listing, red-lining, etc. are common. Off-Shore operations in the Cayman Islands, the Caribbean and Switzerland handle the anonymous opaque financial transactions. Major telecom carriers were intentionally excluded from the early Internet. Unsuspecting American consumers, are accustomed to regulated companies, with ethical standards, managing their critical telecom and data facilities. With the Internet Architecture, self-appointed Vigilantes can snoop and spy on individuals and groups. In some cases, they are willing to sell their services to anyone that will pay them. For decades they have demonstrated that their ethical norms are far different from the American telco industry. They pride themselves on being what many people would summarize as Cyber Bullies. The U.S. Government has been a casual party to many of the legacy Internet evolutions. In the early days, the National Science Foundation NSF meddled in network developments, with mixed results. A few major universities and academic personalities did very well, financially, once they figured out how to game the NSF Grant processes. As commerical companies began to migrate to the legacy Internet, the U.S. Government over-sight shifted from the NSF to the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC). A DOC sub-agency named NTIA handled most of the tasks. The NSF continued to meddle with grants but they did not generally impact the Artificial Scarcity Resources managed by the IANA and later ICANN - the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers. Since 1998, ICANN has evolved into a corrupt private companion to the Internet Society (ISOC-IETF). The private ISOC-IETF ICANN-IANA ARIN Eco.System skillfully used the US Government as a shield and enabler for decades. The DNS Cyber Tax system has been used to fund their lavish travel and world-wide outreach programs. They claim credit for developments that were often done to protect Netizens FROM the Socialist-Communist structures of the ISOC-IETF ICANN-IANA ARIN Eco.System. ICANN-IANA and ISOC-IETF have systematically delayed and derailed competion as they have grown their non-profit empire to billions of dollars and million dollar executive compensation packages. The lack of Term-Limits has allowed individuals to become career Internet politicians. Recently, the U.S. Government, via NTIA, has announced their intention to distance themselves from the Legacy ICANN IANA ISOC Internet. The U.S. Congress has directed the NTIA to lead the construction of a new Internet, called FirstNET. Federal funding is being allocated to States that step forward to help. The State of Colorado has landed the Technical Headquarters for FirstNet. The State of Virginia has been selected to handle the FirstNet Administrative Headquarters. FEMA Regions have been suggested for organizing FirstNet. FirstNET does not serve all Netizens. A NEW USA Domestic Internet is still needed. Netizens in the USA need to rely on an Internet they can trust. The State of ______________________ needs to take the lead in the construction of a USA DOMESTIC Internet. One plan calls for FOUR-State Regions, called SuperStates, to act as the major Hubs for the USA Internet. The State of _____________ would be combined with the States of ________________, __________________, ______________. Attached is a map of the SuperStates. Alaska and Hawaii will be handled separately, like terratories such as Puerto Rico. The States of California and Texas are divided into two regions to balance the SuperState Regions. Sixteen SuperStates would form the basic structure for the USA DOMESTIC Internet. Since FirstNet plans to leverage existing network facilities, FirstNET would be one of the first customers for the USA DOMESTIC Internet. By taking a leadership role, at this critical time, you and your State can become part of the critical history of reliable, honest, ethical, telecom and data services in the United States of America. Your next steps would be to meet with your regional partners and begin planning your own destiny. USA Technologists are ready to supply the needed solutions. The Citizens and Netizens of the State of _________________ are also ready to help. Joe Concerned Citizen State of ____________ -- 3DNB - Real Banking for Your VIRTUAL Worlds http://3DNB.COM Login: ZOOM Password: BOX @Techno_CAT_r http://Twitter.com/Techno_CAT_r From mars.techno.cat at gmail.com Thu Apr 3 13:38:17 2014 From: mars.techno.cat at gmail.com (Techno CAT) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 12:38:17 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] .COM owners are not interested in Moving to South Africa or Offshore Message-ID: .COM owners are not