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 revi