interested in Moving to South Africa or Offshore http://countrycode.org/comoros An ICANN "controlled by wackos" (i.e. MultiStakeHolder Groupies) could easily decide, yet another Ridiculous Policy. ... Let's give .COM to "the Right People" of COMoros As in the past, the ISO can be used as a TOOL - a ScapeGoat to handle the details. The MultiStakeHolder Groupies are NOT Responsible or Accountable. Not even the ICANN CEOs are held accountable. .COM owners are not interested in Moving to South Africa or Offshore -- 3DNB - Real Banking for Your VIRTUAL Worlds http://3DNB.COM Login: ZOOM Password: BOX @Techno_CAT_r http://Twitter.com/Techno_CAT_r From joly at punkcast.com Thu Apr 3 16:23:49 2014 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 16:23:49 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] WEBCAST FRI: The Future of Internet Governance Message-ID: The beat goes on! Another chance to hear Larry and Fadi explain the Fadi plan, but this time with McDowell and Sepulveda. McDowell, it should be remembered was the first U.S. official to raise the alarmover WCIT. joly posted: "On Friday April 4 2014 at 11am EDT the Hudson Institute will host a discussion The Future of Internet Governance in Washington DC. The topic will be the IANA transition. Speakers include Assistant Secretary of Commerce Larry Strickling, ICANN CEO Fadi Che" [image: Hudson Institute]On Friday April 4 2014 at 11am EDT the Hudson Institute will host a discussion *The Future of Internet Governance*in Washington DC. The topic will be the IANA transition . Speakers include Assistant Secretary of Commerce *Larry Strickling*, ICANN CEO *Fadi Chehadé*, former FCC Commissioner *Robert M. McDowell*, and Ambassador *Daniel A. Sepulveda*, who is the U.S. Coordinator for International Communications and Information Policy. The event will be webcast live. *What*: The Future of Internet Governance *Where*: Hudson Institute, Washington, D.C. *When*: Friday April 4 2014 at 11am-12.30pm EDT | 1500-1630 UTC *Webcast*: http://www.hudson.org/ *Twitter*: #iana | @HudsonInstitute Comment See all comments *Permalink*: http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6530 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mars.techno.cat at gmail.com Thu Apr 3 17:09:34 2014 From: mars.techno.cat at gmail.com (Techno CAT) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 16:09:34 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] US Seeks Alternative Domain Name Plan Message-ID: US Seeks Alternative Domain Name Plan http://www.nanog.org/mailinglist/mailarchives/old_archive/1997-05/msg00139.html -- 3DNB - Real Banking for Your VIRTUAL Worlds http://3DNB.COM Login: ZOOM Password: BOX @Techno_CAT_r http://Twitter.com/Techno_CAT_r From mars.techno.cat at gmail.com Thu Apr 3 18:44:46 2014 From: mars.techno.cat at gmail.com (Techno CAT) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 17:44:46 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] "how to blackhole traffic" Message-ID: "how to blackhole traffic" http://www.nanog.org/mailinglist/mailarchives/old_archive/1997-07/msg00437.html -- 3DNB - Real Banking for Your VIRTUAL Worlds http://3DNB.COM Login: ZOOM Password: BOX @Techno_CAT_r http://Twitter.com/Techno_CAT_r From nnenna75 at gmail.com Fri Apr 4 02:52:17 2014 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 06:52:17 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF Assessments Call for information In-Reply-To: References: <533A8789.20407@apc.org> Message-ID: There is something unsettling to me about this call. And I have been debating with my self: 1. Why is IGF asking for "actions and decisions" now? 2. Why are actions being requested in a forum whose main objective is to "discuss"? 3. Why only "the current slate"? 4. Are we looking at only the "UN" IGFs or regional, subregional or even country IGFs? 5. If a meeting held on margin of an IGF led to some action, can that be reported? TOL (Thinking Out Loud) N On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Fatima Cambronero < fatimacambronero at gmail.com> wrote: > *(Sorry for cross posting. It includes a correct email address to send > your comments).* > > > > *The Internet Governance Forum was created by the World Summit on the > Information Society as a multistakeholder discussion platform on Internet > governance related issues. The goals of the IGF are to provide a platform > for information exchange, identify emerging challenges and possible > solutions to addressing them, provide capacity building, identify and > disseminate best practices and forge partnerships for concrete actions.* > > > > *Over the past few years, some sceptics of the IGF have suggested that no > actions have been taken and that no decisions are made at the IGF - that it > is just a "talk shop".* > > > > *In order to dissipate those doubts about the "action orientation" of the > IGF it would be useful to collect data about concrete actions and decisions > that have been taken by different stakeholders as a result of the > engagement and discussions of Internet related issues at the various IGFs > (international, regional or national).* > > > > *In this respect, I would like to invite all of those organizations and > institutions that would be willing to share information, on a voluntary > basis, about concrete decisions or actions that have been taken as a result > of engagement during the current mandate of the IGF the 2011, 2012 and 2013 > IGFs to do so by sending brief information to the IGF Secretariat (* > *discussion_questions at intgovforum.org**) > by 30 June 2014. The Secretariat will compile all information received and > will present a synthesized report at the Istanbul IGF.* > > > > *Thank you for your participation* > > > > *Janis Karklins* > > *Interim Chair of the MAG* > > > > > 2014-04-01 6:31 GMT-03:00 Anriette Esterhuysen : > >> Dear all this is important. Compiled responses would be good if >> possible. >> >> Anriette >> >> >> >> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [IGFmaglist] Call for >> information Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 10:07:12 +0300 From: Janis Karklins >> To: >> igfmaglist at intgovforum.org >> >> Dear MAG members, >> As we discussed during the last conference call pls see the call for >> information concerning the concrete actions and decisions that have been >> taken as a result of the engagement at the various IGFs. >> Pls disseminate this call as wide as possible and encourage organization >> provide a brief account. >> Thank you >> JK >> >> >> >> The Internet Governance Forum was created by the World Summit on the >> Information Society as a multistakeholder discussion platform on >> Internet governance related issues. The goals of the IGF are to provide >> a platform for information exchange, identify emerging challenges and >> possible solutions to addressing them, provide capacity building, identify >> and disseminate best practices and forge partnerships for concrete actions. >> >> >> >> Over the past few years, some critics of the IGF have suggested that no >> actions have been taken and that no decisions are made at the IGF - that >> it is just a "talk shop". >> >> >> >> In order to dissipate those doubts about the "action orientation" of the >> IGF it would be useful to collect data about concrete actions and >> decisions that have been taken by different stakeholders as a result of the >> engagement and discussions of Internet related issues at the various IGFs(international, regional or national). >> >> >> >> In this respect, I would like to invite all of those organizations and >> institutions that would be willing to share information, *on a voluntary >> basis*, about concrete decisions or actions that have been taken as a >> result of engagement during the current mandate of the IGF the 2011, >> 2012 and 2013 IGFs to do so by sending brief information to the IGFSecretariat (insert the e-mail address) by 30 June 2014. The Secretariat >> will compile all information received and will present a synthesized report >> at the Istanbul IGF. >> >> >> >> Thank you for your participation >> >> >> >> Janis Karklins >> >> Interim Chair of the MAG >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IRP mailing list >> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp >> >> > > > -- > *Fatima Cambronero* > Abogada-Argentina > > Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 > Twitter: @facambronero > Skype: fatima.cambronero > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder.js at gmail.com Fri Apr 4 03:13:37 2014 From: parminder.js at gmail.com (Parminder) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 12:43:37 +0530 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Re: IGF Assessments Call for information In-Reply-To: References: <533A8789.20407@apc.org> Message-ID: <533E5BA1.3040502@gmail.com> On Friday 04 April 2014 12:22 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > There is something unsettling to me about this call. And I have been > debating with my self: > > 1. Why is IGF asking for "actions and decisions" now? > 2. Why are actions being requested in a forum whose main objective is > to "discuss"? > Since you asked, let me be frank if blunt... Because there is a great amount of activity and discussion going on about gaps in global governance of the Internet with regard to public policy 'making' (the enhanced cooperation debate) and there is much effort to posit the argument that 'the IGF is enough' , whereby no specific public policy 'making' mechanism is needed. And since you rightly point out, IGF is to 'discuss' and that should normally not be enough, a somewhat desperate case is being made out that such discussions have led to necessary actions (and thus IGF is enough) I agree, it is unsettling. IGF and its duty holders should stay neutral in this larger debate and not support any one side . They should just to their job, which is to convene and inefficiently run a global multistakeholder public policy dialogue. parminder > 1. Why only "the current slate"? > 2. Are we looking at only the "UN" IGFs or regional, subregional or > even country IGFs? > 3. If a meeting held on margin of an IGF led to some action, can that > be reported? > > TOL (Thinking Out Loud) > > > N > > > > On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Fatima Cambronero > > wrote: > > *(Sorry for cross posting. It includes a correct email address to > send your comments).* > > > * > * > > /The Internet Governance Forum was created by the World Summit on > the Information Society as a multistakeholder discussion platform > on Internet governance related issues. The goals of the IGF are to > provide a platform for information exchange, identify emerging > challenges and possible solutions to addressing them, provide > capacity building, identify and disseminate best practices and > forge partnerships for concrete actions./ > > // > > /Over the past few years, some sceptics of the IGF have suggested > that no actions have been taken and that no decisions are made at > the IGF - that it is just a "talk shop"./ > > // > > /In order to dissipate those doubts about the "action orientation" > of the IGF it would be useful to collect data about concrete > actions and decisions that have been taken by different > stakeholders as a result of the engagement and discussions of > Internet related issues at the various IGFs (international, > regional or national)./ > > // > > /In this respect, I would like to invite all of those > organizations and institutions that would be willing to share > information, *on a voluntary basis*, about concrete decisions or > actions that have been taken as a result of engagement during the > current mandate of the IGF the 2011, 2012 and 2013 IGFs to do so > by sending brief information to the IGF Secretariat > (//discussion_questions at intgovforum.org/ > /) by 30 June 2014. > The Secretariat will compile all information received and will > present a synthesized report at the Istanbul IGF./ > > // > > /Thank you for your participation/ > > // > > /Janis Karklins/ > > /Interim Chair of the MAG/ > > > > 2014-04-01 6:31 GMT-03:00 Anriette Esterhuysen >: > > Dear all this is important. Compiled responses would be good > if possible. > > Anriette > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [IGFmaglist] Call for information > Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 10:07:12 +0300 > From: Janis Karklins > > To: igfmaglist at intgovforum.org > > > > > > Dear MAG members, > As we discussed during the last conference call pls see the > call for information concerning the concrete actions and > decisions that have been taken as a result of the engagement > at the various IGFs. > Pls disseminate this call as wide as possible and encourage > organization provide a brief account. > Thank you > JK > > The Internet Governance Forum was created by the World Summit > on the Information Society as a multistakeholder discussion > platform on Internet governance related issues. The goals of > the IGF are to provide a platform for information exchange, > identify emerging challenges and possible solutions to > addressing them, provide capacity building, identify and > disseminate best practices and forge partnerships for concrete > actions. > > Over the past few years, some critics of the IGF have > suggested that no actions have been taken and that no > decisions are made at the IGF - that it is just a "talk shop". > > In order to dissipate those doubts about the "action > orientation" of the IGF it would be useful to collect data > about concrete actions and decisions that have been taken by > different stakeholders as a result of the engagement and > discussions of Internet related issues at the various IGFs > (international, regional or national). > > In this respect, I would like to invite all of those > organizations and institutions that would be willing to share > information, *on a voluntary basis*, about concrete decisions > or actions that have been taken as a result of engagement > during the current mandate of the IGF the 2011, 2012 and 2013 > IGFs to do so by sending brief information to the IGF > Secretariat (insert the e-mail address) by 30 June 2014. The > Secretariat will compile all information received and will > present a synthesized report at the Istanbul IGF. > > Thank you for your participation > > Janis Karklins > > Interim Chair of the MAG > > > > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > > https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp > > > > > -- > /*Fatima Cambronero*/ > Abogada-Argentina > > Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 > Twitter: @facambronero > Skype: fatima.cambronero > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Apr 4 03:22:24 2014 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 12:52:24 +0530 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [bestbits] Re: IGF Assessments Call for information In-Reply-To: References: <533A8789.20407@apc.org> Message-ID: <533E5DB0.2080004@itforchange.net> On Friday 04 April 2014 12:22 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > There is something unsettling to me about this call. And I have been > debating with my self: > > 1. Why is IGF asking for "actions and decisions" now? > 2. Why are actions being requested in a forum whose main objective is > to "discuss"? > Since you asked, let me be frank if blunt... Because there is a great amount of activity and discussion going on about gaps in global governance of the Internet with regard to public policy 'making' (the enhanced cooperation debate) and there is much effort to posit the argument that 'the IGF is enough' , whereby no specific public policy 'making' mechanism is needed. And since you rightly point out, IGF is to 'discuss' and that should normally not be enough, a somewhat desperate case is being made out that such discussions have led to necessary actions (and thus IGF is enough) I agree, it is unsettling. IGF and its duty holders should stay neutral in this larger debate and not support any one side . They should just to their job, which is to convene and inefficiently run a global multistakeholder public policy dialogue parminder > > 1. Why only "the current slate"? > 2. Are we looking at only the "UN" IGFs or regional, subregional or > even country IGFs? > 3. If a meeting held on margin of an IGF led to some action, can that > be reported? > > TOL (Thinking Out Loud) > > > N > > > > On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Fatima Cambronero > > wrote: > > *(Sorry for cross posting. It includes a correct email address to > send your comments).* > > > * > * > > /The Internet Governance Forum was created by the World Summit on > the Information Society as a multistakeholder discussion platform > on Internet governance related issues. The goals of the IGF are to > provide a platform for information exchange, identify emerging > challenges and possible solutions to addressing them, provide > capacity building, identify and disseminate best practices and > forge partnerships for concrete actions./ > > // > > /Over the past few years, some sceptics of the IGF have suggested > that no actions have been taken and that no decisions are made at > the IGF - that it is just a "talk shop"./ > > // > > /In order to dissipate those doubts about the "action orientation" > of the IGF it would be useful to collect data about concrete > actions and decisions that have been taken by different > stakeholders as a result of the engagement and discussions of > Internet related issues at the various IGFs (international, > regional or national)./ > > // > > /In this respect, I would like to invite all of those > organizations and institutions that would be willing to share > information, *on a voluntary basis*, about concrete decisions or > actions that have been taken as a result of engagement during the > current mandate of the IGF the 2011, 2012 and 2013 IGFs to do so > by sending brief information to the IGF Secretariat > (//discussion_questions at intgovforum.org/ > /) by 30 June 2014. > The Secretariat will compile all information received and will > present a synthesized report at the Istanbul IGF./ > > // > > /Thank you for your participation/ > > // > > /Janis Karklins/ > > /Interim Chair of the MAG/ > > > > 2014-04-01 6:31 GMT-03:00 Anriette Esterhuysen >: > > Dear all this is important. Compiled responses would be good > if possible. > > Anriette > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [IGFmaglist] Call for information > Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 10:07:12 +0300 > From: Janis Karklins > > To: igfmaglist at intgovforum.org > > > > > > Dear MAG members, > As we discussed during the last conference call pls see the > call for information concerning the concrete actions and > decisions that have been taken as a result of the engagement > at the various IGFs. > Pls disseminate this call as wide as possible and encourage > organization provide a brief account. > Thank you > JK > > The Internet Governance Forum was created by the World Summit > on the Information Society as a multistakeholder discussion > platform on Internet governance related issues. The goals of > the IGF are to provide a platform for information exchange, > identify emerging challenges and possible solutions to > addressing them, provide capacity building, identify and > disseminate best practices and forge partnerships for concrete > actions. > > Over the past few years, some critics of the IGF have > suggested that no actions have been taken and that no > decisions are made at the IGF - that it is just a "talk shop". > > In order to dissipate those doubts about the "action > orientation" of the IGF it would be useful to collect data > about concrete actions and decisions that have been taken by > different stakeholders as a result of the engagement and > discussions of Internet related issues at the various IGFs > (international, regional or national). > > In this respect, I would like to invite all of those > organizations and institutions that would be willing to share > information, *on a voluntary basis*, about concrete decisions > or actions that have been taken as a result of engagement > during the current mandate of the IGF the 2011, 2012 and 2013 > IGFs to do so by sending brief information to the IGF > Secretariat (insert the e-mail address) by 30 June 2014. The > Secretariat will compile all information received and will > present a synthesized report at the Istanbul IGF. > > Thank you for your participation > > Janis Karklins > > Interim Chair of the MAG > > > > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > > https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp > > > > > -- > /*Fatima Cambronero*/ > Abogada-Argentina > > Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 > Twitter: @facambronero > Skype: fatima.cambronero > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/listinfo/irp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake at gmail.com Fri Apr 4 04:07:56 2014 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 10:07:56 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Civil Society Coordination Meeting for NETmundial Message-ID: <5398237F-B366-4965-89A4-ABEC4E789F9F@gmail.com> Hi I was just wondering if there’s any news yet on the location and agenda http://bestbits.net/events/netmundial-coordination/ ? BTW there’s an academic IG meeting being held on the same day being organized at at Espaço Fit Eventos. The morning part is restricted to Brazilian-German participants but the afternoon is open, and a number BB attendees are on the program so will have to pop over there… Bill *********************************************** 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 (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************** From Guru at ITforChange.net Fri Apr 4 06:13:07 2014 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 15:43:07 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: need for regulation .... In-Reply-To: <531D9366.9060301@ITforChange.net> References: <531D9366.9060301@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <533E85B3.3040701@ITforChange.net> In an earlier mail (below), I had discussed the need for the Google search engine (as the de facto organiser of the worlds information for most of us, hence the gatekeeper) to be functioning on a public accountability (and hence transparency) mode. This will include public participation in the algorithm design, social/public/community audit of the algorithm to ensure there is no distortions being inserted in the algorithms to feed political/economic vested interests etc.... http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/22838-facebook-and-the-future-of-global-governance discusses similar ideas regarding Facebook, which is fulfilling a critical social function, and hence, cannot be dictated purely by private profit considerations alone.... While article also makes some suggestions on ways forward, it is perhaps more important to first acknowledge that these are important points for global public policy making relating to IG.... and then discuss possibilities from a public interest advancement perspective. regards Guru On 03/10/2014 03:56 PM, Guru गुरु wrote: > Dear all, > > Not clear, how in Multistakeholderism, where the private sector has an > equal footing in public policy making, we will get Google to agree > that its search algorithm, as the key factor organising the worlds > information/knowledge for all of us, needs to be public knowledge, not > a commercial secret. The need for it to be public knowledge stems from > privacy/surveillance concerns, because such fundamental knowledge > ought to be available as 'cultural commons' that others can > take/re-use/revise, fostering competition etc. > > regards, > Guru > > Google faces Rs 30,500-cr fine in India > New Delhi, PTI: March 9, 2014 > > Google can face a penalty of up to about $5 billion if it is found to > have violated competition norms of the country. Google, which is > facing anti-trust investigation in India by fair trade watchdog > Competition Commission of India (CCI), can face a penalty of up to > about $5 billion (Rs 30,500 crore) if it is found to have violated > competition norms of the country. > > Google said it is “extending full cooperation” to the CCI in its > investigation. The conclusion of a two-year review by the US antitrust > watchdog has concluded that the company's services were good for > competition, it added. The case has been before the CCI for over two > years now, and it relates to allegations that Google is abusing its > dominant position. Under competition regulations, an entity found > violating the norms could be slapped with penalty of up to 10 per cent > of its three-year annual average turnover. In the case of Google, its > annual revenues in the last three years amounts to a staggering $49.3 > billion (Rs 3.01 lakh crore), and the maximum penalty can be up to > nearly $5 billion. > > When asked about the ongoing probe and the potential penalty, a Google > spokesperson said: “We are extending full co-operation to the > Competition Commission of India in their investigation.” The emailed > statement added: “We're pleased that the conclusion of the Federal > Trade Commission's two-year review was that Google's services are good > for users and good for competition.” > > A complaint filed with the CCI cannot be withdrawn. The complaint > against Google, also one of the world's most valued company, was first > filed by advocacy group CUTS International way back in late 2011. > Later. Matrimonial website matrimony.com Private Ltd also filed a > complaint. Last year, CCI chairman Ashok Chawla had said the complaint > was that the Google search engine favours platforms it wants to support. > > “That is, when you click on Google under a certain category, you will > get the platforms where there is a tendency to put them in a certain > order which may not be the fair and non-discriminatory. So, *what is > the software and what is the algorithmic search, (that is) what the > investigation team is looking at,” *Chawla had said. > > source - > http://www.deccanherald.com/content/390977/google-faces-rs-30500-cr.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Apr 4 12:28:58 2014 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 09:28:58 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] FW: [JoCI] Special Issue: Building the First Mile of Broadband Connectivity + Invitation to Online Launch Message-ID: <08ce01cf5022$fb689900$f239cb00$@gmail.com> -----Original Message----- From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 9:24 AM To: Michael Gurstein Subject: [JoCI] Special Issue: Building the First Mile of Broadband Connectivity - Commun + Invitation to Online Launch Readers: The Journal of Community Informatics has just published its latest issue at http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej. We invite you to review the Table of Contents here and then visit our web site to review articles and items of interest. We also invite you to an online launch of the special issue of the Journal of Community Informatics (JoCI) on the First Mile of Broadband Connectivity - Communities Doing It for Themselves. Authors will speak about their research and the communities they are working with. We will also launch the Community Informatics declaration: An Internet for the Common Good. Please join us for this exciting and informative event by watching the live stream and participating in the chat. The event will go live at 15:30 Atlantic Canada time on April 4: http://live.knet.ca/fni Thanks for the continuing interest in our work, Michael Gurstein Ph.D. Editor in Chief: Journal of Community Informatics, Vancouver CANADA Phone 604-602-0624 gurstein at gmail.com The Journal of Community Informatics Vol 10, No 2 (2014): Special Issue: Building the First Mile Table of Contents http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/issue/view/43 Editorial -------- The First Mile of Brodband Connectivity in Communities: Introduction to the Special Issue Rob McMahon, Duncan Philpot, Susan O'Donnell, Brian Beaton, Tim Whiteduck, Kevin Burton, Michael Gurstein The Multistakeholder Model, Neo-liberalism and Global (Internet) Governance Michael Gurstein Points of View -------- The Ecology of Community Networking Richard Lowenberg Articles -------- The First Mile Approach to Community Services in Fort Severn First Nation Matthew Kakekaspan, Susan O'Donnell, Brian Beaton, Brian Walmark, Kerri Gibson Bridging the Divide: Understanding and Implementing Access to the Internet as a Human Right Michael Karanicolas Understanding Broadband Infrastructure Development in Remote and Rural Communities – a Staged and Reflexive Approach Ingjerd Skogseid, Ivar Petter Grøtte, Geir Liavåg Strand First Mile Challenges to Last Mile Rhetoric: Exploring the Discourse between Remote and Rural First Nations and the Telecom Industry Duncan Philpot, Brian Beaton, Tim Whiteduck ICT for sustainable development: an example from Cambodia Helena Grunfeld From mars.techno.cat at gmail.com Fri Apr 4 20:48:35 2014 From: mars.techno.cat at gmail.com (Techno CAT) Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2014 00:48:35 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] If YOU were tasked with Starting the Internet OVER FROM SCRATCH... Message-ID: If YOU were tasked with Starting the Internet OVER FROM SCRATCH... ... Is this how you would distribute Address Space in a FAIR manner ? ... http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xhtml ... would you Automate the distribution of Address Space ? -- 3DNB - Real Banking for Your VIRTUAL Worlds http://3DNB.COM Login: ZOOM Password: BOX @Techno_CAT_r http://Twitter.com/Techno_CAT_r From mars.techno.cat at gmail.com Fri Apr 4 21:44:49 2014 From: mars.techno.cat at gmail.com (Techno CAT) Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2014 01:44:49 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] #ICANN haz TWEETS... Message-ID: The Arrogance of #ICANN #IANA as The Only WAY - Their WAY eventually hits a Dead.END - The #ISOC CLERICS can not live forever ..ask #POSTEL The Arrogance of #ICANN #IANA as The Only WAY - Their WAY eventually hits a Dead.END - Billions are being spent to save the .NET from .ORGy The Arrogance of #ICANN #IANA as The Only WAY - Their WAY ... eventually hits a Dead.END - The ROMAN EMPIRE eventually fell to Free Markets The Arrogance of #ICANN #IANA as The Only WAY - Their WAY -or YOU take the Highway - eventually hits a Dead.END #dotEND #ENDCOIN #P2P #TWIST #ICANN claims they have PLENTY OF TIME to muddle thru some #IANA process - THEY are not aware of NEW #DNS #DNSD #DHT #BITCOIN #NameCOIN #P2P #ISOC #IETF #IANA #ICANN has always tried to Distract Novices with #domains when their LOCK-IN is via Protocol and Address Space #FCC #NTIA #ICANN Groupies do not seem to understand that #DNS is NOT essential - It is an Add-On - There are other ways to navigate - #PNRP from M$ -- 3DNB - Real Banking for Your VIRTUAL Worlds http://3DNB.COM Login: ZOOM Password: BOX @Techno_CAT_r http://Twitter.com/Techno_CAT_r From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Apr 30 09:11:53 2014 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 09:11:53 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: New report published today, calling for shorter copyright terms References: Message-ID: <760879D8-BF1B-4CDC-A5D6-8987611D0133@gmail.com> Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: > From: Derek Khanna > Date: April 30, 2014 at 9:07:50 AM EDT > To: IP-ENFORCEMENT at ROSTER.WCL.AMERICAN.EDU > Subject: New report published today, calling for shorter copyright terms > Reply-To: Derek Khanna > > Hi, today I published a report with R Street Institute calling for Congress to restore constitutional copyright through significantly shorter copyright terms. I hope you check it out, as it delves into the impact of our unusually long copyright laws among a variety of aspects of society, historical preservation, orphan works, remix music, and the ability to make new movies based upon the public domain like Disney. > > Report is here: http://www.rstreet.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/RSTREET20.pdf > > If you like it, tweet or facebook it, trying to get the word out there. > > THANKS! > > > > Derek Satya Khanna > Independent Consultant, Yale Law Scholar - Information Society Project > m:(202) 643-2483 | e:Derek.Khanna at gmail.com | w:@DerekKhanna > > > If you would like to unsubscribe from this mailing list please click the below link: mailto:LISTSERV at ROSTER.WCL.AMERICAN.EDU?body=SIGNOFF%20IP-ENFORCEMENT&SUBJECT=Remove -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: