From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Apr  1 05:49:07 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 15:19:07 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [Rigf_discuss] [Extended Deadline: Apr 7(Tue)]
 APrIGF Macao 2015 - Last Chance to Submit Your Workshop Proposals
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHDv5p=3HsOQb8whr5xvsOYZfGL+rAXidhAqcfp3sbg_hg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <37C3C0E3-16AA-4975-A774-FAE84A9F64AE@aprigf.asia>	<618DCF4D-70C7-4522-BB76-B2AA6071599E@aprigf.asia> <CAJqNAHDv5p=3HsOQb8whr5xvsOYZfGL+rAXidhAqcfp3sbg_hg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <551BBF13.4000602@itforchange.net>


On Tuesday 31 March 2015 01:29 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I just wanted to share with you all that the submission deadline for 
> the APrIGF workshops has been slightly extended, until 7 April. For 
> those of you who are in the region, do please consider submitting a 
> proposal!

Hi Anja

I am curious what would the mean and entail by "proposals ... should 
present the proposed issue ... incorporating a multi-stakeholder 
perspective".

For instance, it one were to present a workshop proposal titled 
'Countering the power of Internet Trans-national corporations', one 
would normally be writing mostly about excesses of TNC's power in this 
area and what to do about it, isnt it. Would that fail the test of 
'incorporating a MS perspective'.

Or, to take a more concrete example, those who organised the workshop on 
Internet Social Forum intend to also organise one the next IGF, the 
initial proposal is here 
<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshop-proposals/list-of-published-workshop-proposals> 
... I have a feeling that this proposal may not be considered to be 
'incorporating a multi stakeholder perspective' but I dont know, you or 
someone else from APrIGF can tell me..

Best , parminder
>
> With best regards,
> Anja
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *APrIGF Secretariat* <sec at aprigf.asia <mailto:sec at aprigf.asia>>
> Date: 30 March 2015 at 12:54
> Subject: [Rigf_discuss] [Extended Deadline: Apr 7(Tue)] APrIGF Macao 
> 2015 - Last Chance to Submit Your Workshop Proposals
> To: announce at aprigf.asia <mailto:announce at aprigf.asia>
>
>
>
> *Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum*
> *APrIGF Macao 2015*
> *30 Jun (Pre-event), 1-3 Jul (Main Conference), 2015*
> *Sands Cotai Central, Macao*
> http://2015.rigf.asia <http://aprigf.asia/>
>
> *Final Call for Pre-Events/Workshop Proposals*
>
> With our promotion at the RightsCon Southeast Asia which just 
> concluded in Manila last week, the MSG is very glad to receive the 
> overwhelming interests from the attendees on submitting workshop 
> proposals and their request for a further deadline extension. 
> To enhance the diversity of the proposals and engage more 
> stakeholders' participation, the MSG reached a consensus to further 
> extend the submission deadline to allow sufficient time for community 
> members to fully develop their workshop proposals.
>
> We now welcome proposals for pre-events or main workshop sessions 
> which should present the proposed issue in an inclusive manner, 
> incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective with a balance of 
> stakeholders and gender in the speakers list. The session shall 
> promote an interactive dialogue among the participants.
>
> There will not be further deadline extension. Hence, it is highly 
> encouraged to submit your complete workshop proposal within the 
> extended period.
>
> *Workshop Proposal Submission Deadline: *11 Mar 2015 (Wed) *[Extended 
> to 7 Apr (Tue)]*
>
> *Online Submission 
> Form:* (http://2015.rigf.asia/workshop-theme-submissions/)
>
> If you have any enquiries, please feel free to contact the secretariat 
> at sec at aprigf.asia <mailto:sec at aprigf.asia>.
>
> *
> If you are interested to follow any news and updates about APrIGF and 
> discuss relevant issues, you may subscribe to the mailing list 
> discuss at aprigf.asia <mailto:discuss at aprigf.asia> by sending in 
> subscription request.
>
> We also welcome any Internet-related organisation to become a sponsor. 
> Please contact sec at aprigf.asia <mailto:sec at aprigf.asia> for more 
> information.
> *
>
> Best Regards,
> Secretariat of APrIGF
> http://www.aprigf.asia <http://www.dot.asia/>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rigf_discuss mailing list
> Rigf_discuss at web2.dotasia.org <mailto:Rigf_discuss at web2.dotasia.org>
> https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_discuss
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
>
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in <http://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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150401/05807fe9/attachment.htm>

From s.l.e.kok at uva.nl  Thu Apr  2 09:55:57 2015
From: s.l.e.kok at uva.nl (s.l.e.kok at uva.nl)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2015 09:55:57 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Call for Participation: Digital Methods Summer School
 2015
Message-ID: <sympa.1427982792.20203.16@lists.bestbits.net>

Call for Participation: Digital Methods Summer School 2015
Post-Snowden Media Empiricism and Secondary Social Media: Data Studies Beyond
Facebook and Twitter

Digital Methods Summer School
29 June - 10 July 2015

https://wiki.digitalmethods.net/Dmi/SummerSchool2015

Map of Locations

Everyday location:
Digital Methods Initiative
New Media & Digital Culture
University of Amsterdam
Turfdraagsterpad 9
1012 XT Amsterdam
the Netherlands

The Summer School is pleased to have Lev Manovich give the opening keynote on
Monday, 29 June.

This year's Digital Methods Summer School is devoted to what we call ‘post-
Snowden media empiricism’ and 'secondary social media’. Post-Snowden media
empiricism refers to how to study online media since the revelations in June
2013 about the breadth and scope of NSA surveillance activities. Writing about
the future of media theory, post-Snowden, scholars are closing the age of
Internet innocence. For years one would study the extent to which cyberspace
is an alternative space, a realm of new politics, corporealities and identity
play, cleared of reputation, institutions and regulatory legal regimes. Such a
point of departure is long dated, but the post-Snowden dates others too, with
the likely exception of surveillance studies, once a branch or sub-field. Such
is the context these days for calls for post-media as well as post-digital
studies.

In considering how to rethink the study of online media, post-Snowden, there
are a series of proposals for new theory, but there is not the concomitant
attention to the empirical project. What may be the agenda for a post-Snowden
media empiricism? Are there digital methods for a post-Snowden surveillance
studies? Considering how to approach online media generally nowadays, we ask:

1) What does it mean for media researchers to treat and study empirically the
web as an intelligence medium? Do we hunt for confidential documents and study
leaks? Would we inevitably slope towards intelligence work?

2) In post-Snowden media empiricism, would one embrace the study of the dark
web, anonymous web and onion routers? Should we throw a Tor install party?

3) Ghostery and other software that track trackers (like our very own “tracker
tracker” tool) are means to study soft surveillance online (third party
cookies, beacons, etc.). Does such surveillance study pale in the face of the
sheer scale of post-Snowden media that is surveilled?

4) With the cloud we have moved from a user logic of downloading to one of
uploading. Should we replace our scrapers with sniffers?

5) Do the older new media methods still apply? Could we map the cloud as
linked server space?

The NSA did not name all the social media platforms. 'Secondary social media'
is a term we are using to compliment and place opposite to GAFA (Google,
Apple, Facebook, Amazon), employed increasingly in French intellectual circles
to denote U.S. digital cultural imperialism. Should we turn our focus to the
lesser platforms? What value do the other social media platforms have for
social research? If Google can be shown to author new source epistemologies,
Apple's iOS store (together with Amazon's lists) as sources for best-selling
issues and Facebook for most engaged with content, what do secondary social
media such as Instagram, Pinterest and Tumblr have to offer? We are also
interested in social media alternatives and new online spaces offering
conviviality without necessarily resorting to the logic of the social graph.

Big Platforms, or GAFA
Among the big data critiques is the notion of ready-made data. This line of
thought is part of the continuum which sees a wholesale switch from
hermeneutics to pattern-recognition as well as a reputational swing favouring
those with big analytical infrastructure. But there needs to be data for the
machines that learn and the analysts who run them. Ready-made data as a big
data critique refers to an over reliance on API streams for the study of
virtually any societal matter, such as Twitter data to monitor disasters,
revolutions and presidential transitions and predict flu trends, elections as
well as celebrity awards.

Which data are preferred? Whilst the term has deeper roots in the
consideration of publishing old media online, the acronym, GAFA, standing for
Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, has resonated particularly in the French
press and scientific literature as the new term for U.S. digital cultural
imperialism, expanded from allusions to Googlization nearly a decade ago,
which also coincided with a call for a European search engine, Quaero. Whilst
the term may fit well for media publishers and advertisers, for data analysts
Twitter is an obvious addition for the study of influence and trend as would
be Wikipedia, not only for monitoring attention to matters of concern and
cross-cultural comparison but also for data groundwork such as keyword and
source list-building (with the advantage or disadvantage of often being
exhaustive such as the list of social networking websites).


gafa_.png

Gafa logo by glyndot (2013) referring to the collective dominance of Google,
Apple, Facebook, Amazon

As a counter-point to GAFA, and the study of big platforms, we would like to
introduce the notion of secondary social media, with the question, where are
the other signals (online) for the potential purposes of social research? And
do they tend to be studied in a similar fashion as the big platforms
(monitoring and prediction)? How else to study them?

When one queries new trending social media networks, most popular social media
sites for teens or other auto-suggested and completed key phrases in leading
search engines, the lists may be concatenated (the exhaustive approach) or
triangulated, serving up !LinkedIn, Pinterest, Instagram, Tumblr, Flickr,
Vine, Meetup, and other platforms but also the ‘after Facebook’ messaging
applications such as Snapchat. How to study the other social media?

The first recognition is that secondary social media is meant as a term in a
research sense rather than one pursued from a political economy point of view.
We realise that Vine is owned by Twitter, Flickr by Yahoo, Instagram by
Facebook, meaning that they are already GAFA-like, and rising on (potential)
market capitalization lists. They are understudied, however, both generally
but also in terms of how they may be repurposed for social research, which is
the digital methods approach.

Secondary social media have specificities as well as similiarities to Twitter
and Facebook, which may makes methods of their study comparable. Instagram
selfies (including their locations and characteristics) have seen scholarly
attention as has (gendered) social curation on Pinterest. But one may make use
of the content tagging and activity on the platformed social media so as to
study issue engagement. Instagram has hashtags (and comments), and Pinterest
likes, repins and comments, organising content and metrified attention to it
in ways similar to Twitter and Facebook, where one routinely studies most
engaged with content (through the likes, shares, comments, liked comments on
Facebook pages and groups, and retweets and favorites on Twitter), often
finding content with characteristics consistent with memes. With its
reblogging feature, Tumblr is similar, as potentially are its modes of
analysis.

Indeed, there may be a temptation to reduce all social media analysis with
digital methods to the study of network metrics, particuarly through inquiries
into influence, be it of an individual (clout) or a subject matter (trend).
The ease with which data can be collected from such platform APIs as Twitter,
and poured into analytics buckets attests to the admonition. As an analytical
strategy, however, one also may prefer the specificities of the platform over
the typical metrics measures. On the list are mature platforms such as Flickr,
where one typically studies tagging’s new taxonomies, or more specifically the
social life tags, watching which pictures most significantly occupy the
politics tag over time, for example. There is !LinkedIn, which one can study
the (new) skill sets of professions, profiling the new job names and
activities in the emerging creative industries. Snapchat to date has had
little scholarship or attention paid to its analytics, apart from a security
breach into its unauthorised API, thus far defying repurposing. When is a
platform less suitable or even useless for repurposing for social research?
Such could also fill in the notion of secondary social media.

About "Digital Methods" as Concept

Digital methods is a term coined as a counter-point to virtual methods, which
typically digitize existing methods and port them onto the Web. Digital
methods, contrariwise, seek to learn from the methods built into the dominant
devices online, and repurpose them for social and cultural research. That is,
the challenge is to study both the info-web as well as the social web with the
tools that organize them. There is a general protocol to digital methods. At
the outset stock is taken of the natively digital objects that are available
(links, tags, threads, etc.) and how devices such as search engines make use
of them. Can the device techniques be repurposed, for example by remixing the
digital objects they take as inputs? Once findings are made with online data,
where to ground them? Is the baseline still the offline, or are findings to be
grounded in more online data? There is also a Digital Methods book (MIT Press,
2013) as well as a complementary Issue Mapping book (Amsterdam University
Press, 2015).


About the Summer School

The Digital Methods Summer School, founded in 2007 together with the Digital
Methods Initiative, is directed by Professor Richard Rogers, Chair in New
Media & Digital Culture at the University of Amsterdam. The Summer School is
one training opportunity provided by the Digital Methods Initiative (DMI). DMI
also has a Winter School, which includes a mini-conference, where papers are
presented and responded to. Winter School papers are often the result of
Summer School projects. The Summer School is coordinated by two PhD candidates
in New Media at the University of Amsterdam, or affiliates. This year the
coordinators are are to be announced. The Summer School has a technical staff
as well as a design staff, drawn from the ranks of Density Design in Milan.
The Summer School also relies on a technical infrastructure of some nine
servers hosting tools and storing data. In a culture of experimentation and
skill-sharing, participants bring their laptops, learn method, undertake
research projects, make reports, tools and graphics and write them up on the
Digital Methods wiki. The Summer School concludes with final presentations.
Often there are guests from non-governmental or other organizations who
present their issues. For instance, Women on Waves came along during the 2010,
Fair Phone to the 2012 Summer School and Greenpeace and their Gezi Park
project in 2013. We worked on the issue of rewilding with NGOs in the 2014
Summer School. Digital Methods people are currently interning at major NGOs
and international organizations. Previous Digital Methods Summer Schools,
2007-2014, https://wiki.digitalmethods.net/Dmi/DmiSummerSchool. See also
previous Digital Methods Winter Schools, 2009-2015,
https://wiki.digitalmethods.net/Dmi/WinterSchool.

What's it like? Digital Methods Summer School flickr stream 2012 and flickr
stream 2013.

The Digital Methods Initiative was founded with a grant from the Mondriaan
Foundation, and the Summer School has been supported by the Center for
Creation, Content and Technology (CCCT), University of Amsterdam, organized by
the Faculty of Science with sponsorship from Platform Beta. It also receives
support from the Citizen Data Lab  University of Applied Sciences. The Digital
Methods Summer School is self-sustaining.

Applications and fees

To apply for the Digital Methods Summer School 2015, please use the University
of Amsterdam Summer School form. Or, please send a one-page letter explaining
how digital methods training would benefit your current work, and also enclose
a CV, a copy of your passport (details page only), a headshot photo as well as
a 100-word bio. Mark your application "DMI Training Certificate Program," and
send to info [at] digitalmethods.net. Please also mention in your application
e-mail whether you'd like to make use of the accommodation service (for more
information see below "Housing and Accomodation").

The deadline for applications for the Summer School is 23 April 2015. Notices
will be sent on 24 April. Please address your application email to the Summer
School coordinators, Saskia Kok and Liliana Bounegru, info [at]
digitalmethods.net. Informal queries may be sent to the email address as well.

The Summer School costs EUR 595 (non-credits) or EUR 895 with credits (6
ECTS). Accepted applicants will be informed of the bank transfer details upon
notice of acceptance to the Summer School on 24 April 2015. The fee must be
paid by 24 May 2015.

Scholarships

The Digital Methods Summer School is part of the University of Amsterdam
Summer School programme, which has a video giving a flavor of the Summer
School experience. Students from universities in the LERU and U21 networks are
eligible for a scholarship to help cover the cost for tuition and housing for
the DMI Summer School. Please consult their websites in order to see whether
you are eligible for a scholarship and to begin the application procedure.

Housing and Accommodations

The Summer School is self-catered, and there are abundant cafes and a
university mensa nearby. The Digital Methods Summer School is located in the
heart of Amsterdam. There are limited accommodations available to participants
at The Student Hotel at reasonable rates. In your application please indicate
whether you are interested in making use of this service. In your acceptance
notification, you will be given information about the reservation as well as
payment. For those who prefer other accommodations, we suggest airbnb or
similar. For shorter stay, there is Hotel Le Coin, where you may request a
university discount.

Summer School Credits (6 ECTS)

For those following the Digital Methods Summer School for credit, 6 credits
(ECTS) are granted to participants who follow the Summer School program, and
complete a significant contribution to a Summer School project (evidenced by
co-authorship of the project report as well as final (joint) presentation).
Templates for the project report as well as for the presentation slides are
supplied. For previous Summer School projects, see for example
https://wiki.digitalmethods.net/Dmi/WikipediaAsASpaceOfControversy.

Schedule

The Summer School meets every weekday. Please bring your laptop. We will
provide abundant connectivity. We start generally at 9:30 in the morning, and
end around 5:30. There are morning talks one to two days per week. On the last
Friday we have a boat trip on the canals of Amsterdam.

Preparations: Reader and Online Tutorials and Lectures

For your Summer School to be especially successful we would recommend highly
that you watch (or listen to) the Digital Methods tutorials.
Audio and Video Tutorials - Digital Methods researchers have given tutorials
and talks which are useful and sometimes even entertaining.
Summer School Reader and Homework - Compilation of relevant readings and other
preparatory materials.
Digital Methods Summer School 2014 Tool Medley slides on Slideshare

Social Media & User-Generated Content

Twitter hashtag #dmi15
We shall have a list of summer school participants and make an old-fashioned
Facebook with the headshots and bio's you send to us.

Suggestions for Evening Hangouts

Amsterdam suggestions for the evenings.

We look forward to welcoming you to Amsterdam in the Summertime!

From gurstein at gmail.com  Sat Apr 25 11:43:18 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 08:43:18 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] Debunking eight myths about multi-stakeholderism
In-Reply-To: <21818.58959.476349.342220@world.std.com>
References: <65933FA0-45F0-46DC-A6E8-28E2DF03BAA0@eff.org> <21818.58959.476349.342220@world.std.com>
Message-ID: <161101d07f6e$8dc54430$a94fcc90$@gmail.com>

Only one additional comment to add to Barry Shein's excellent post...

At the end of your blog Jeremy you (channeling Margaret Thatcher) suggest
that There is no Alternative (to MSism) blah, blah... But as with Maggie the
question is alternative to what? In Maggie's case it was a country stripped
of its protections for the marginalized and poor, giving a one way ticket to
enabling the rich to get richer and allowing for a more or less complete
capitulation of the State as a protector of the public good.

Is there really no alternative to that mystical unicorn--MSism which has the
unfortunate tendency to disappear as soon as anyone tries to get up close...

I think a more appropriate question might be how to we develop more
appropriate, engaging, context sensitive governance processes in our
technology enabled globalized environment.

MSism may be one approach  and certainly does offer some interesting, if
largely theoretical (to date) hints as to direction, but figuring out how to
extend, expand, disperse democratic participation (as for example various
groups around the world have been experimenting with) offer another and one
rather less subject to elite capture and manipulation.

M 

-----Original Message-----
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Barry Shein
Sent: April 24, 2015 5:57 PM
To: Jeremy Malcolm
Cc: Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Debunking eight myths about multi-stakeholderism


On April 24, 2015 at 15:45 jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) wrote:
 >
http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/debunking-eight-myths-about-multi-stake
holderism

That's all well and good and a nice easy read.

However it doesn't address what I think are the biggest concerns with
multistakeholderism which are:

o How are stakeholders defined and selected? And by whom? How do we
  ascertain that a stakeholder is legitimate?

o How are they enfranchised? For example, one stakeholder one vote? Or
  some sort of proportional representation? By what metric?

o How does enfranchisement work other than a hand-wave to simple
  majority of whoever happens to be in the room? How does workflow and
  agenda work? Consensus? Majority assent? Committee? etc.

o What is the dispute resolution process? Is there a judiciary aspect?

At some point one has to get beyond simplistic claims that it's good because
it's not bad and instead begin laying out structural details.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

The World              | bzs at TheWorld.com           |
http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD        | Dial-Up: US, PR,
Canada
Software Tool & Die    | Public Access Internet     | SINCE 1989     *oo*


From arbih2002us at yahoo.com  Sat Apr 25 14:45:44 2015
From: arbih2002us at yahoo.com (arbih2002us at yahoo.com)
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 19:45:44 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Debunking eight myths about multi-stakeholderism
Message-ID: <467fob3w1u59m21wq17ivn8s.1429987544102@email.android.com>

Yes Barry these are very serious concerns.  Who are the stakeholders and hiw do tbey get involved? Who should accreditate them? 
Lorin Ekpe


Sent from Samsung Mobile

-------- Original message --------
From: Barry Shein <bzs at world.std.com> 
Date: 25/04/2015  01:56  (GMT+01:00) 
To: Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> 
Cc: "Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> 
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Debunking eight myths about multi-stakeholderism 
 

On April 24, 2015 at 15:45 jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) wrote:
> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/debunking-eight-myths-about-multi-stakeholderism

That's all well and good and a nice easy read.

However it doesn't address what I think are the biggest concerns with
multistakeholderism which are:

o How are stakeholders defined and selected? And by whom? How do we
  ascertain that a stakeholder is legitimate?

o How are they enfranchised? For example, one stakeholder one vote? Or
  some sort of proportional representation? By what metric?

o How does enfranchisement work other than a hand-wave to simple
  majority of whoever happens to be in the room? How does workflow and
  agenda work? Consensus? Majority assent? Committee? etc.

o What is the dispute resolution process? Is there a judiciary aspect?

At some point one has to get beyond simplistic claims that it's good
because it's not bad and instead begin laying out structural details.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

The World              | bzs at TheWorld.com           | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD        | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
Software Tool & Die    | Public Access Internet     | SINCE 1989 *oo*

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150425/3fa96ca7/attachment.htm>

From rguerra at privaterra.org  Sat Apr 25 16:40:52 2015
From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 16:40:52 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] IGF-USA 2015 Community Survey
Message-ID: <6145AE61-F36A-45B5-BAC6-E6E8E487E37E@privaterra.org>

** Please help develop the program for the IGF-USA for 2015 - take this 
quick survey!
------------------------------------------------------------

The IGF-USA 2015 will take place in July. By participating in this brief 
survey about important issues facing the Internet, you will help to 
ensure that the program will reflect the diverse perspectives of our 
multi stakeholder community.


** Click here for the survey (https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/5CK6RWY)
------------------------------------------------------------


From raquino at gmail.com  Sun Apr 26 07:51:07 2015
From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino)
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2015 08:51:07 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] [discuss] Internet Governance in Latin America
 research project
In-Reply-To: <5538FC9F.2000407@apc.org>
References: <CAMokdMxZhWu1LQ_J4Q-4=ufxQRxYbCh2N1pdQUxAYmfru5n9-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <5537C529.2000405@gmail.com> <1934529599.12787236.1429718968295.JavaMail.zimbra@article19.org>
 <1354636193.12787280.1429718996652.JavaMail.zimbra@article19.org>
 <CAFC=nJwA5oTqngv34gTCsd8yK=SZzqxg3iGy799Dvnn8X8TiFw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOa=Yc0BDBd=OSZWnNe=zD-by5n4-W=jM8_U--9ft8iu5gQeFA@mail.gmail.com> <5538FC9F.2000407@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CAMokdMykE2DKg1+sj+XaCbsejSrtGKqocVqqhN8BiFPZghEjHQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Anriette and all

It is great to have your replies, as I keep on developing this project,
I'll also try to map the organizations you've mentioned Anriette and
include them in the research.

I'm trying to get a snapshot of the most recent years in internet
governance in Latin America and perspectives for the future

It is true that organizations change and people change but I do see that as
a positive force behind all of the internet governance movements as some
who are entering universities or civil societies organizations right now
may be the ones driving future debates in the area.

Taking the risk of adding another request to the one I've sent before, I
forgot to add that I'm also looking for capacity building on internet
governance initiatives, if anyone could send their programs (academic or
not) to raquino at gmail.com again I'd thank you

Regards



------
Renata Aquino Ribeiro
Prof. Dr.
IT Campus - Quixadá City
Federal University of Ceará - Brazil
www.quixada.ufc.br
Av. José de Freitas Queiroz, 5003
Cedro - Quixadá - Ceará - Brazil
CEP 63902-580


On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>
wrote:

> Dear all
>
> I want to strongly support Renata Avila's comments.
>
> While I am not based in LAC my organisation, Association for Progressive
> Communications has several members there and are part of a very active
> community. They include Derechos Digitales, Colnodo, Nupef, Nodo Tau,
> Radio Viva, Instituto Demos, EslaRed and Sula Batsu.
>
> Also going back in history, LAC civil society provided leadership in
> raising issues on media ownership and control, free and open source
> software and social justice and communications and human rights - during
> the WSIS and before and after.
>
> But of course these movements are never as inclusive as they should be,
> and people change (in governments and in civil society) so the process
> of creating and debate and awareness can never stop.
>
> Anriette
>
>
>
> On 23/04/2015 13:26, Renata Avila wrote:
> > ​Dear Renata,
> >
> > ​I am happy to share with you that actually the Latin American community
> is
> > one of the most robust and developed in different areas of digital
> rights,
> > key to actually take part and meaningfully participate in the new
> "Internet
> > Governance" field. Most of the organizations are young but some of them
> > have been around for over a decade.
> >
> > Derechos Digitales did a fantastic job in creating redlatam.org a
> directory
> > where you will find mapped most  of  the organizations in the field and
> > there you can find an interesting catalogue of the leadership. You could
> > also see the good work of many in the Latin American newsletter
> > http://www.digitalrightslac.net
> >
> > There are some disconnects but there are lots of different and sometimes
> > diverging people doing high quality job in the field.
> >
> > ​Best Regards,
> >
> > ​
> >
> > ​
> > On 22 Apr 2015 19:02, "Adebunmi AKINBO" <akinbo at nira.org.ng> wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Reneta,
> >> Should you have an question with Africa in perspective, you can ask me.
> >> You may also visit the NiGF <http://www.nigf.org.ng>Website for
> Nigeria.
> >>
> >> Regards.
> >> -Akinbo
> >> President, Young Internet Professionals.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 5:09 PM, <laura at article19.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi, Renata
> >>> You also have a lot of info at https://redlatam.org/es.
> >>> Best,
> >>> Laura.
> >>>
> >>> ----- Mensagem original -----
> >>> De: "willi uebelherr" <willi.uebelherr at gmail.com>
> >>> Para: "Renata Aquino" <raquino at gmail.com>
> >>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, bestbits at lists.bestbits.net, "
> 1net.org
> >>> discuss" <discuss at 1net.org>
> >>> Enviadas: Quarta-feira, 22 de abril de 2015 12:58:33
> >>> Assunto: Re: [bestbits] Internet Governance in Latin America research
> >>> project
> >>>
> >>> Dear Renata,
> >>>
> >>> it can be a good initiative. But my experience in Latin America show
> me,
> >>> that there are no people to understand, what is "Internet Governance"
> >>> and what we have to do to create a InterNet. Maybe, also the most
> people
> >>> on this lists don't understand, what we have to do.
> >>>
> >>> Connect to the different Ministerios in the different countries. Then
> >>> ypu can see and hear, that they don't understand the themes "tele
> >>> communication". But they create decisions. And this always based on the
> >>> external definitions.
> >>>
> >>> In my last 4 years in Latin America never i found people with
> >>> connections to the international discussions about Internet. Never i
> >>> found people with a critical thinking to that, what we give the name
> >>> Internet.
> >>>
> >>> In Latin America we have the organized consumerism. They use only the
> >>> technical systems from the external regions. But never they start to
> >>> understand the technical bases. And this we find also in NetMundial in
> >>> Brazil.
> >>>
> >>> many greetings, willi
> >>> Cordoba, Argentina
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Am 4/22/2015 um 11:18 AM schrieb Renata Aquino:
> >>>> Hello
> >>>>
> >>>> I’m working on a research Project on Internet Governance in Latin
> >>> America
> >>>> currently building a list of organizations in this area. The goal of
> >>> this
> >>>> Project is to identify paths for novices to participate in these
> >>>> discussions as well as hearing out experts who could point out the way
> >>> to
> >>>> main issues in the region.
> >>>>
> >>>> I’d be grateful if this group could help me pointing out resources,
> >>>> organizations or professionals I may have missed.
> >>>>
> >>>> The list I’ve gathered so far is below and please send comments to
> >>>> raquino at gmail.com
> >>>>
> >>>> The next phase of this Project will be to contact key professionals in
> >>> the
> >>>> area of Internet Governance to do a series of interviews. If you’d
> like
> >>> to
> >>>> participate or nominate someone for an interview please send me an
> >>> email.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is an ongoing Project with plans to present in the future in
> >>> intenet
> >>>> governance events in Latin America.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for any help
> >>>>
> >>>> Renata Aquino Ribeiro
> >>>>
> >>>> Professor and researcher
> >>>>
> >>>> IT Campus – Quixadá City
> >>>>
> >>>> Federal University of Ceará – Brazil
> >>>>
> >>>> -----
> >>>>
> >>>> Main organizations involved in internet governance in Latin America
> >>>>
> >>>> (Please sendo info about speakers for these to raquino at gmail.com)
> >>>>
> >>>> * CITEL
> >>>>
> >>>> URL: http://www.citel.oas.org
> >>>>
> >>>> * eLAC
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.cepal.org/elac2015/default.asp
> >>>>
> >>>> * LACIGF
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.lacigf.org
> >>>>
> >>>> * LACNIC
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.lacnic.net
> >>>>
> >>>> * LACTLD - Latin American and Caribbean ccTLDs Organization
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.lactld.org
> >>>>
> >>>> * LatinoamerICANN
> >>>>
> >>>> http://latinoamericann.org <http://latinoamericann.org/?q=node/1725>
> >>>>
> >>>> * LACRALO
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.atlarge.icann.org/lacralo
> >>>>
> >>>> * LAC IPv6 Task Force e FLIP
> >>>>
> >>>> http://portalipv6.lacnic.net/en/flip6-and-lac-ipv6-tf/
> >>>>
> >>>> * Internet Society - Mexico, El Salvador, Porto Rico, Costa Rica,
> >>> Trinidad
> >>>> e Tobago, Venezuela, Colombia, Equador, Peru, Brasil, Bolivia,
> Paraguai,
> >>>> Uruguai, Argentina
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.internetsociety.org
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >>>>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> discuss mailing list
> >>> discuss at 1net.org
> >>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> discuss mailing list
> >> discuss at 1net.org
> >> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150426/f9843cd8/attachment.htm>

From nashton at consensus.pro  Mon Apr 27 04:51:03 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 10:51:03 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Looking for: ICT/telecom expertise in country in Nepal
In-Reply-To: <CAMokdMxZhWu1LQ_J4Q-4=ufxQRxYbCh2N1pdQUxAYmfru5n9-w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMokdMxZhWu1LQ_J4Q-4=ufxQRxYbCh2N1pdQUxAYmfru5n9-w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1d17a893a5b7c5dad03e168377ab88e0@consensus.pro>

 

Dear all, 

If you, or someone you know, has hands-on ICTs and especially telecom
infrastructure experience and is presently in Nepal can you let me know
offlist? 

I'm trying to help emergency teams in country gain access to in-country
expertise. 

Regards, Nick 

PS: I know this is off-topic, but given the circumstances, I hope
everyone will forgive it. Criticisms are welcome at /dev/null. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150427/be6504b4/attachment.htm>

From rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Mon Apr 27 07:23:32 2015
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 20:23:32 +0900
Subject: [bestbits] Civil society webinar on the IANA stewardship transition
 & the accountability and governance review
Message-ID: <CAH5sThn3gepLng5RbDW8K+8+XUBzkGYOoU+pwJn95SrEyGTQiw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,


please find below information about webinar this Wednesday regarding the
IANA stewardship transition & ICANN accountability processes.

for info  , the draft proposal from naming community was published last
week for comment https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-22-en


Best,


Rafik


==============================================

As the parallel consultations are being launched on the latest proposals
from the working groups on Naming and on Accountability & Governance, we
are delighted to invite you to a webinar dedicated to civil society, on
 April 29th at 1430-1600 UTC.



This will be an opportunity to provide an update and exchange views on the
IANA stewardship transition with some of the key civil society participants
involved in the transition work.



The latest agenda is as follows:

*1, **Introduction - overview of the Internet Governance ecosystem & ICANN
– Adam Peake and Jean-Jacques Sahel, ICANN*

*2, **How civil society participates in ICANN – Bill Drake, Chair of
ICANN’s Non Commercial Users Constituency and Rafik Dammak, Chair of
ICANN’s Non Commercial Stakeholders Group*

*3. **Overview of the IANA stewardship transition process*

*a.     Presentation of the stewardship transition process – Rafik Dammak,
Avri Doria*

*b.     Presentation of the accountability and governance review – Matthew
Shears, CDT and Robin Gross, IP Justice*



Conference calling details:

Adigo bridge 21912; full list of Adigo numbers at www.adigo.com/icann

AdobeConnect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/gseemea/.



Please register your interest at: europe at icann.org.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150427/8a359992/attachment.htm>

From presidencia at internauta.org.ar  Mon Apr 27 08:24:17 2015
From: presidencia at internauta.org.ar (Sergio Salinas Porto)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 09:24:17 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] [discuss] Internet Governance in Latin America
 research project
In-Reply-To: <CAMokdMykE2DKg1+sj+XaCbsejSrtGKqocVqqhN8BiFPZghEjHQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMokdMxZhWu1LQ_J4Q-4=ufxQRxYbCh2N1pdQUxAYmfru5n9-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <5537C529.2000405@gmail.com> <1934529599.12787236.1429718968295.JavaMail.zimbra@article19.org>
 <1354636193.12787280.1429718996652.JavaMail.zimbra@article19.org>
 <CAFC=nJwA5oTqngv34gTCsd8yK=SZzqxg3iGy799Dvnn8X8TiFw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOa=Yc0BDBd=OSZWnNe=zD-by5n4-W=jM8_U--9ft8iu5gQeFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5538FC9F.2000407@apc.org> <CAMokdMykE2DKg1+sj+XaCbsejSrtGKqocVqqhN8BiFPZghEjHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5-+Wh+JEqhrzxaHVxw4=99+LAWqr4mk_M4emdSsa7gbyjUYA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Renata and All:
I am surprised by the asseveration of Willi!
I am a member of an organization in Argentina -Internauta
Argentina-(Internauta, .org.ar) with high participation in public policy
intervention in the domestic and international sphere-we are part of the
foundation of LACRALO in ICANN, represent users Internet of Argentina in
that realm and personally I have had the privilege of carrying the voice
ALAC Member Ratings region in this area.
We spent some time ago by an electoral process in our organziación with
over 80,000 people participating with their vote on them.
We are part of FLUI (American Federation of internet users -
http://fuilatin.org), which I chair, made up of 12 organizations
representing Internet users in different countries of the region.
I hope this serves to learn more uin pco as users are organized in Latin
America.
Kind regards!

*Sergio Salinas Porto
Presidente Internauta Argentina
Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet
<http://www.internauta.org.ar>/CTA <http://ctamdq.org.ar>
FLUI- Federación Latinoamericana de Usuarios de Internet
<http://www.fuilatin.org>
facebook:salinasporto <http://www.facebook.com/salinasporto> &
sergiosalinasII <http://www.facebook.com/sergiosalinasII>
twitter:sergiosalinas <http://twitter.com/sergiosalinas>
Google+: Sergio Salinas Porto
<https://plus.google.com/104639152443153592254/posts>
Hangout:presidencia at internauta.org.ar
<Hangout%3Apresidencia at internauta.org.ar> /
Pixelhub: salinasporto <http://pixelhub.me/salinasporto>
Youtube: salinasporto <http://www.youtube.com/salinasporto>
Skype:internautaargentina
Mobi:+54 9 223 5 215819*

*"Ojalá podamos ser desobedientes, cada vez que recibimos órdenes que
humillan nuestra conciencia o violan nuestro sentido común" Eduardo
Galeano*


2015-04-26 8:51 GMT-03:00 Renata Aquino <raquino at gmail.com>:

> Hi Anriette and all
>
> It is great to have your replies, as I keep on developing this project,
> I'll also try to map the organizations you've mentioned Anriette and
> include them in the research.
>
> I'm trying to get a snapshot of the most recent years in internet
> governance in Latin America and perspectives for the future
>
> It is true that organizations change and people change but I do see that
> as a positive force behind all of the internet governance movements as some
> who are entering universities or civil societies organizations right now
> may be the ones driving future debates in the area.
>
> Taking the risk of adding another request to the one I've sent before, I
> forgot to add that I'm also looking for capacity building on internet
> governance initiatives, if anyone could send their programs (academic or
> not) to raquino at gmail.com again I'd thank you
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> ------
> Renata Aquino Ribeiro
> Prof. Dr.
> IT Campus - Quixadá City
> Federal University of Ceará - Brazil
> www.quixada.ufc.br
> Av. José de Freitas Queiroz, 5003
> Cedro - Quixadá - Ceará - Brazil
> CEP 63902-580
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear all
>>
>> I want to strongly support Renata Avila's comments.
>>
>> While I am not based in LAC my organisation, Association for Progressive
>> Communications has several members there and are part of a very active
>> community. They include Derechos Digitales, Colnodo, Nupef, Nodo Tau,
>> Radio Viva, Instituto Demos, EslaRed and Sula Batsu.
>>
>> Also going back in history, LAC civil society provided leadership in
>> raising issues on media ownership and control, free and open source
>> software and social justice and communications and human rights - during
>> the WSIS and before and after.
>>
>> But of course these movements are never as inclusive as they should be,
>> and people change (in governments and in civil society) so the process
>> of creating and debate and awareness can never stop.
>>
>> Anriette
>>
>>
>>
>> On 23/04/2015 13:26, Renata Avila wrote:
>> > ​Dear Renata,
>> >
>> > ​I am happy to share with you that actually the Latin American
>> community is
>> > one of the most robust and developed in different areas of digital
>> rights,
>> > key to actually take part and meaningfully participate in the new
>> "Internet
>> > Governance" field. Most of the organizations are young but some of them
>> > have been around for over a decade.
>> >
>> > Derechos Digitales did a fantastic job in creating redlatam.org a
>> directory
>> > where you will find mapped most  of  the organizations in the field and
>> > there you can find an interesting catalogue of the leadership. You could
>> > also see the good work of many in the Latin American newsletter
>> > http://www.digitalrightslac.net
>> >
>> > There are some disconnects but there are lots of different and sometimes
>> > diverging people doing high quality job in the field.
>> >
>> > ​Best Regards,
>> >
>> > ​
>> >
>> > ​
>> > On 22 Apr 2015 19:02, "Adebunmi AKINBO" <akinbo at nira.org.ng> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Dear Reneta,
>> >> Should you have an question with Africa in perspective, you can ask me.
>> >> You may also visit the NiGF <http://www.nigf.org.ng>Website for
>> Nigeria.
>> >>
>> >> Regards.
>> >> -Akinbo
>> >> President, Young Internet Professionals.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 5:09 PM, <laura at article19.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Hi, Renata
>> >>> You also have a lot of info at https://redlatam.org/es.
>> >>> Best,
>> >>> Laura.
>> >>>
>> >>> ----- Mensagem original -----
>> >>> De: "willi uebelherr" <willi.uebelherr at gmail.com>
>> >>> Para: "Renata Aquino" <raquino at gmail.com>
>> >>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, bestbits at lists.bestbits.net, "
>> 1net.org
>> >>> discuss" <discuss at 1net.org>
>> >>> Enviadas: Quarta-feira, 22 de abril de 2015 12:58:33
>> >>> Assunto: Re: [bestbits] Internet Governance in Latin America research
>> >>> project
>> >>>
>> >>> Dear Renata,
>> >>>
>> >>> it can be a good initiative. But my experience in Latin America show
>> me,
>> >>> that there are no people to understand, what is "Internet Governance"
>> >>> and what we have to do to create a InterNet. Maybe, also the most
>> people
>> >>> on this lists don't understand, what we have to do.
>> >>>
>> >>> Connect to the different Ministerios in the different countries. Then
>> >>> ypu can see and hear, that they don't understand the themes "tele
>> >>> communication". But they create decisions. And this always based on
>> the
>> >>> external definitions.
>> >>>
>> >>> In my last 4 years in Latin America never i found people with
>> >>> connections to the international discussions about Internet. Never i
>> >>> found people with a critical thinking to that, what we give the name
>> >>> Internet.
>> >>>
>> >>> In Latin America we have the organized consumerism. They use only the
>> >>> technical systems from the external regions. But never they start to
>> >>> understand the technical bases. And this we find also in NetMundial in
>> >>> Brazil.
>> >>>
>> >>> many greetings, willi
>> >>> Cordoba, Argentina
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Am 4/22/2015 um 11:18 AM schrieb Renata Aquino:
>> >>>> Hello
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I’m working on a research Project on Internet Governance in Latin
>> >>> America
>> >>>> currently building a list of organizations in this area. The goal of
>> >>> this
>> >>>> Project is to identify paths for novices to participate in these
>> >>>> discussions as well as hearing out experts who could point out the
>> way
>> >>> to
>> >>>> main issues in the region.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I’d be grateful if this group could help me pointing out resources,
>> >>>> organizations or professionals I may have missed.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The list I’ve gathered so far is below and please send comments to
>> >>>> raquino at gmail.com
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The next phase of this Project will be to contact key professionals
>> in
>> >>> the
>> >>>> area of Internet Governance to do a series of interviews. If you’d
>> like
>> >>> to
>> >>>> participate or nominate someone for an interview please send me an
>> >>> email.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> This is an ongoing Project with plans to present in the future in
>> >>> intenet
>> >>>> governance events in Latin America.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Thanks for any help
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Renata Aquino Ribeiro
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Professor and researcher
>> >>>>
>> >>>> IT Campus – Quixadá City
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Federal University of Ceará – Brazil
>> >>>>
>> >>>> -----
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Main organizations involved in internet governance in Latin America
>> >>>>
>> >>>> (Please sendo info about speakers for these to raquino at gmail.com)
>> >>>>
>> >>>> * CITEL
>> >>>>
>> >>>> URL: http://www.citel.oas.org
>> >>>>
>> >>>> * eLAC
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://www.cepal.org/elac2015/default.asp
>> >>>>
>> >>>> * LACIGF
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://www.lacigf.org
>> >>>>
>> >>>> * LACNIC
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://www.lacnic.net
>> >>>>
>> >>>> * LACTLD - Latin American and Caribbean ccTLDs Organization
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://www.lactld.org
>> >>>>
>> >>>> * LatinoamerICANN
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://latinoamericann.org <http://latinoamericann.org/?q=node/1725>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> * LACRALO
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://www.atlarge.icann.org/lacralo
>> >>>>
>> >>>> * LAC IPv6 Task Force e FLIP
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://portalipv6.lacnic.net/en/flip6-and-lac-ipv6-tf/
>> >>>>
>> >>>> * Internet Society - Mexico, El Salvador, Porto Rico, Costa Rica,
>> >>> Trinidad
>> >>>> e Tobago, Venezuela, Colombia, Equador, Peru, Brasil, Bolivia,
>> Paraguai,
>> >>>> Uruguai, Argentina
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://www.internetsociety.org
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________
>> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >>>>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>> >>>>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> ____________________________________________________________
>> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>> >>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> discuss mailing list
>> >>> discuss at 1net.org
>> >>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> discuss mailing list
>> >> discuss at 1net.org
>> >> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>> >      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>> >
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150427/abdd537a/attachment.htm>

From jmalcolm at eff.org  Mon Apr 27 14:59:09 2015
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 11:59:09 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] Council of Europe multi-stakeholder consultations on
 Internet freedom
In-Reply-To: <552D8D12.30301@eff.org>
References: <CAK-FJAdsvEbJiOnp-g+U_Dja7rvi0eVQAaepPUNh-9SZGb9+Yg@mail.gmail.com> <552D8D12.30301@eff.org>
Message-ID: <553E86FD.8030507@eff.org>

On 14/04/2015 2:56 pm, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 14/04/2015 1:44 am, Carolina Rossini wrote:
>> The Council of Europe is working on a draft recommendation by the
>> Committee of Ministers to its member states on Internet freedom
>> (attached). The draft is currently being elaborated by a committee of
>> experts operating  under the authority of the Council of Europe’s
>> Steering Committee on Media and Information Society.
>>
>> As part of its multi-stakeholder outreach and dialogue, the Council
>> of Europe would like your feedback, comments and suggestions on the
>> draft recommendation to be sent to us, at the latest by *_30 April
>> 2015_*,  by E-mail to Marta.WIELOCH at coe.int
>> <mailto:Marta.WIELOCH at coe.int> .
>>
>
> It has been a while since we collaborated on a joint submission
> through Best Bits.  Is there a group interested in writing something
> together and presenting it for submission jointly?  In any case I
> would be writing an EFF submission referencing the Manila Principles
> on Intermediary Liability.

This thread was taken off list and the following draft text has been
developed:

http://pad.bestbits.net/coe-internet-freedom

If anyone else has some comments they would like to contribute, please
do so on the pad or by adding to this thread.  We will then close the
text on Wednesday as it then stands and invite those who agree with it
to endorse it.  I apologize for the short timeframe, which is my own
fault for not pushing the process along more quickly.

Thanks to those who contributed so far, and in anticipation of any other
contributions.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt
PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD

Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150427/2f3d28f3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 244 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150427/2f3d28f3/attachment.sig>

From jmalcolm at eff.org  Mon Apr 27 18:41:30 2015
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 15:41:30 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] Debunking eight myths about multi-stakeholderism
In-Reply-To: <21818.58959.476349.342220@world.std.com>
References: <65933FA0-45F0-46DC-A6E8-28E2DF03BAA0@eff.org> <21818.58959.476349.342220@world.std.com>
Message-ID: <553EBB1A.1030700@eff.org>

On 24/04/2015 5:56 pm, Barry Shein wrote:
> On April 24, 2015 at 15:45 jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) wrote:
>  > http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/debunking-eight-myths-about-multi-stakeholderism
>
> That's all well and good and a nice easy read.
>
> However it doesn't address what I think are the biggest concerns with
> multistakeholderism which are:

You're right, it doesn't address these sort of detailed questions
because it expressly didn't set out to do so.  It wasn't intended as a
recipe for how multi-stakeholderism should be done, partly because
indeed there is no single recipe; there are many variables and the
answers to your questions will differ from one instance to another. 
Ironically someone on another list I believe has purported to rearrange
my 8 points into a positive description of multi-stakeholderism, which I
don't endorse at all.  As indeed I noted in the concluding lines of the
post, that is a separate effort altogether.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt
PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD

Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 244 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150427/00957fb9/attachment.sig>

From bzs at world.std.com  Tue Apr 28 00:36:25 2015
From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 00:36:25 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Debunking eight myths about multi-stakeholderism
In-Reply-To: <553EBB1A.1030700@eff.org>
References: <65933FA0-45F0-46DC-A6E8-28E2DF03BAA0@eff.org>
	<21818.58959.476349.342220@world.std.com>
	<553EBB1A.1030700@eff.org>
Message-ID: <21823.3657.154748.771810@world.std.com>


I didn't intend my remarks as a criticism of your "eight myths", not
at all. As I said it was a good read.

I was simply trying to extend the ideas towards some sort of working
process.

I agree that in different contexts there may be different details.

But one model in one context would be a good start.

That's not your responsibility of course, I mean from the community.

For example how does one define an enfranchised stakeholder?

Not in broad ideological terms (anyone with a stake!), but how
specifically does one get recognized at "the table"?

How does a specific individual claiming to represent NGOs or telephone
companies or hospitals or vampire-killers (surely stakeholders) etc
get recognized, vetted, and enfranchised?

I've seen a few governance organizations cited as multi-stakeholder.

How do they enfranchise their stakeholders?

  -Barry Shein

From: Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org>
>On 24/04/2015 5:56 pm, Barry Shein wrote:
>> On April 24, 2015 at 15:45 jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) wrote:
>>  > http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/debunking-eight-myths-about-multi=
>-stakeholderism
>>
>> That's all well and good and a nice easy read.
>>
>> However it doesn't address what I think are the biggest concerns with
>> multistakeholderism which are:
>
>You're right, it doesn't address these sort of detailed questions
>because it expressly didn't set out to do so.  It wasn't intended as a
>recipe for how multi-stakeholderism should be done, partly because
>indeed there is no single recipe; there are many variables and the
>answers to your questions will differ from one instance to another.=20
>Ironically someone on another list I believe has purported to rearrange
>my 8 points into a positive description of multi-stakeholderism, which I
>don't endorse at all.  As indeed I noted in the concluding lines of the
>post, that is a separate effort altogether.
>
>--=20
>Jeremy Malcolm
>Senior Global Policy Analyst
>Electronic Frontier Foundation
>https://eff.org
>jmalcolm at eff.org
>
>Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>
>:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>
>Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt
>PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
>OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD
>
>Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
>https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en



From nashton at consensus.pro  Thu Apr  2 13:09:32 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 19:09:32 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] New Deputy Secretary-General at UNCTAD
Message-ID: <674A4D2F-C911-4A6E-A924-833D9A3FA528@consensus.pro>

Dear all,

For those of you who follow the work of the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) especially the work of the CSTD related to WSIS - it has a new Deputy Secretary-General, Joakim Reiter of Sweden.  (For those who don't know UNCTAD is to developing countries as OECD is to the developed world).

For those of us active in trade policy policy Joakim is a well-known and very well-liked and respected person; he's the former Swedish WTO Ambassador and Sweden's Geneva-based WSIS and Internet Governance policy person reported to him and now reports to his successor.

I think we'll find that UNCTAD becomes a more vibrant and engaged organisation - I can tell you from personal experience that Joakim personally is committed to policies that help real people, and one of his favourite phrases is "In Geneva there are people who make a point, and there are people who make a difference." - he's definitely in the latter camp. As WTO Ambassador he was a strong proponent of the Internet's power to create opportunity and reduce barriers irrespective of geography, and also passionate about the importance of freedom of expression and speech who was very forthright himself and empowered those who worked for him to do the same. 

You can follow him on Twitter @UNCTADReiter - he actually tweeted on his first day on the job, which may well be the first time a DSG-level person has ever done that ;)

-- 
Regards,
 
Nick 
Tel: +41 (24) 565 85 00
Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44
Mobile: +41 79 595 5468
USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460
email: nashton at consensus.pro
GTalk: nashtonhart at gmail.com
PGP: 6995293D
Fingerprint: 9794  3DC C 8F 27 9 BF8  3105  298 1 96 FA F 538  6995  293 D
Skype: nashtonhart

“Music gives a soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the imagination and life to everything.”  - Plato





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150402/cdd6a907/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150402/cdd6a907/attachment.sig>

From LB at lucabelli.net  Tue Apr 28 11:52:02 2015
From: LB at lucabelli.net (LB at lucabelli.net)
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 08:52:02 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] =?UTF-8?Q?Request_for_Comments_-_Statements_on_Net_Neu?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?trality=E2=80=8F?=
Message-ID: <20150428085202.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.e0fd57d3a1.wbe@email07.europe.secureserver.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150428/5506be45/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DRAFT Net Neutrality Policy Statements.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 157624 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150428/5506be45/attachment.pdf>

From willi.uebelherr at gmail.com  Tue Apr 28 15:06:17 2015
From: willi.uebelherr at gmail.com (willi uebelherr)
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 16:06:17 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] Internet Governance in Latin America research
 project
In-Reply-To: <CAH5-+Wh+JEqhrzxaHVxw4=99+LAWqr4mk_M4emdSsa7gbyjUYA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5-+Wh+JEqhrzxaHVxw4=99+LAWqr4mk_M4emdSsa7gbyjUYA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <553FDA29.2050203@gmail.com>


Dear friends,

first, we have to understand, why we need "Internet Governance".

The fundamental definition is the virtual addressing princip. Based on 
this predefinition you create a request for centralism. And it is clear 
and honest, when we say, that at this moment the users of the Internet 
have nothing more to determine.

It is not a technical decision, that we have the virtual addressing 
methods. In the beginning of the Internet it was absolutly clear, that 
this system have to be private. Not like the streets between the local 
communities. And the access to this transport system have to stay under 
controll of private companies. And with and over this private companies 
the states can act.

In the answer of Sergio we find some links and tips to his environment. 
He, and all this people in this environment, have no interest for a free 
Internet with a free access to this transport system. He have his 
interest for a job in this institutions. And many people in this IG 
lists have the same basic interest.

Nnenna Nwakanma spoke clear about his principles and intentions. But not 
about, how we can realize it. Michael Gurstein, i am shure, have the 
same principles. But never he speak about the technical basics. Also 
Jean-François C. (Jefsey) Morfin have the same intention, motivation and 
principles like Nnenna. But he have more problems to understand the 
principles of the technical architecture.

If we create a technical architecture with the needs for centralized 
Governance, than we lost. Always. And we have to be clear, that this 
definition is not a technical request. The technical definitions always 
come from our Philosophy. From our systems of thought and values.

The universities and research centers of the states are oriented today 
on the money flow. And not on the development of technolgy for a easier 
life for the people. And also the most people in this environment are 
oriented to a high income. The consequence is the domination of military 
interests and private technical monopolisation. Because from this we 
have the biggest flow of money.

The only way to break through this blockades is the free technology. 
Free for all people to use. Free to develop in a global cooperation. 
Based on the principles: "global thinking, local doing" and "knowledge 
is always world heritage". On this way we come to: "the free association 
of free members".

If we want to create the real Internet, the interconnections of local 
networks, based on the autonomous local networks, based on the global IP 
address from the geografical position of the local networks, then we 
have to create our own free technology for this technical components. 
And the local capacity for building of this components in the 
local/regional environment.

The InterNet is only a transport system for digital data in packet form. 
No more. The communication is an act of the people self. This stupid 
propaganda to the internet we have to stop.

"A constant dripping wears the stone." I have to repeat this principles. 
Like you with your arguments for "Internet Governance". It is the same. 
Based on our different intentions, motivations and perspectives.

many greetings, willi
Cordoba, Argentina



-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: Re: [bestbits] [discuss] Internet Governance in Latin America 
research project
Datum: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 09:24:17 -0300
Von: Sergio Salinas Porto <presidencia at internauta.org.ar>
An: Renata Aquino <raquino at gmail.com>
Kopie (CC): Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>, bestbits 
<bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>

Dear Renata and All:

I am surprised by the asseveration of Willi!

I am a member of an organization in Argentina -Internauta
Argentina-(Internauta, .org.ar) with high participation in public policy
intervention in the domestic and international sphere-we are part of the
foundation of LACRALO in ICANN, represent users Internet of Argentina in
that realm and personally I have had the privilege of carrying the voice
ALAC Member Ratings region in this area.

We spent some time ago by an electoral process in our organziación with
over 80,000 people participating with their vote on them.

We are part of FLUI (American Federation of internet users -
http://fuilatin.org), which I chair, made up of 12 organizations
representing Internet users in different countries of the region.

I hope this serves to learn more uin pco as users are organized in Latin
America.

Kind regards!

*Sergio Salinas Porto
Presidente Internauta Argentina
Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet
<http://www.internauta.org.ar>/CTA <http://ctamdq.org.ar>
FLUI- Federación Latinoamericana de Usuarios de Internet
<http://www.fuilatin.org>
facebook:salinasporto <http://www.facebook.com/salinasporto> &
sergiosalinasII <http://www.facebook.com/sergiosalinasII>
twitter:sergiosalinas <http://twitter.com/sergiosalinas>
Google+: Sergio Salinas Porto
<https://plus.google.com/104639152443153592254/posts>
Hangout:presidencia at internauta.org.ar
<Hangout%3Apresidencia at internauta.org.ar> /
Pixelhub: salinasporto <http://pixelhub.me/salinasporto>
Youtube: salinasporto <http://www.youtube.com/salinasporto>
Skype:internautaargentina
Mobi:+54 9 223 5 215819*


-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: Re: Internet Governance in Latin America research project
Datum: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 12:58:33 -0300
Von: willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at gmail.com>
An: Renata Aquino <raquino at gmail.com>
Kopie (CC): governance at lists.igcaucus.org, bestbits at lists.bestbits.net, 
1net.org discuss <discuss at 1net.org>

Dear Renata,

it can be a good initiative. But my experience in Latin America show me, 
that there are no people to understand, what is "Internet Governance" 
and what we have to do to create a InterNet. Maybe, also the most people 
on this lists don't understand, what we have to do.

Connect to the different Ministerios in the different countries. Then
ypu can see and hear, that they don't understand the themes "tele
communication". But they create decisions. And this always based on the
external definitions.

In my last 4 years in Latin America never i found people with
connections to the international discussions about Internet. Never i
found people with a critical thinking to that, what we give the name
Internet.

In Latin America we have the organized consumerism. They use only the
technical systems from the external regions. But never they start to
understand the technical bases. And this we find also in NetMundial in
Brazil.

many greetings, willi
Cordoba, Argentina


-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: [bestbits] Internet Governance in Latin America research project
Datum: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 11:18:28 -0300
Von: Renata Aquino <raquino at gmail.com>
An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, bestbits at lists.bestbits.net

Hello

I’m working on a research Project on Internet Governance in Latin 
America currently building a list of organizations in this area. The 
goal of this Project is to identify paths for novices to participate in 
these discussions as well as hearing out experts who could point out the 
way to main issues in the region.

I’d be grateful if this group could help me pointing out resources,
organizations or professionals I may have missed.

The list I’ve gathered so far is below and please send comments to
raquino at gmail.com

The next phase of this Project will be to contact key professionals in 
the area of Internet Governance to do a series of interviews. If you’d 
like to participate or nominate someone for an interview please send me 
an email.

This is an ongoing Project with plans to present in the future in 
intenet governance events in Latin America.

Thanks for any help
Renata Aquino Ribeiro

Professor and researcher
IT Campus – Quixadá City
Federal University of Ceará – Brazil

-----

Main organizations involved in internet governance in Latin America

(Please sendo info about speakers for these to raquino at gmail.com)

* CITEL
URL: http://www.citel.oas.org

* eLAC
http://www.cepal.org/elac2015/default.asp

* LACIGF
http://www.lacigf.org

* LACNIC
http://www.lacnic.net

* LACTLD - Latin American and Caribbean ccTLDs Organization
http://www.lactld.org

* LatinoamerICANN
http://latinoamericann.org <http://latinoamericann.org/?q=node/1725>

* LACRALO
http://www.atlarge.icann.org/lacralo

* LAC IPv6 Task Force e FLIP
http://portalipv6.lacnic.net/en/flip6-and-lac-ipv6-tf/

* Internet Society - Mexico, El Salvador, Porto Rico, Costa Rica, 
Trinidad e Tobago, Venezuela, Colombia, Equador, Peru, Brasil, Bolivia, 
Paraguai, Uruguai, Argentina
http://www.internetsociety.org



From susan at chalmers.associates  Tue Apr 28 19:22:18 2015
From: susan at chalmers.associates (Susan Chalmers)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 11:22:18 +1200
Subject: [bestbits] New Zealand Copyright Review Discussion Paper
Message-ID: <CANS7ybG8=Au=SKpnvEGjzecoMgSgyA7vVkc_nhawrxWmXfEdBQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

Internet New Zealand engaged my group to produce a paper on
Internet/Copyright reform issues. The purpose of the paper is to spark
discussion in advance of New Zealand's impending legislative review.

The paper is available here: http://copyright.chalmers.associates

The Copyright Review was scheduled to take place in 2013, but has delayed
pending the resolution (whichever way it occurs) of the Trans Pacific
Partnership negotiations. We in New Zealand see this as a chance for the
User constituency to discuss and organize themselves before the official
review process begins.

InternetNZ is soliciting feedback on the paper. Feedback can be sent to
Andrew Cushen (andrew at internetnz.net.nz).

This "entry-level" paper is about 20 pages long and considers fun and
exciting topics like:

   - Geoblocking
   - APIs
   - Text and Data Mining
   - Temporary copies
   - Fair Use and Fair Dealing


I am sure that InternetNZ would appreciate your views, and I hope that the
paper is useful to others who are involved in copyright reform efforts.

Sincerely,
Susan


Susan Chalmers
susan at chalmers.associates

*CHALMERS* & ASSOCIATES
http://chalmers.associates
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150429/2db6e62e/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Wed Apr 29 08:17:10 2015
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 08:17:10 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Remarks of Lawrence E. Strickling Assistant Secretary
 for Communications and Information Internet2 Global Summit
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAcQNsA3QHAhVMsuFmjRdG6wR2FNkOeeyjHxHF9smPqKOA@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Joelle Tessler <JTessler at ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 5:06 PM
Subject: Remarks of Assistant Secretary Strickling at Internet2 Global
Summit
To: Joelle Tessler <JTessler at ntia.doc.gov>


Remarks of Assistant Secretary Strickling at Internet2 Global Summit



*Remarks of Lawrence E. Strickling*



*Assistant Secretary for Communications and InformationInternet2 Global
SummitWashington, D.C.April 28, 2015*

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2015/remarks-assistant-secretary-strickling-internet2-global-summit

*--As Prepared for Delivery--*

I am honored to be here to speak at Internet 2’s Global Summit.  Internet2
has been a strong partner with NTIA as a recipient of a $62 million
Recovery Act broadband grant.  With this grant, Internet2 has lit or
upgraded over 18,000 miles of a national fiber backbone network.  This 100
gigabit per second backbone is accessible to more than 93,000 community
anchor institutions through Internet 2’s partnership with regional research
and education networks.  Several of these networks also received NTIA
grants so we know that in Michigan, North Carolina and numerous other
states, the good work of Internet 2 and the research and education
community is driving higher speeds and lower cost broadband for schools and
other institutions of learning.

However, I did not come here today to talk about broadband.  My topic today
is Internet governance.  This is an important and timely issue for everyone
who relies on the Internet but particularly for the members of Internet2.
As your website states, “the commercial Internet we know today was shaped
by the vision and work of the people and organizations in the Internet2
community.”  Indeed, we only enjoy the Internet today due to the engagement
of the academic community decades ago.

The first four nodes on ARPANET, the experimental network from which the
Internet evolved, were universities:  UCLA, Stanford, the University of
California at Santa Barbara and the University of Utah.  The first message
ever sent was between UCLA and Stanford.  We know from history that this
first attempt to login crashed the system but the problem was quickly fixed
and the rest is history.

New challenges to the Internet emerge every day, whether they are related
to cybersecurity, privacy, or the free flow of information across borders.
As we confront these challenges, we continue to debate a key question that
has dominated international discussions over the last decade or so,
specifically who should govern the Internet?  Who should make the decisions
that determine what the Internet of tomorrow will look like?  How can we
ensure that the decisions made today will enable the Internet to continue
to thrive as the amazing engine of economic growth and innovation we enjoy
today?

The debate has focused on two very different choices.  One choice is that
governments alone should make the key decisions on the governance of the
Internet.  This is the choice favored by authoritarian governments that
want to restrict the information available to their citizens.  The other
choice is to rely on all stakeholders to make these decisions through what
is known as the multistakeholder model of Internet governance.

What do we mean by the multistakeholder model?  One expert defines the
multistakeholder model as different interest groups coming together on an
equal footing to “identify problems, define solutions, and agree on roles
and responsibilities for policy development, implementation, monitoring and
evaluation.[1]
<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/print/speechtestimony/2015/remarks-assistant-secretary-strickling-internet2-global-summit#_ftn1>
”

From that description, there are two key attributes to emphasize:
participation and consensus decision-making.

Let me start with participation.  Internet policy issues draw a much larger
range of stakeholders than traditional telecommunications issues.  One key
benefit of multistakeholder processes is that they can include and engage
all interested parties.  Such parties can include industry, civil society,
government, technical and academic experts and even the general public.
The Internet is a diverse, multi-layered system that thrives only through
the cooperation of many different parties.  Solving, or even meaningfully
discussing, policy issues in this space, requires engaging these different
parties.  Indeed, by encouraging the participation of all interested
parties, multistakeholder processes can encourage broader and more creative
problem solving.

The second key attribute is consensus decision-making.  It is important
that stakeholders come together on an equal footing.  The best way to
ensure that all parties are treated equally is to make decisions on a
consensus basis.  Final decisions need to reflect the views of all
stakeholders as opposed to just the views of only one of the stakeholder
communities involved.

Multistakeholder organizations such as the Internet Engineering Task Force
and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) have
played a major role in the design and operation of the Internet and are
directly responsible for its success.  Within the Obama Administration, we
believe that maintaining and extending this model is important to ensure
the continued growth and innovation of the Internet.

There is bipartisan support for the multistakeholder model of Internet
governance.  Both Republican and Democratic administrations have
consistently emphasized that the multistakeholder process is the best
mechanism for making decisions about how the Internet should be managed.
Congress agrees.  Earlier this spring, the Senate unanimously passed Senate
Resolution 71, which states that the “United States remains committed to
the multistakeholder model of Internet governance in which the private
sector works in collaboration with civil society, governments, and
technical experts in a consensus fashion.”

Today, the Internet is at a critical juncture.  We are continuing to oppose
efforts by authoritarian regimes to replace multistakeholder decision
making with a process limited only to governments.  This debate came to a
head in 2012 at the International Telecommunication Union’s World
Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai.  At this
meeting, governments split over whether the ITU, a United Nations
organization in which only nations have a vote, should have more control
over the Internet.  A majority of countries there supported greater
governmental control.

However, since that conference, we have seen a growing acceptance of the
multistakeholder model around the world, but particularly in developing
countries.  Democracies in the developed world have long supported the
multistakeholder model of Internet policymaking.  The Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) adopted a set of principles for
Internet policymaking in 2011 that strongly endorse multistakeholder
cooperation.  The OECD principles state, “multistakeholder processes have
been shown to provide the flexibility and global scalability required to
address Internet policy challenges.”

What is now emerging is greater acceptance of the model in developing
countries.  A year ago, Brazil hosted the successful NetMundial conference,
which brought together a wide range of stakeholders including technical
experts, civil society groups, industry representatives and government
officials, all on an equal footing with each other.  At this meeting not
only did participants agree that Internet governance should be built on
democratic multistakeholder processes, the entire meeting was a
demonstration of the open, participative, and consensus-driven governance
that has allowed the Internet to develop as an unparalleled engine of
economic growth and innovation.

Most recently, at the ITU’s 2014 Plenipotentiary conference in Busan, Korea
late last year, we saw the fruits of all our work to preserve
multistakeholder Internet governance.  The United States achieved all of
its objectives in Busan, including keeping the ITU’s work focused on its
current mandate and not expanding its role into Internet and cybersecurity
issues.

This validation of the multistakeholder model comes at a critical time.
Last year, NTIA announced its intention to complete the privatization of
the Internet Domain Name System (DNS). Key to the operation of the DNS is
the performance of important technical functions known as the IANA
functions, the most well known of which is the maintenance of the
authoritative root zone file, the telephone book for the Internet that
supports the routing of all traffic to websites.

The process of privatization of the DNS began in 1998, when NTIA entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with ICANN to transition technical
DNS coordination and management functions to the private sector.  A year
ago in March, NTIA asked ICANN to convene a multistakeholder process to
develop a proposal to take the final step to complete the transition of the
U.S. stewardship over the IANA functions to the international community.
We did this to ensure that the multistakeholder model for DNS coordination
continues.  Some governments have long bristled at the historical role the
U.S. government has played in the DNS and have used our continued
stewardship of the DNS as an excuse to argue for greater government control
over how the Internet is governed.

When we announced this transition, we outlined some specific conditions
that must be addressed before this transition takes place.  First, the
proposal must support and enhance the multistakeholder model of Internet
governance, in that it should be developed by the multistakeholder
community and have broad community support.  More specifically, we will not
accept a transition proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a
government-led or intergovernmental organization solution.  Second, the
proposal must maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the
domain name system.  Third, it must meet the needs and expectations of the
global customers and partners of the IANA services.  And finally, it must
maintain the openness of the Internet.

We are pleased that the community has responded enthusiastically to our
call to develop a transition plan that will ensure the stability, security
and openness of the Internet.  The community is in the process of
developing proposals related to the specific IANA functions as well as
examining how to ensure ICANN remains accountable to the global Internet
community.

I am confident that engaging the global Internet community to work out
these important issues will strengthen the multistakeholder process and
will result in ICANN’s becoming even more directly accountable to the
customers of the IANA functions and to the broader Internet community.

Some of you here today are likely participating in the stakeholder
discussions to design the transition plan.  Others of you are no doubt
wondering why you should care about this transition and what is at stake
for you.  The members of Internet2, such as universities and research
institutions, depend on the free flow of information.  Completing the
privatization of the Domain Name System is an important step to ensure that
the Internet remains a global platform for the free exchange of ideas,
commerce and social progress.

Failing to complete the transition, as we promised 17 years ago, risks
breaking trust in the United States and in the underlying system that has
enabled the Internet to work seamlessly for consumers and businesses.
Introducing this uncertainty could have a significant impact on American
companies that depend on the Internet to do business if other countries
respond by erecting barriers to the free flow of information or worst case,
abandoning the long-held belief in the power of a single Internet root.

The transition plan is being developed by the Internet’s stakeholders and
must be a proposal that generates consensus support from the
multistakeholder community.  All of you can play a role to ensure a good
outcome.  First, I encourage you to participate in the transition planning
process.  You are an important constituency and those crafting this plan
must hear from you as this transition progresses.  Second, stay informed on
the progress of the transition.  When the community completes its consensus
plan, let your voice be heard in support of completing the transition.  We
all have a stake in this transition and in ensuring the Internet remains an
open, dynamic platform for economic and social progress. Decades ago, the
academic community played a central role in the development of the
Internet; now we need you to play an active role in its future.

Thank you for listening.





Joelle Tessler

Manager of Stakeholder Relations and Outreach

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

U.S. Department of Commerce

jtessler at ntia.doc.gov





-- 

-- 
*Carolina Rossini *

*Vice President, International Policy and Strategy *
*Public Knowledge*
*http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
+ 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini

-- 

*Carolina Rossini *
*Vice President, International Policy*
*Public Knowledge*
*http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
+ 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150429/dba52cf5/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Wed Apr 29 09:46:25 2015
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 09:46:25 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: REMINDER: 1st Webinar on GIPO / 30 April 14:00 CET
In-Reply-To: <1CE9542B07571149A7CD4AB01871A95F3621C515@S-DC-ESTF02-J.net1.cec.eu.int>
References: <1CE9542B07571149A7CD4AB01871A95F3621C515@S-DC-ESTF02-J.net1.cec.eu.int>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAcuCREezmunu=P4jtfz8jo0nVs0J8VyuRefYLFXRVFUKA@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <Cristina.MONTI at ec.europa.eu>
Date: Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:42 AM
Subject: REMINDER: 1st Webinar on GIPO / 30 April 14:00 CET
To:


 Subject: Invitation to the webinar "Introduction to the Global Internet
Policy Observatory online platform", Thursday 30th April,14.00-15.00 CET



We are pleased to invite you to the webinar *"Introduction to the Global
Internet Policy Observatory online platform"
<https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/5186541849317556225>, 30th
April, 14:00 - 15:00 CET*



This webinar is the first of a series of webinars and workshops aimed at
engaging all those interested in Internet Governance in an active
discussion on the development of the GIPO platform.



In the coming months, *GIPO (the Global Internet Policy Observatory)
<http://www.giponet.org>* will present a prototype tool that will be
monitoring Internet-related policy, regulatory and technological
developments across the world. The Observatory tool will share knowledge
among all actors, including countries, NGOs and interest groups which may
have been marginalised in Internet debates and decisions. Contributions
submitted on this platform will be used to make the tool better for users.



*Who should take part*:

The workshop is mainly addressed at:

- policy experts engaged in Internet Governance communities and

- technology experts working on relevant tools and technologies and
overlapping Internet Governance communities (e.g. technology experts of the
text mining community and the “applied technological” experts for the
technology-enabled policy making community).



Organisers:

The GIPO initiative is led jointly P.A.U Education, Fundacion CTIC, Open
Evidence and IES VUB and supported by the European Commission.



Agenda:

14:00 - 14:10 - Introduction to purpose of the webinar, European Commission

14:10 - 14:25 - GIPO platform presentation by Luis Meijueiro, Fundacion CTIC

14:25 - 14:45 - Contribution from key stakeholders and open
discussion moderated by David Osimo, Open Evidence

14:45 - 14:50 - Wrap-up, European Commission



Please confirm your attendance here
<https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/5186541849317556225>.

Feel free to share this invitation with interested participants.

Thank you,



*CRISTINA MONTI*
International Relations Officer


*European Commission*
Directorate-General for Communication Networks, Content and Technology
International Unit

BU25 04/95
B-1049 Brussels/Belgium
Office: +32 229 69467 Mobile: +32 460 769467
cristina.monti at ec.europa.eu

Think before you print!





-- 

*Carolina Rossini *
*Vice President, International Policy*
*Public Knowledge*
*http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
+ 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150429/acc65b8b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 3898 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150429/acc65b8b/attachment.gif>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed Apr 29 16:49:03 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 13:49:03 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] Remarks of Lawrence E. Strickling Assistant
 Secretary for Communications and Information Internet2 Global Summit
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAcQNsA3QHAhVMsuFmjRdG6wR2FNkOeeyjHxHF9smPqKOA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK-FJAcQNsA3QHAhVMsuFmjRdG6wR2FNkOeeyjHxHF9smPqKOA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <081d01d082bd$ed9ec6e0$c8dc54a0$@gmail.com>

I think so that it is clear that we are all talking about the same thing, perhaps we could hear from any of the “civil society” proponents of multistakeholderism on this list whether they see any distance between how Secretary Strickling formulates the concept(s) and their own position/formulation.

 

Jeremy, Avri, Jeanette, Wolfgang, Adam, Bill, Anriette, Milton, anyone?

 

M

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolina Rossini
Sent: April 29, 2015 5:17 AM
To: <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt
Subject: [bestbits] Remarks of Lawrence E. Strickling Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information Internet2 Global Summit

 


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Joelle Tessler <JTessler at ntia.doc.gov <mailto:JTessler at ntia.doc.gov> >
Date: Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 5:06 PM
Subject: Remarks of Assistant Secretary Strickling at Internet2 Global Summit
To: Joelle Tessler <JTessler at ntia.doc.gov <mailto:JTessler at ntia.doc.gov> >




Remarks of Assistant Secretary Strickling at Internet2 Global Summit


 

Remarks of Lawrence E. Strickling
Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information
Internet2 Global Summit
Washington, D.C.
April 28, 2015

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2015/remarks-assistant-secretary-strickling-internet2-global-summit

--As Prepared for Delivery--

I am honored to be here to speak at Internet 2’s Global Summit.  Internet2 has been a strong partner with NTIA as a recipient of a $62 million Recovery Act broadband grant.  With this grant, Internet2 has lit or upgraded over 18,000 miles of a national fiber backbone network.  This 100 gigabit per second backbone is accessible to more than 93,000 community anchor institutions through Internet 2’s partnership with regional research and education networks.  Several of these networks also received NTIA grants so we know that in Michigan, North Carolina and numerous other states, the good work of Internet 2 and the research and education community is driving higher speeds and lower cost broadband for schools and other institutions of learning.

However, I did not come here today to talk about broadband.  My topic today is Internet governance.  This is an important and timely issue for everyone who relies on the Internet but particularly for the members of Internet2.  As your website states, “the commercial Internet we know today was shaped by the vision and work of the people and organizations in the Internet2 community.”  Indeed, we only enjoy the Internet today due to the engagement of the academic community decades ago. 

The first four nodes on ARPANET, the experimental network from which the Internet evolved, were universities:  UCLA, Stanford, the University of California at Santa Barbara and the University of Utah.  The first message ever sent was between UCLA and Stanford.  We know from history that this first attempt to login crashed the system but the problem was quickly fixed and the rest is history. 

New challenges to the Internet emerge every day, whether they are related to cybersecurity, privacy, or the free flow of information across borders.  As we confront these challenges, we continue to debate a key question that has dominated international discussions over the last decade or so, specifically who should govern the Internet?  Who should make the decisions that determine what the Internet of tomorrow will look like?  How can we ensure that the decisions made today will enable the Internet to continue to thrive as the amazing engine of economic growth and innovation we enjoy today?

The debate has focused on two very different choices.  One choice is that governments alone should make the key decisions on the governance of the Internet.  This is the choice favored by authoritarian governments that want to restrict the information available to their citizens.  The other choice is to rely on all stakeholders to make these decisions through what is known as the multistakeholder model of Internet governance.

What do we mean by the multistakeholder model?  One expert defines the multistakeholder model as different interest groups coming together on an equal footing to “identify problems, define solutions, and agree on roles and responsibilities for policy development, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/print/speechtestimony/2015/remarks-assistant-secretary-strickling-internet2-global-summit#_ftn1> [1]” 

From jmalcolm at eff.org  Wed Apr 29 18:56:56 2015
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 15:56:56 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] Council of Europe multi-stakeholder consultations on
 Internet freedom
In-Reply-To: <553E86FD.8030507@eff.org>
References: <CAK-FJAdsvEbJiOnp-g+U_Dja7rvi0eVQAaepPUNh-9SZGb9+Yg@mail.gmail.com> <552D8D12.30301@eff.org> <553E86FD.8030507@eff.org>
Message-ID: <BE52DF9F-A301-463F-AD44-0A6C2C33E74C@eff.org>

On Apr 27, 2015, at 11:59 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>> wrote:
> 
> This thread was taken off list and the following draft text has been developed:
> 
> http://pad.bestbits.net/coe-internet-freedom <http://pad.bestbits.net/coe-internet-freedom>
> 
> If anyone else has some comments they would like to contribute, please do so on the pad or by adding to this thread.  We will then close the text on Wednesday as it then stands and invite those who agree with it to endorse it.  I apologize for the short timeframe, which is my own fault for not pushing the process along more quickly. 
> 
> Thanks to those who contributed so far, and in anticipation of any other contributions.

The statement is now open for endorsement, incorporating one further suggested amendment received since my last message (stating that paragraph I-7 in the draft on digital literacy is too narrow by only talking about “access” to cultural/educational etc resources, whereas Article 27 of the UDHR emphasizes both access and USE).  It will be submitted tomorrow under the names of those who have signed on by then. Additional endorsements after tomorrow are still welcome even if after tomorrow, because the submission to the CoE will refer back to the page below where the most up to date list of endorsers will be found.

https://bestbits.net/coe-internet-freedom-recommendation <https://bestbits.net/coe-internet-freedom-recommendation> 

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org <https://eff.org/>
jmalcolm at eff.org

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt <https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt>

PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD

Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en <https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150429/0088fdb1/attachment.htm>

From joly at punkcast.com  Wed Apr 29 19:47:41 2015
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 19:47:41 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Remarks of Lawrence E. Strickling Assistant
 Secretary for Communications and Information Internet2 Global Summit
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAcQNsA3QHAhVMsuFmjRdG6wR2FNkOeeyjHxHF9smPqKOA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK-FJAcQNsA3QHAhVMsuFmjRdG6wR2FNkOeeyjHxHF9smPqKOA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk3aHs2ubtsu=69zJR1T85JPOMxtHbwVDc5XasQckFF5YQ@mail.gmail.com>

I captured vid of this, and the subsequent convo with Sally Wentworth.


http://livestre.am/56eSD

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 8:17 AM, Carolina Rossini <
carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Joelle Tessler <JTessler at ntia.doc.gov>
> Date: Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 5:06 PM
> Subject: Remarks of Assistant Secretary Strickling at Internet2 Global
> Summit
> To: Joelle Tessler <JTessler at ntia.doc.gov>
>
>
> Remarks of Assistant Secretary Strickling at Internet2 Global Summit
>
>
>
> *Remarks of Lawrence E. Strickling*
>
>
>
> *Assistant Secretary for Communications and InformationInternet2 Global
> SummitWashington, D.C.April 28, 2015*
>
>
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2015/remarks-assistant-secretary-strickling-internet2-global-summit
>
> *--As Prepared for Delivery--*
>
> I am honored to be here to speak at Internet 2’s Global Summit.  Internet2
> has been a strong partner with NTIA as a recipient of a $62 million
> Recovery Act broadband grant.  With this grant, Internet2 has lit or
> upgraded over 18,000 miles of a national fiber backbone network.  This 100
> gigabit per second backbone is accessible to more than 93,000 community
> anchor institutions through Internet 2’s partnership with regional research
> and education networks.  Several of these networks also received NTIA
> grants so we know that in Michigan, North Carolina and numerous other
> states, the good work of Internet 2 and the research and education
> community is driving higher speeds and lower cost broadband for schools and
> other institutions of learning.
>
> However, I did not come here today to talk about broadband.  My topic
> today is Internet governance.  This is an important and timely issue for
> everyone who relies on the Internet but particularly for the members of
> Internet2.  As your website states, “the commercial Internet we know today
> was shaped by the vision and work of the people and organizations in the
> Internet2 community.”  Indeed, we only enjoy the Internet today due to the
> engagement of the academic community decades ago.
>
> The first four nodes on ARPANET, the experimental network from which the
> Internet evolved, were universities:  UCLA, Stanford, the University of
> California at Santa Barbara and the University of Utah.  The first message
> ever sent was between UCLA and Stanford.  We know from history that this
> first attempt to login crashed the system but the problem was quickly fixed
> and the rest is history.
>
> New challenges to the Internet emerge every day, whether they are related
> to cybersecurity, privacy, or the free flow of information across borders.
> As we confront these challenges, we continue to debate a key question that
> has dominated international discussions over the last decade or so,
> specifically who should govern the Internet?  Who should make the decisions
> that determine what the Internet of tomorrow will look like?  How can we
> ensure that the decisions made today will enable the Internet to continue
> to thrive as the amazing engine of economic growth and innovation we enjoy
> today?
>
> The debate has focused on two very different choices.  One choice is that
> governments alone should make the key decisions on the governance of the
> Internet.  This is the choice favored by authoritarian governments that
> want to restrict the information available to their citizens.  The other
> choice is to rely on all stakeholders to make these decisions through what
> is known as the multistakeholder model of Internet governance.
>
> What do we mean by the multistakeholder model?  One expert defines the
> multistakeholder model as different interest groups coming together on an
> equal footing to “identify problems, define solutions, and agree on roles
> and responsibilities for policy development, implementation, monitoring and
> evaluation.[1]
> <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/print/speechtestimony/2015/remarks-assistant-secretary-strickling-internet2-global-summit#_ftn1>
> ”
>
> From that description, there are two key attributes to emphasize:
> participation and consensus decision-making.
>
> Let me start with participation.  Internet policy issues draw a much
> larger range of stakeholders than traditional telecommunications issues.
> One key benefit of multistakeholder processes is that they can include and
> engage all interested parties.  Such parties can include industry, civil
> society, government, technical and academic experts and even the general
> public.  The Internet is a diverse, multi-layered system that thrives only
> through the cooperation of many different parties.  Solving, or even
> meaningfully discussing, policy issues in this space, requires engaging
> these different parties.  Indeed, by encouraging the participation of all
> interested parties, multistakeholder processes can encourage broader and
> more creative problem solving.
>
> The second key attribute is consensus decision-making.  It is important
> that stakeholders come together on an equal footing.  The best way to
> ensure that all parties are treated equally is to make decisions on a
> consensus basis.  Final decisions need to reflect the views of all
> stakeholders as opposed to just the views of only one of the stakeholder
> communities involved.
>
> Multistakeholder organizations such as the Internet Engineering Task Force
> and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) have
> played a major role in the design and operation of the Internet and are
> directly responsible for its success.  Within the Obama Administration, we
> believe that maintaining and extending this model is important to ensure
> the continued growth and innovation of the Internet.
>
> There is bipartisan support for the multistakeholder model of Internet
> governance.  Both Republican and Democratic administrations have
> consistently emphasized that the multistakeholder process is the best
> mechanism for making decisions about how the Internet should be managed.
> Congress agrees.  Earlier this spring, the Senate unanimously passed Senate
> Resolution 71, which states that the “United States remains committed to
> the multistakeholder model of Internet governance in which the private
> sector works in collaboration with civil society, governments, and
> technical experts in a consensus fashion.”
>
> Today, the Internet is at a critical juncture.  We are continuing to
> oppose efforts by authoritarian regimes to replace multistakeholder
> decision making with a process limited only to governments.  This debate
> came to a head in 2012 at the International Telecommunication Union’s World
> Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai.  At this
> meeting, governments split over whether the ITU, a United Nations
> organization in which only nations have a vote, should have more control
> over the Internet.  A majority of countries there supported greater
> governmental control.
>
> However, since that conference, we have seen a growing acceptance of the
> multistakeholder model around the world, but particularly in developing
> countries.  Democracies in the developed world have long supported the
> multistakeholder model of Internet policymaking.  The Organization for
> Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) adopted a set of principles for
> Internet policymaking in 2011 that strongly endorse multistakeholder
> cooperation.  The OECD principles state, “multistakeholder processes have
> been shown to provide the flexibility and global scalability required to
> address Internet policy challenges.”
>
> What is now emerging is greater acceptance of the model in developing
> countries.  A year ago, Brazil hosted the successful NetMundial conference,
> which brought together a wide range of stakeholders including technical
> experts, civil society groups, industry representatives and government
> officials, all on an equal footing with each other.  At this meeting not
> only did participants agree that Internet governance should be built on
> democratic multistakeholder processes, the entire meeting was a
> demonstration of the open, participative, and consensus-driven governance
> that has allowed the Internet to develop as an unparalleled engine of
> economic growth and innovation.
>
> Most recently, at the ITU’s 2014 Plenipotentiary conference in Busan,
> Korea late last year, we saw the fruits of all our work to preserve
> multistakeholder Internet governance.  The United States achieved all of
> its objectives in Busan, including keeping the ITU’s work focused on its
> current mandate and not expanding its role into Internet and cybersecurity
> issues.
>
> This validation of the multistakeholder model comes at a critical time.
> Last year, NTIA announced its intention to complete the privatization of
> the Internet Domain Name System (DNS). Key to the operation of the DNS is
> the performance of important technical functions known as the IANA
> functions, the most well known of which is the maintenance of the
> authoritative root zone file, the telephone book for the Internet that
> supports the routing of all traffic to websites.
>
> The process of privatization of the DNS began in 1998, when NTIA entered
> into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with ICANN to transition technical
> DNS coordination and management functions to the private sector.  A year
> ago in March, NTIA asked ICANN to convene a multistakeholder process to
> develop a proposal to take the final step to complete the transition of the
> U.S. stewardship over the IANA functions to the international community.
> We did this to ensure that the multistakeholder model for DNS coordination
> continues.  Some governments have long bristled at the historical role the
> U.S. government has played in the DNS and have used our continued
> stewardship of the DNS as an excuse to argue for greater government control
> over how the Internet is governed.
>
> When we announced this transition, we outlined some specific conditions
> that must be addressed before this transition takes place.  First, the
> proposal must support and enhance the multistakeholder model of Internet
> governance, in that it should be developed by the multistakeholder
> community and have broad community support.  More specifically, we will not
> accept a transition proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a
> government-led or intergovernmental organization solution.  Second, the
> proposal must maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the
> domain name system.  Third, it must meet the needs and expectations of the
> global customers and partners of the IANA services.  And finally, it must
> maintain the openness of the Internet.
>
> We are pleased that the community has responded enthusiastically to our
> call to develop a transition plan that will ensure the stability, security
> and openness of the Internet.  The community is in the process of
> developing proposals related to the specific IANA functions as well as
> examining how to ensure ICANN remains accountable to the global Internet
> community.
>
> I am confident that engaging the global Internet community to work out
> these important issues will strengthen the multistakeholder process and
> will result in ICANN’s becoming even more directly accountable to the
> customers of the IANA functions and to the broader Internet community.
>
> Some of you here today are likely participating in the stakeholder
> discussions to design the transition plan.  Others of you are no doubt
> wondering why you should care about this transition and what is at stake
> for you.  The members of Internet2, such as universities and research
> institutions, depend on the free flow of information.  Completing the
> privatization of the Domain Name System is an important step to ensure that
> the Internet remains a global platform for the free exchange of ideas,
> commerce and social progress.
>
> Failing to complete the transition, as we promised 17 years ago, risks
> breaking trust in the United States and in the underlying system that has
> enabled the Internet to work seamlessly for consumers and businesses.
> Introducing this uncertainty could have a significant impact on American
> companies that depend on the Internet to do business if other countries
> respond by erecting barriers to the free flow of information or worst case,
> abandoning the long-held belief in the power of a single Internet root.
>
> The transition plan is being developed by the Internet’s stakeholders and
> must be a proposal that generates consensus support from the
> multistakeholder community.  All of you can play a role to ensure a good
> outcome.  First, I encourage you to participate in the transition planning
> process.  You are an important constituency and those crafting this plan
> must hear from you as this transition progresses.  Second, stay informed on
> the progress of the transition.  When the community completes its consensus
> plan, let your voice be heard in support of completing the transition.  We
> all have a stake in this transition and in ensuring the Internet remains an
> open, dynamic platform for economic and social progress. Decades ago, the
> academic community played a central role in the development of the
> Internet; now we need you to play an active role in its future.
>
> Thank you for listening.
>
>
>
>
>
> Joelle Tessler
>
> Manager of Stakeholder Relations and Outreach
>
> National Telecommunications and Information Administration
>
> U.S. Department of Commerce
>
> jtessler at ntia.doc.gov
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> --
> *Carolina Rossini *
>
> *Vice President, International Policy and Strategy *
> *Public Knowledge*
> *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>
> --
>
> *Carolina Rossini *
> *Vice President, International Policy*
> *Public Knowledge*
> *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
> + 1 6176979389 | 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
>



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150429/7119a9f2/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Apr 30 10:37:05 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 20:07:05 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Remarks of Lawrence E. Strickling Assistant
 Secretary for Communications and Information Internet2 Global Summit
In-Reply-To: <081d01d082bd$ed9ec6e0$c8dc54a0$@gmail.com>
References: <CAK-FJAcQNsA3QHAhVMsuFmjRdG6wR2FNkOeeyjHxHF9smPqKOA@mail.gmail.com> <081d01d082bd$ed9ec6e0$c8dc54a0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55423E11.50609@itforchange.net>

A lot of stuff about 'multistakeholder model of IG' is based on a
deliberate obfuscation about whether one is talking about a subsidiary
set of governance functions that relate to technical management of the
Internet  or about making policy about the Internet. It is this
obfuscation that  for instance allows the US to run with the hares at
the same time as it hunts with the hounds. This obfuscation is quite
evident in this statement by Strickling as well.

The early part of the statement says

"New challenges to the Internet emerge every day, whether they are
related to cybersecurity, privacy, or the free flow of information
across borders.  As we confront these challenges, we continue to debate
a key question that has dominated international discussions over the
last decade or so, specifically who should govern the Internet?  Who
should make the decisions that determine what the Internet of tomorrow
will look like?"

Evidently, since some highest level public policy issues are mentioned
here, and so one would take that is the level of IG that the statement
is addressing.

The statement goes on to recommend to "make these decisions through what
is known as the multistakeholder model of Internet governance".

Participation and consensus decision making are given as the two key
elements of the multistakeholder (MS) model of IG. Right! Now, if this
is about actual public policy matters, one does note that the recent net
neutrality decision was not made by consensus even within the FCC, to
say nothing about the views of the telco sector and the Republicans.  
One would therefore really like to know what US means by 'making all IG
decisions by consensus'. But of course they are not going to tell us,
since it is all a spiel for the gullible and nothing more!

After making grand announcements about their support for the MS model
overall in the IG area, the moment they have to talk about details one
notices that it is all about technical management - they speak of IETF,
ICANN and so on. Why do they not then clearly tell us that MS model is
for the technical management area, while public policy issues like net
neutrality this will be done in the traditional democratic ways, as was
done for the recent net neutrality decision in the US. This is what we
really see them doing.

One sentence in the speech especially is a major give away. 

"The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
adopted a set of principles for Internet policymaking in 2011 that
strongly endorse multistakeholder cooperation.  The OECD principles
state, “multistakeholder processes have been shown to provide the
flexibility and global scalability required to address Internet policy
challenges."

Let them describe how OECD adopted its Internet policy making
principles, which they claim strongly endorsed MS cooperation. Is the
method employed by the OECD for policy development what they would call
a MS model of policy development? If so, lets all adopt it. I am fine
with it. But that is no way any kind of an equal footing model - govs
make the draft, they take inputs from other stakeholders, sometimes they
informally share the final draft with other stakeholders to seek wide
acceptance, but whether there is acceptance by all or not, it is the
governments which decide and sign on the final policy document. Would
this be described as the MS model of policy devleopment? If indeed so, I
dont see where is any dis agreement among any groups here at all.

And if this is not a MS model of policy development, those here who
profess MS models of policy development should speak up and so say, and
also tell us what would they think would be right MS model of policy
development. There is no point in writing vague theoretical things about
MSism .... One needs to come out and tell whether a specific case is MS
or not, and if not, what would be the corresponding MS model. That would
be some intellectual and political honesty.

It is clear that the US government believes in developing public
policies (including Internet related) in the traditional democratic/
governmental way, both at the national level (ex., the net neutrality
decision) and the international level (ex., OECD's Internet policy
principles). Equal footing MS policy devleopment model is just a facade
or rather a make-believe to keep at bay any attempt to challenge their
unipolar dominance over the global Internet.  Unfortunately, the US has
been quite successful at this strategy.

Why do we then not simply call their bluff, declare the emperor naked,
rather than playing the mute complicit courtiers! I find it a terrible
insult to common people's intelligence and political standing that US
can keep making such statements, in the smug knowledge that they have a
huge cultivated global constituency whereby no one is going to ask them
the questions that are so simple and obvious to ask. 

parminder


On Thursday 30 April 2015 02:19 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote:
>
> I think so that it is clear that we are all talking about the same
> thing, perhaps we could hear from any of the “civil society”
> proponents of multistakeholderism on this list whether they see any
> distance between how Secretary Strickling formulates the concept(s)
> and their own position/formulation.
>
> Â 
>
> Jeremy, Avri, Jeanette, Wolfgang, Adam, Bill, Anriette, Milton, anyone?
>
> Â 
>
> M
>
> Â 
>
> *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net
> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Carolina
> Rossini
> *Sent:* April 29, 2015 5:17 AM
> *To:* <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt
> *Subject:* [bestbits] Remarks of Lawrence E. Strickling Assistant
> Secretary for Communications and Information Internet2 Global Summit
>
> Â 
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From:Â *Joelle Tessler*Â <JTessler at ntia.doc.gov
> <mailto:JTessler at ntia.doc.gov>>
> Date: Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 5:06 PM
> Subject: Remarks of Assistant Secretary Strickling at Internet2 Global
> Summit
> To: Joelle Tessler <JTessler at ntia.doc.gov <mailto:JTessler at ntia.doc.gov>>
>
>
>   Remarks of Assistant Secretary Strickling at Internet2 Global Summit
>
> Â 
>
> *Remarks of Lawrence E. Strickling**
> *Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information*
> *Internet2 Global Summit*
> *Washington, D.C.*
> *April 28, 2015**
>
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2015/remarks-assistant-secretary-strickling-internet2-global-summit
>
> *--As Prepared for Delivery--*
>
> I am honored to be here to speak at Internet 2’s Global Summit. 
> Internet2 has been a strong partner with NTIA as a recipient of a $62
> million Recovery Act broadband grant.  With this grant, Internet2 has
> lit or upgraded over 18,000 miles of a national fiber backbone
> network.  This 100 gigabit per second backbone is accessible to more
> than 93,000 community anchor institutions through Internet 2’s
> partnership with regional research and education networks.  Several
> of these networks also received NTIA grants so we know that in
> Michigan, North Carolina and numerous other states, the good work of
> Internet 2 and the research and education community is driving higher
> speeds and lower cost broadband for schools and other institutions of
> learning.
>
> However, I did not come here today to talk about broadband.  My topic
> today is Internet governance.  This is an important and timely issue
> for everyone who relies on the Internet but particularly for the
> members of Internet2.  As your website states, “the commercial
> Internet we know today was shaped by the vision and work of the people
> and organizations in the Internet2 community.”  Indeed, we only
> enjoy the Internet today due to the engagement of the academic
> community decades ago. 
>
> The first four nodes on ARPANET, the experimental network from which
> the Internet evolved, were universities:Â  UCLA, Stanford, the
> University of California at Santa Barbara and the University of
> Utah.  The first message ever sent was between UCLA and Stanford. 
> We know from history that this first attempt to login crashed the
> system but the problem was quickly fixed and the rest is history. 
>
> New challenges to the Internet emerge every day, whether they are
> related to cybersecurity, privacy, or the free flow of information
> across borders.  As we confront these challenges, we continue to
> debate a key question that has dominated international discussions
> over the last decade or so, specifically who should govern the
> Internet?  Who should make the decisions that determine what the
> Internet of tomorrow will look like?  How can we ensure that the
> decisions made today will enable the Internet to continue to thrive as
> the amazing engine of economic growth and innovation we enjoy today?
>
> The debate has focused on two very different choices.  One choice is
> that governments alone should make the key decisions on the governance
> of the Internet.  This is the choice favored by authoritarian
> governments that want to restrict the information available to their
> citizens.  The other choice is to rely on all stakeholders to make
> these decisions through what is known as the multistakeholder model of
> Internet governance.
>
> What do we mean by the multistakeholder model?  One expert defines
> the multistakeholder model as different interest groups coming
> together on an equal footing to “identify problems, define
> solutions, and agree on roles and responsibilities for policy
> development, implementation, monitoring and evaluation.^[1]
> <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/print/speechtestimony/2015/remarks-assistant-secretary-strickling-internet2-global-summit#_ftn1>” 
>
> From that description, there are two key attributes to emphasize:Â 
> participation and consensus decision-making.
>
> Let me start with participation.  Internet policy issues draw a much
> larger range of stakeholders than traditional telecommunications
> issues.  One key benefit of multistakeholder processes is that they
> can include and engage all interested parties.  Such parties can
> include industry, civil society, government, technical and academic
> experts and even the general public.  The Internet is a diverse,
> multi-layered system that thrives only through the cooperation of many
> different parties.  Solving, or even meaningfully discussing, policy
> issues in this space, requires engaging these different parties. 
> Indeed, by encouraging the participation of all interested parties,
> multistakeholder processes can encourage broader and more creative
> problem solving.
>
> The second key attribute is consensus decision-making.  It is
> important that stakeholders come together on an equal footing.  The
> best way to ensure that all parties are treated equally is to make
> decisions on a consensus basis.  Final decisions need to reflect the
> views of all stakeholders as opposed to just the views of only one of
> the stakeholder communities involved. 
>
> Multistakeholder organizations such as the Internet Engineering Task
> Force and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
> (ICANN) have played a major role in the design and operation of the
> Internet and are directly responsible for its success.  Within the
> Obama Administration, we believe that maintaining and extending this
> model is important to ensure the continued growth and innovation of
> the Internet.
>
> There is bipartisan support for the multistakeholder model of Internet
> governance.  Both Republican and Democratic administrations have
> consistently emphasized that the multistakeholder process is the best
> mechanism for making decisions about how the Internet should be
> managed.  Congress agrees.  Earlier this spring, the Senate
> unanimously passed Senate Resolution 71, which states that the
> “United States remains committed to the multistakeholder model of
> Internet governance in which the private sector works in collaboration
> with civil society, governments, and technical experts in a
> consensus fashion.” 
>
> Today, the Internet is at a critical juncture.  We are continuing to
> oppose efforts by authoritarian regimes to replace multistakeholder
> decision making with a process limited only to governments.  This
> debate came to a head in 2012 at the International
> Telecommunication Union’s World Conference on International
> Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai.  At this meeting, governments
> split over whether the ITU, a United Nations organization in which
> only nations have a vote, should have more control over the
> Internet.  A majority of countries there supported greater
> governmental control. 
>
> However, since that conference, we have seen a growing acceptance of
> the multistakeholder model around the world, but particularly in
> developing countries.  Democracies in the developed world have long
> supported the multistakeholder model of Internet policymaking.  The
> Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) adopted a
> set of principles for Internet policymaking in 2011 that strongly
> endorse multistakeholder cooperation.  The OECD principles state,
> “multistakeholder processes have been shown to provide the
> flexibility and global scalability required to address Internet
> policy challenges.”
>
> What is now emerging is greater acceptance of the model in developing
> countries.  A year ago, Brazil hosted the successful NetMundial
> conference, which brought together a wide range of stakeholders
> including technical experts, civil society groups, industry
> representatives and government officials, all on an equal footing with
> each other.  At this meeting not only did participants agree that
> Internet governance should be built on democratic multistakeholder
> processes, the entire meeting was a demonstration of the open,
> participative, and consensus-driven governance that has allowed the
> Internet to develop as an unparalleled engine of economic growth and
> innovation.
>
> Most recently, at the ITU’s 2014 Plenipotentiary conference in
> Busan, Korea late last year, we saw the fruits of all our work to
> preserve multistakeholder Internet governance.  The United States
> achieved all of its objectives in Busan, including keeping the ITU’s
> work focused on its current mandate and not expanding its role into
> Internet and cybersecurity issues. 
>
> This validation of the multistakeholder model comes at a critical
> time.  Last year, NTIA announced its intention to complete the
> privatization of the Internet Domain Name System (DNS). Key to the
> operation of the DNS is the performance of important technical
> functions known as the IANA functions, the most well known of which is
> the maintenance of the authoritative root zone file, the telephone
> book for the Internet that supports the routing of all traffic to
> websites. 
>
> The process of privatization of the DNS began in 1998, when NTIA
> entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with ICANN to
> transition technical DNS coordination and management functions to the
> private sector.  A year ago in March, NTIA asked ICANN to convene a
> multistakeholder process to develop a proposal to take the final step
> to complete the transition of the U.S. stewardship over the IANA
> functions to the international community.  We did this to ensure that
> the multistakeholder model for DNS coordination continues.  Some
> governments have long bristled at the historical role the U.S.
> government has played in the DNS and have used our continued
> stewardship of the DNS as an excuse to argue for greater government
> control over how the Internet is governed.
>
> When we announced this transition, we outlined some specific
> conditions that must be addressed before this transition takes
> place.  First, the proposal must support and enhance the
> multistakeholder model of Internet governance, in that it should be
> developed by the multistakeholder community and have broad community
> support.  More specifically, we will not accept a transition proposal
> that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or intergovernmental
> organization solution.  Second, the proposal must maintain the
> security, stability, and resiliency of the domain name system. 
> Third, it must meet the needs and expectations of the global customers
> and partners of the IANA services.  And finally, it must maintain the
> openness of the Internet.
>
> We are pleased that the community has responded enthusiastically to
> our call to develop a transition plan that will ensure the stability,
> security and openness of the Internet.  The community is in the
> process of developing proposals related to the specific IANA functions
> as well as examining how to ensure ICANN remains accountable to the
> global Internet community. 
>
> I am confident that engaging the global Internet community to work out
> these important issues will strengthen the multistakeholder process
> and will result in ICANN’s becoming even more directly accountable
> to the customers of the IANA functions and to the broader Internet
> community. 
>
> Some of you here today are likely participating in the stakeholder
> discussions to design the transition plan.  Others of you are no
> doubt wondering why you should care about this transition and what is
> at stake for you.  The members of Internet2, such as universities and
> research institutions, depend on the free flow of information. 
> Completing the privatization of the Domain Name System is an important
> step to ensure that the Internet remains a global platform for the
> free exchange of ideas, commerce and social progress.
>
> Failing to complete the transition, as we promised 17 years ago, risks
> breaking trust in the United States and in the underlying system that
> has enabled the Internet to work seamlessly for consumers and
> businesses.  Introducing this uncertainty could have a significant
> impact on American companies that depend on the Internet to do
> business if other countries respond by erecting barriers to the free
> flow of information or worst case, abandoning the long-held belief in
> the power of a single Internet root. 
>
> The transition plan is being developed by the Internet’s
> stakeholders and must be a proposal that generates consensus support
> from the multistakeholder community.  All of you can play a role to
> ensure a good outcome.  First, I encourage you to participate in the
> transition planning process.  You are an important constituency and
> those crafting this plan must hear from you as this transition
> progresses.  Second, stay informed on the progress of the
> transition.  When the community completes its consensus plan, let
> your voice be heard in support of completing the transition.  We all
> have a stake in this transition and in ensuring the Internet remains
> an open, dynamic platform for economic and social progress. Decades
> ago, the academic community played a central role in the development
> of the Internet; now we need you to play an active role in its future.
>
> Thank you for listening.
>
> Â 
>
> Â 
>
> Joelle Tessler
>
> Manager of Stakeholder Relations and Outreach
>
> National Telecommunications and Information Administration
>
> U.S. Department of Commerce
>
> jtessler at ntia.doc.gov <mailto:jtessler at ntia.doc.gov>
>
> Â 
>
>
>
> Â 
>
> --Â 
>
> Â 
>
> --Â 
>
> /Carolina Rossini /
>
> /Vice President, International Policy and Strategy /
>
> *Public Knowledge*
>
> _http://www.publicknowledge.org/_
>
> + 1 6176979389 |Â skype: carolrossini |Â @carolinarossini
>
> Â 
>
> -- 
>
> Â 
>
> /Carolina Rossini /
>
> /Vice President, International Policy/
>
> *Public Knowledge*
>
> _http://www.publicknowledge.org/_
>
> + 1 6176979389 |Â skype: carolrossini |Â @carolinarossini
>
> Â 
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150430/e8ce27e5/attachment.htm>

From nb at bollow.ch  Thu Apr  2 15:06:52 2015
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 21:06:52 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] On the legitimacy of civil-society-only
 meetings, e.g. ISF (was Re: APrIGF Macao...)
In-Reply-To: <D143A32C.3C8CF%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
References: <37C3C0E3-16AA-4975-A774-FAE84A9F64AE@aprigf.asia>
	<618DCF4D-70C7-4522-BB76-B2AA6071599E@aprigf.asia>
	<CAJqNAHDv5p=3HsOQb8whr5xvsOYZfGL+rAXidhAqcfp3sbg_hg@mail.gmail.com>
	<551BBF13.4000602@itforchange.net>
	<D141E8B1.3C6E9%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
	<20150402094950.62038db8@quill>
	<D143A32C.3C8CF%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
Message-ID: <20150402210652.3a092b02@quill>

On Thu, 2 Apr 2015 17:57:01 +0000
"Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)" <TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg> wrote,
in response to a posting from me:

> >I'm going to address the above question slightly outside of its
> >original context,
> Ok, no response is needed from me then because the context is
> important.

Context is always important. However your posting was not clear on
whether you meant your pointed question *only* in reference to the
specific context of the previous discussion, or more generally. And
this still hasn't been clarified.

Therefore, I'd like to ask directly, in relation to the fact that you
posted, “If even the World Economic Forum is recognising the
importance of a multistakeholder model 
http://www.weforum.org/reports/future-role-civil-society, would not a
civil-society-only meeting be a step backward?”:

Do you view this point about the WEF as being applicable only in
reference to "workshops" in IGF / regional IGF contexts, or more
broadly?

And specifically, do you see a civil-society-only stand-alone forum
such as the proposed Internet Social Forum as unquestionably
legitimate, or do you see that point about the WEF as being relevant
to questioning legitimacy of the Internet Social Forum?

>> In my view, questioning the legitimacy of holding civil-society-only
>> meetings for purposes of discussion and strategizing and seeking to
>> build momentum within civil society for proposed public interest
>> oriented agendas is like questioning the legitimacy of the desire of
>> businesses to be profitable, or questioning the legitimacy of the
>> desire of governments to fund themselves through taxes.
> 
> I hope you do not take offence but an analogy is not an argument.

Of course it isn't. But if it should happen that someone expresses
doubts about that analogy being a quite appropriate one, I will be
happy to defend my view with arguments.

Greetings,
Norbert

From dan.oppermann at gmail.com  Thu Apr  2 17:54:51 2015
From: dan.oppermann at gmail.com (Daniel Oppermann)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2015 18:54:51 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] CFP Internet Governance Symposium, Brazil
Message-ID: <551DBAAB.9020504@gmail.com>


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dear all,

As the deadline for GigaNet's Internet Governance symposium in João
Pessoa (Brazil) is approaching I would like to send a reminder regarding
our call for proposals. The CFP is attached to this mail, the deadline
for proposals is 15 April 2015.

Thanks!

Best
Daniel




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVHbqrAAoJEH/3W7QjgHJNDrMIAI7UnlNifpAClCcrShA/4/Kk
QpahunKPclRzXLzbx2hQxYY7eSrp+w41o+813IogE+X5j2qnQwTNTLmowm1yEycT
Ljvjx39crgPgDkG4031gVYCOoysDlReFd2zEYKgmOI6mrsgU3+KrUGA5IrLLnoIL
4yLSe27PkwNNGT989Hm0Akjelau/GQjuc0YUlCi1mEjLLi4DSUAtsYRWUuh8ykqG
VADywmLJB+sf4FOKao/XW2lpQeq7LMn9JW5OSqaPtvUEgSXBjR6zaHkwPN1vOHCk
DzckEC8oPxw4c7OmpQTSxqt5nnPIlxPt6ABWQiSgX2RIwIgeLk21OMWdUglK7i0=
=Liav
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: call_for_proposals_GigaNet_2015.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 81603 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150402/02530ea3/attachment.pdf>

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Thu Apr  2 19:53:58 2015
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 10:53:58 +1100
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Opening Session @ the Global Conference
 on Cyberspace - thoughts welcome
In-Reply-To: <CAE1T72TCg-mEAiDJbyLErxysmc+D98q0T2eTEGxPE=xA9jCFEQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh117w=fAZ48vvDcz-9qHDeLKNE1_r1yYxz=zW_whGr0jhA@mail.gmail.com> <CAE1T72TCg-mEAiDJbyLErxysmc+D98q0T2eTEGxPE=xA9jCFEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <811F0D75358442FDA26CF753FFCAE627@Toshiba>

Hi Devon,

I think the debate can and will evolve from the suggestion that “security” and human rights – in particular the right to privacy – need to in some way work against each other. While some governments still believe this is the case, many others now appear to have moved on from this.

A parallel might be to compare the great “security” we would have in society if there was a policeman permanently stationed on every street corner. I’m sure it would reduce crime, but would it create the sort of society we want to live in? I don’t think so; in fact we have a term for that sort of society, it is called a police state. And may I suggest that various forms of mass surveillance being suggested as necessary by some security groups might be heading in this direction, and are a step too far. Increasingly governments are recognising this.

I believe the early draft Chair’s statement for this conference will be released soon to civil society lists, for inputs into a civil society response to this draft. But having just had a sneak preview of the document, I was generally pleased with the strength of the suggested text on privacy and human rights, which begins with “the protection of human rights and security online are complementary concepts”. But there is a long way to go and there may be attempts to water down these sections. 

But yes, I do believe that this matter is likely to be a key issue at the conference, and we should raise our voices to talk about the sort of society we would wish to live in.

Ian Peter



From: Devon Blake 
Sent: Friday, April 03, 2015 3:36 AM
To: Nnenna Nwakanma ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
Cc: Discussion List on African Internet Governance Forum ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; members 
Subject: Re: [governance] Opening Session @ the Global Conference on Cyberspace - thoughts welcome

I might be a bit out of touch but there is a conundrum between the level of individual freedom and security...security is being able to uniquely identify every user of the internet, and  have the capacity to mitigate against illegal or unsanctioned use... freedom here relates to the highest concepts of human rights...and we can list them...if we can find seven interrelated principles of human rights...and balance them against the character of each user...then we would have set the foundation for focused dialog on freedom vs security.
Devon

On Apr 2, 2015 3:30 AM, "Nnenna Nwakanma" <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:

  Dear all,


  If all goes as planned, I will be at the opening panel on the morning of April 16th.  If you have any thoughts you would like me "not to forget", please feel free to share.  I have pasted the blurb, including the questions below.  Kindly note the following:

    1.. Because I only arrive on the 15th, I will be missing the Civil Society pre-event. So apologies upfront. 
    2.. I will try, to the measure possible to represent Civil Society views, but I do not and will not pretend to be representing anybody. 
    3.. I neither have the energy, time, nor bandwidth to engage in any debates, especially the type that seeks to lead nowhere, that has become the signature of some CS spaces. 
    4.. Feel free to mail nnenna at webfoundation directly if that is the best option for you.
  ==


  Opening session
  Mark Rutte, Prime Minister of the Netherlands, will open the conference, followed by an introduction by Bert Koenders, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, host of the GCCS. The conference will start with a strategic discussion among representatives of all stakeholders on the most important current developments in cyberspace. A panel consisting of high-level government officials and private sector and civil society leaders will sketch the main opportunities, dilemmas and challenges facing the further evolution of the internet. All main issues of the conference will be touched upon: internet governance and multistakeholder cooperation, freedom and privacy online, the digital divide, the internet as enabler for social and economic development, cyber security and cybercrime. The panel will address questions such as:

    a.. How should we balance freedom, security and economic development and innovation in cyberspace? 
    b.. How do we guarantee an open, free and secure internet? 
    c.. What are the responsibilities of the various stakeholders in cyberspace, e.g.: what  role should governments vis a vis the private sector play in protecting privacy online? 
    d.. How can we improve cooperation between governments, private sector and civil society in cyber-related matters? 
    e.. How can we maintain and improve trust by consumers in the internet? 
    f.. How can we stimulate research and development, and interdisciplinary academic cooperation in order to strengthen cyberspace?
  The panel will be followed by ministerial statements.

  Panelists:

    a.. Mireille Ballestrazzi, President of Interpol  
    b.. Vint Cerf, Vice-President of Google 
    c.. Nnenna Nwakanma, World Wide Web Foundation 
    d.. Fadi Chehadé, CEO ICANN 
    e.. Yurie Ito, Director of Global Coordination Division for the JPCERT/CC 





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

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

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




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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150403/ee0b743c/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Apr  3 03:23:36 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2015 12:53:36 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Fwd: [Rigf_discuss] [Extended Deadline:
 Apr 7(Tue)] APrIGF Macao 2015 - Last Chance to Submit Your Workshop
 Proposals
In-Reply-To: <D143A10F.3C8BD%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
References: <37C3C0E3-16AA-4975-A774-FAE84A9F64AE@aprigf.asia> <618DCF4D-70C7-4522-BB76-B2AA6071599E@aprigf.asia> <CAJqNAHDv5p=3HsOQb8whr5xvsOYZfGL+rAXidhAqcfp3sbg_hg@mail.gmail.com> <551BBF13.4000602@itforchange.net> <D141E8B1.3C6E9%tphang@ntu.edu.sg> <551BDFE9.8000703@itforchange.net> <D143A10F.3C8BD%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
Message-ID: <551E3FF8.6090404@itforchange.net>



On Thursday 02 April 2015 11:20 PM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote:
> Hi Parminder.
>
> Bunch of meetings whole day ending with a minor emergency that had to
> be attended to because it’s a holiday tomorrow.

Hope everything is well.
>
> I’m glad I had the facts wrong in the right places. (You know what I
> mean.)
>
> You had the question:
> >Finally, since I have answered your questions, I will like to ask you
> if you think that the workshop we are proposing on an Internet Social
> Forum should be accepted (1) at the IGF, and (2) at APrIGF. And also
> what really does it mean to make it necessary for workshop proposals
> to present all issues 'incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective’. 
>
> I’m not in the MAG and I’m only one voice in the APrIGF selection
> committee.

Would still have like have liked your clarification about the
implications of having to present issues with ' a multistakeholder
perspective'. Most members of the committee must be here, and anyone can
clarify it to me..
>
> >Isnt the test of 'incorporating public interest perspective' better .
> The devil is in the detail. How does one define public interest?

Sure. There is a few centuries of work of political science and how to
define and determine public interest - which is still always a project
in the works. My problem is, you seem to be unsure of 'how to define
public interest' but, at the same time,  happy to easily and
unproblematically use the term 'multistakeholder perspective'. And not
even clarify it when I ask .... Why dont similar doubts occur in your
mind when you make providing such a MS perspective as a condition for
APrIGF workshops? Certainly, there is much less known or written (in
fact, almost, nothing) on what is a 'multistakeholder perspective'.

So, my problem here is relative - why public interest is unclear but
'multistakeholder perspective is presumably clear.

Do you see here almost an exact parallel to the issue which came up
during the recent UNESCO meeting about multistakeholderism versus
democracy - where multistakeholderism was presumed to be a clear and
well defined term, with no 'baggage' and thus included in the text,
while 'democracy' was seen to be unclear and 'carrying baggage', and
rejected.

Shows how deep, well-formed and portent this current political problem
of democracy/ public interest versus the new political form of
multistakholderism is, and the latter's suspiciously post-democratic
nature. I would especially draw the attention of all those who would
otherwise be really committed to democracy, but may miss the depth and
meaningfulness of the issue, for instance as may have happened during
the discussions about the UNESCO document, the WEF-NMI initiative, and
so on...

We may ignore this major emerging political fault-line, of historical
significance, only at our and our democratic societies' peril.

parminder

>
> Had a long day.
>
> Good night.
>
> Regards, 
> Peng Hwa
>
> From: Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net
> <mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
> Date: Wednesday, 1 April 2015 8:09 pm
> To: Ang Peng Hwa <tphang at ntu.edu.sg <mailto:tphang at ntu.edu.sg>>,
> "governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>"
> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Anja Kovacs
> <anja at internetdemocracy.in <mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in>>,
> "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>"
> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: [Rigf_discuss] [Extended
> Deadline: Apr 7(Tue)] APrIGF Macao 2015 - Last Chance to Submit Your
> Workshop Proposals
>
>
>
> On Wednesday 01 April 2015 04:14 PM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote:
>> Hi Parminder.
>>
>> I went to the IGF page and searched for your proposal. I’m surprised
>> that the entire group of organisers consists of civil society players
>> only.
>
> Hi Peng Hwa
>
> Perhaps you missed noting that we have entered the proposal not as a
> regular IGF workshop but under 'others' - calling it as an 'outreach
> event'. And out reach event for any initiative is obviously done by
> those associated with organising that event, here, the Internet Social
> Forum, which are all civil society organisations.  The Internet Social
> Forum is to be a thematic forum under the World Social Forum rubric.
> The World Social Forum in fact only allows civil society groups to
> participate and not businesses or government. Please see this link for
> WSF's criteria of paticipation . Now if you want to take up issues
> with the WSF and its criteria of participation, that is a different
> thing - there are much better worthies to defend it than I.
>
> BTW, among the organisers are both civil society and technical
> community groups, and it has been made clear in the past that it is
> not necessary to have stakeholders as co- organisers of an IGF workshop.
>
>  
>>
>> The online proposal form has a button that allows one to ask for help
>> if one has difficulty getting stakeholder participation. Your
>> proposal does not have that request. I presume it means that you are
>> not seeking inputs from government or the private sector.
>
> You can conflating organisers and participants. If you look at the
> tentative panel, you will find a wide variety of stakeholders.
>>
>> Back in 2010, when we organised the first APrIGF, you and I had a
>> couple of side chats during the meeting in HK and you gave some
>> critical inputs that, in the long run, strengthened the meeting. One
>> of the criticisms was that we had no government representation on the MSG
>
> As far as I remember, both at the HK meeting, and later in exchanges
> on this list, my main point was to involve the UN regional commission
> of Asia Pacific.
>
>> (multistakeholder steering group; acronym cunningly chosen because it
>> resembles flavouring originating in Asia). There was a bit of finger
>> wagging by you even then and I explained to you that we had tried but
>> no government was stepping up. Since then, we have seen increasing
>> government involvement with the APrIGF. Fast forward to 2014 and the
>> Indian government played a major part in the APrIGF in Delhi. I don’t
>> know if you played a part in that but your critique in 2010 was
>> helpful in prodding us to get government on board. In the coming
>> Macao meeting, they are involved in sponsorships as well.
>>
>> So now, seeing a proposal from you where only civil society is
>> speaker and audience is puzzling. I
>
> you are wrong on your facts .
>
>> have battle scars from being ejected at meetings by government
>> officials between the two WSISs. They are so rare these days I wear
>> them as a badge of honour.
>>
>> So these are my questions that come top of my head.
>>
>>  1. If civil society can organise a session where no government or
>>     business organisation is invited, would it be acceptable if
>>     governments and business organise their own meetings among
>>     themselves?
>>
>
> Where did you read that no gov or business is invited? Further, we
> have a variety of stakeholders on the panel as well. Yes, no business
> at present. I would love to get a small developing country business
> but can never find one. If you know anyone please do refer to me.
>
>>  1. If even the World Economic Forum is recognising the importance of
>>     a multistakeholder
>>     model http://www.weforum.org/reports/future-role-civil-society,
>>     would not a civil-society-only meeting be a step backward?
>>
> I have pretty good idea about what WEF recognises and what it does
> not, and to what purpose. (BTW, do read their Global Redesign
> Initiative, and their vision of the future of governance. But if you
> cant read it all, see a short critique in this article
> <http://www.twn.my/title2/resurgence/2014/287-288/cover02.htm> , go to
> the  box in the article on 'From NetMundial to the WEF'.) The workshop
> on the Internet Social Forum at the IGF is of course not only civil
> society. As for your objection to the proposed Internet Social Forum
> itself being only civil society, you will need to engage with the
> World Social Forum, at whose 2015 meeting last week about 40,000
> people congregated from the world over. The next WSF is probably in
> Canada, and there will curely be an Internet Social Forum event there.
> You are welcome to come.
>
> Below are the current top news about the 2015 WSF meeting. (You may
> also know that the WSF - read charter here
> <http://www.forumsocialmundial.org.br/main.php?id_menu=4&cd_language=2>-
> was called in direct opposition to the WEF, so obviously a lots of
> people were never too happy with WEF's multistakeholderism and
> inclusiveness !)
>
>
> http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/mar/23/world-social-forum-tunis-activists-united-against-global-power-grab
> http://www.equaltimes.org/2015-a-key-year-for-world-social#.VRvcts3SUyo
> http://cadtm.org/Declaration-of-the-Assembly-of,11452
> http://www.democracynow.org/2015/3/27/african_economist_samir_amin_on_the
>
> Finally, since I have answered your questions, I will like to ask you
> if you think that the workshop we are proposing on an Internet Social
> Forum should be accepted (1) at the IGF, and (2) at APrIGF. And also
> what really does it mean to make it necessary for workshop proposals
> to present all issues 'incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective'.
> Isnt the test of 'incorporating public interest perspective' better .
>
> Regards
> parminder
>
>> Regards, 
>> Peng Hwa
>>
>> From: Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net
>> <mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
>> Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>"
>> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Parminder Singh
>> <parminder at ITforChange.net <mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
>> Date: Wednesday, 1 April 2015 5:49 pm
>> To: Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in
>> <mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in>>, "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>, IGC
>> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>
>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: [Rigf_discuss] [Extended
>> Deadline: Apr 7(Tue)] APrIGF Macao 2015 - Last Chance to Submit Your
>> Workshop Proposals
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday 31 March 2015 01:29 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> I just wanted to share with you all that the submission deadline for
>>> the APrIGF workshops has been slightly extended, until 7 April. For
>>> those of you who are in the region, do please consider submitting a
>>> proposal!
>>
>> Hi Anja
>>
>> I am curious what would the mean and entail by "proposals ... should
>> present the proposed issue ... incorporating a multi-stakeholder
>> perspective".
>>
>> For instance, it one were to present a workshop proposal titled
>> 'Countering the power of Internet Trans-national corporations', one
>> would normally be writing mostly about excesses of TNC's power in
>> this area and what to do about it, isnt it. Would that fail the test
>> of 'incorporating a MS perspective'.
>>
>> Or, to take a more concrete example, those who organised the workshop
>> on Internet Social Forum intend to also organise one the next IGF,
>> the initial proposal is here
>> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshop-proposals/list-of-published-workshop-proposals>
>> ... I have a feeling that this proposal may not be considered to be
>> 'incorporating a multi stakeholder perspective' but I dont know, you
>> or someone else from APrIGF can tell me..
>>
>> Best , parminder
>>>
>>> With best regards,
>>> Anja
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: *APrIGF Secretariat* <sec at aprigf.asia <mailto:sec at aprigf.asia>>
>>> Date: 30 March 2015 at 12:54
>>> Subject: [Rigf_discuss] [Extended Deadline: Apr 7(Tue)] APrIGF Macao
>>> 2015 - Last Chance to Submit Your Workshop Proposals
>>> To: announce at aprigf.asia <mailto:announce at aprigf.asia>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum*
>>> *APrIGF Macao 2015*
>>> *30 Jun (Pre-event), 1-3 Jul (Main Conference), 2015*
>>> *Sands Cotai Central, Macao*
>>> http://2015.rigf.asia <http://aprigf.asia/>
>>>
>>> *Final Call for Pre-Events/Workshop Proposals*
>>>
>>> With our promotion at the RightsCon Southeast Asia which just
>>> concluded in Manila last week, the MSG is very glad to receive the
>>> overwhelming interests from the attendees on submitting workshop
>>> proposals and their request for a further deadline extension.
>>> To enhance the diversity of the proposals and engage more
>>> stakeholders' participation, the MSG reached a consensus to further
>>> extend the submission deadline to allow sufficient time for
>>> community members to fully develop their workshop proposals.
>>>
>>> We now welcome proposals for pre-events or main workshop sessions
>>> which should present the proposed issue in an inclusive manner,
>>> incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective with a balance of
>>> stakeholders and gender in the speakers list. The session shall
>>> promote an interactive dialogue among the participants.
>>>
>>> There will not be further deadline extension. Hence, it is highly
>>> encouraged to submit your complete workshop proposal within the
>>> extended period.
>>>
>>> *Workshop Proposal Submission Deadline: *11 Mar 2015
>>> (Wed) *[Extended to 7 Apr (Tue)]*
>>>
>>> *Online Submission
>>> Form:* (http://2015.rigf.asia/workshop-theme-submissions/)
>>>
>>> If you have any enquiries, please feel free to contact the
>>> secretariat at sec at aprigf.asia <mailto:sec at aprigf.asia>.
>>>
>>> *
>>> If you are interested to follow any news and updates about APrIGF
>>> and discuss relevant issues, you may subscribe to the mailing
>>> list discuss at aprigf.asia <mailto:discuss at aprigf.asia> by sending in
>>> subscription request.
>>>
>>> We also welcome any Internet-related organisation to become a
>>> sponsor. Please contact sec at aprigf.asia <mailto:sec at aprigf.asia> for
>>> more information.
>>> *
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Secretariat of APrIGF
>>> http://www.aprigf.asia <http://www.dot.asia/>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Rigf_discuss mailing list
>>> Rigf_discuss at web2.dotasia.org <mailto:Rigf_discuss at web2.dotasia.org>
>>> https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_discuss
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs
>>> The Internet Democracy Project
>>>
>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>>> www.internetdemocracy.in <http://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
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> CONFIDENTIALITY: This email is intended solely for the person(s)
>> named and may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the
>> intended recipient, please delete it, notify us and do not copy, use,
>> or disclose its contents.
>> Towards a sustainable earth: Print only when necessary. Thank you. 
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150403/8d7c4421/attachment.htm>

From pouzin at well.com  Fri Apr  3 06:09:09 2015
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 12:09:09 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Fwd: [Rigf_discuss] [Extended Deadline:
 Apr 7(Tue)] APrIGF Macao 2015 - Last Chance to Submit Your Workshop
 Proposals
In-Reply-To: <D1446A1D.3C93E%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
References: <37C3C0E3-16AA-4975-A774-FAE84A9F64AE@aprigf.asia>
 <618DCF4D-70C7-4522-BB76-B2AA6071599E@aprigf.asia> <CAJqNAHDv5p=3HsOQb8whr5xvsOYZfGL+rAXidhAqcfp3sbg_hg@mail.gmail.com>
 <551BBF13.4000602@itforchange.net> <D141E8B1.3C6E9%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
 <551BDFE9.8000703@itforchange.net> <D143A10F.3C8BD%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
 <551E3FF8.6090404@itforchange.net> <D1446A1D.3C93E%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
Message-ID: <CA+EjHYo2Q=ii5U7NwLv9K=LtmH_z3XWMiCQ+XRnzMYRWa47brg@mail.gmail.com>

It's true that public interest has a variable geometry. In my mind it's
defined by a democratic decision within the relevant public.

As to multistakeholderism, it can certainly mean that discussions should
occur between various parties having some stakes in issues at hand (then,
what's new, it's been practiced for eons). But no more.

Decision making by so called consensus (i.e. no objection) may work in
exceptional conditions. Else rules are needed for handling persistent
disagreements.

Multistakeholderism pushed as a management model without decision making
rules is a variety of scam (aka multi-steak-holdup).
  .
Louis
- - -

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) <TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg>
wrote:

>  >Hope everything is well.
> Yes, all's well. Thanks. Potential seven-figure fine but most likely
> averted.
>
>  >Would still have like have liked your clarification about the
> implications of having to present issues with ' a multistakeholder
> perspective'. Most members of the committee must be here, and anyone can
> clarify it to me.
>
>  I thought the fact that because you raised the issue, the answer
> suggested itself: offering perspectives of the three stakeholders of
> public, private and civil society sectors.
>
>
>  >So, my problem here is relative - why public interest is unclear but
> 'multistakeholder perspective is presumably clear.
> It's quite easy to define the latter but not the former.
>
>  Regards,
> Peng Hwa
>
>   From: Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net>
> Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>,
> Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net>
> Date: Friday, 3 April 2015 3:23 pm
> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>,
> BestBitsList <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
>
> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: [Rigf_discuss] [Extended
> Deadline: Apr 7(Tue)] APrIGF Macao 2015 - Last Chance to Submit Your
> Workshop Proposals
>
> [..]
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150403/d342c9d3/attachment.htm>

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Fri Apr  3 17:02:16 2015
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2015 08:02:16 +1100
Subject: [bestbits] CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS - apologies for
 short time frame
Message-ID: <89AB49BFA7554611B15944AE2338F697@Toshiba>

Dear friends,



[Apologies for cross-posting]



Below is a statement requesting your input into formulating the civil society response to the Chair’s statement for GCCS 2015. Apologies for very short comments period, but the draft was only released for our wider input in last 24 hours, and we need to submit a consolidated CS response after getting your input. There will be another (again short) opportunity to comment on the consolidated response as per message below.



Governments and business interests will also be responding to the text separately in the same time frame, so we can expect changes. There are some (surprisingly) good sections of the text  currently (IMHO) that we need to argue to retain, plus plenty where we can suggest improvements. But please input within the time frame either by the form or the email address below.











We would like to bring to your attention the call for civil society input on the outcome document for the Global Conference on Cyberspace 2015 (GCCS 2015), hosted by the government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and taking place in The Hague on 16 and 17 April 2015. 



Following on from the London (2011), Budapest (2012), and Seoul (2013) Conferences - a series also known as the London Process, the 2015 event in The Hague will provide an opportunity for further high-level discussion of key cyberspace issues, structured around the three main themes of Freedom, Security and Growth. The Conference will be a stock-taking event, assessing the current global situation and mapping out the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. By engaging governments, business, academia and civil society participants at the Conference, the organisers hope to find practical solutions to real and urgent challenges, and to progress the agenda of a free, open and secure internet. 



Based on the assumption that all those who have a stake in cyberspace should be able to express their views and participate in a meaningful way, this year, the organisers are putting particular emphasis on facilitating multistakeholder engagement in the Conference. As part of an effort to achieve this, the Conference organisers are interested in getting Civil Society input on the draft outcome document of the Conference (The Chair’s Statement).



To submit your comments on the draft Chair’s Statement (HERE: http://tinyurl.com/lqp8knr), please complete this Google Form (link:http://goo.gl/forms/E72m3QTR1K) by COB Tuesday 7th April.



The consolidation of this input into a unified document to be presented to the Conference organisers will be coordinated by the GCCS2015 Advisory Board, which has been set up by the Conference organisers to help ensure the Conference is as inclusive and representative as possible.



In case you are unable to provide input at this stage, a call for a second round of comments on the unified document will be circulated in the week of the Conference.



If you would rather contact us directly with your comments, please write to aditi at gp-digital.org, answering the following 4 questions on the text:



  1.. Sections of the text that you support being included in the final outcome document

  2.. Areas of the text which could be strengthened

  3.. Areas of the text that raise concerns

  4.. Areas of the text where there are inconsistencies or that lack clarity



Feel free to share this call with your civil society networks.


 

Ian Peter

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150404/3e5c49e4/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Apr  4 04:00:26 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2015 13:30:26 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS -
 apologies for short time frame
In-Reply-To: <89AB49BFA7554611B15944AE2338F697@Toshiba>
References: <89AB49BFA7554611B15944AE2338F697@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <551F9A1A.6010400@itforchange.net>

Ian/ All

The following are my comments on the Global Conference on CyberSpace
2015 <https://www.gccs2015.com/> and its outcome document
<http://tinyurl.com/lqp8knr>.

This conference is 4th in a series also known as the London process. It
was started by US and UK and involves key developed countries, in an
attempt to create a captured space to develop global Internet related
norms and principles. See for instance the about page
<https://www.gccs2015.com/gccs/all-about-gccs2015>which says, "The three
preceding Global Conferences on CyberSpace (in London, Budapest and
Seoul) established a set of principles on internet governance." The
effort is to shun and move away from globally democratic spaces like
those of the UN, which should be the legitimate places to develop global
IG principles, to spaces controlled by key Northern powers.

Further, this process is not 'really multi-stakeholder' as all the
documents in the preceding meetings have been prepared by the key
Northern powers, with little or no input from civil society, or from
other country governments - certainly far far from the much bandied
equal footing multistakeholderism. The highly controlled participation
of civil society in these meeting is mediated in a non transparent
manner through means and agencies that I will pass commenting on at present.

These Northern powers (US and its allies) controlled global governance
spaces - even as the same powers resist any attempts to undertake such
principles and norms development at the UN level - represent entrenching
of their hegemony over the world's affairs, and further the spectre of a
unipolar world, which is imperialistic (and neo-colonial) and neoliberal.

In the circumstances, the foremost thing that civil society in Internet
governance space has to decide and comment upon is about the
imperialist, hegemonic and non-democratic means of global norms and
policy development that is embodied in GCCS kind of processes (and also
in OECD's Internet policy processes). Does civil society condone the
London process, with the said attributes and motives? In a way, they
seem to already condone it by participating in it, but then perhaps
participation could be used to convey the message to the organisers what
we think about it. Is there any such plan? Or is the civil society
merely going to fawn about how good everything is, except perhaps - can
you change the comma in line 8, and maybe insert 5-6 more instances of
the word 'multistakeholderism', and, thanks, we are done.

My view is, civil society participants should give a clear message to
the organisers that global civil society does not approve to such
captured spaces for global norms development, and that such activity
should be moved to genuinely globally democratic venues, where all
countries participate at the same level, and where civil society groups
have a very strong participative role. We should in fact prepare and
deliver a written common statement to the meeting in this regard. I dont
see what else can and needs to be done about this conference and its
proposed outcome document, which merely seeks to foist on the world the
principles and mechanisms for a hegemonic unipolar world, controlled by
imperialist forces, pursuing a neoliberal ideology .

parminder

On Saturday 04 April 2015 02:32 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
>
> Dear friends,
>
>
> /[Apologies for cross-posting]/
>
> // 
>
> /Below is a statement requesting your input into formulating the civil
> society response to the Chair’s statement for GCCS 2015. Apologies for
> very short comments period, but the draft was only released for our
> wider input in last 24 hours, and we need to submit a consolidated CS
> response after getting your input. There will be another (again short)
> opportunity to comment on the consolidated response as per message below./
>
> // 
>
> /Governments and business interests will also be responding to the
> text separately in the same time frame, so we can expect changes.
> There are some (surprisingly) good sections of the text  currently
> (IMHO) that we need to argue to retain, plus plenty where we can
> suggest improvements. But please input within the time frame either by
> the form or the email address below./
>
> // 
>
> // 
>
> // 
>
> // 
>
> //
>
> We would like to bring to your attention the call for civil society
> input on the outcome document for the Global Conference on Cyberspace
> 2015 <https://www.gccs2015.com/gccs/all-about-gccs2015>(GCCS 2015),
> hosted by the government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and taking
> place in The Hague on 16 and 17 April 2015.
>
>
> Following on from the London (2011), Budapest (2012), and Seoul (2013)
> Conferences - a series also known as the London Process, the 2015
> event in The Hague will provide an opportunity for further high-level
> discussion of key cyberspace issues, structured around the three main
> themes ofFreedom <https://www.gccs2015.com/themes/freedom>,Security
> <https://www.gccs2015.com/themes/security-0>andGrowth
> <https://www.gccs2015.com/themes/growth>. The Conference will be a
> stock-taking event, assessing the current global situation and mapping
> out the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. By engaging
> governments, business, academia and civil society participants at the
> Conference, the organisers hope to find practical solutions to real
> and urgent challenges, and to progress the agenda of a free, open and
> secure internet.
>
>
> Based on the assumption that all those who have a stake in cyberspace
> should be able to express their views and participate in a meaningful
> way, this year, the organisers are putting particular emphasis on
> facilitating multistakeholder engagement in the Conference. As part of
> an effort to achieve this, the Conference organisers are interested in
> getting Civil Society input on the draft outcome document of the
> Conference (The Chair’s Statement).
>
>
> To submit your comments on the draft Chair’s Statement (HERE:
> http://tinyurl.com/lqp8knr), please complete this Google Form
> <http://goo.gl/forms/dYdv3rVkIJ>(link:http://goo.gl/forms/E72m3QTR1K)
> by _*COB Tuesday 7th April*_.
>
>
> The consolidation of this input into a unified document to be
> presented to the Conference organisers will be coordinated by the
> GCCS2015 Advisory Board
> <https://www.gccs2015.com/participants/civil-society-participation>,
> which has been set up by the Conference organisers to help ensure the
> Conference is as inclusive and representative as possible.
>
>
> In case you are unable to provide input at this stage, a call for a
> second round of comments on the unified document will be circulated in
> the week of the Conference.
>
>
> If you would rather contact us directly with your comments, please
> write to aditi at gp-digital.org <mailto:aditi at gp-digital.org>, answering
> the following 4 questions on the text:
>
>
> 1.
>
>     Sections of the text that you support being included in the final
>     outcome document
>
> 2.
>
>     Areas of the text which could be strengthened
>
> 3.
>
>     Areas of the text that raise concerns
>
> 4.
>
>     Areas of the text where there are inconsistencies or that lack clarity
>
>
> *Feel free to share this call with your civil society networks.*
>
>
>  
>  
> Ian Peter
>  
>  
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150404/ea187910/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Sat Apr  4 10:00:27 2015
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2015 10:00:27 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Cybersecutiry and Diplomacy at The Hague
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAchoxBpY3X-O3Um1njZ6zF_dUoGvoRR9n2ZiJBmFvGJ1g@mail.gmail.com>

http://ict4peace.org/ict4peace-conducts-international-cybersecurity-diplomacy-course-at-the-global-conference-on-cyberspace-2015-the-hague-netherlands/

also open for non-gov folks

If you have questions, I am c/cing Daniel and Camino, the organizers.

Best

C


*Carolina Rossini *
*Vice President, International Policy*
*Public Knowledge*
*http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
+ 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150404/19f31fd3/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Apr  1 05:52:45 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 15:22:45 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] FW: New Blogpost: Is There a Global
 Internet Community
In-Reply-To: <004c01d06bfd$2f7b44d0$8e71ce70$@gmail.com>
References: <004301d06bfc$2ac81270$80583750$@gmail.com> <004c01d06bfd$2f7b44d0$8e71ce70$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <551BBFED.6010003@itforchange.net>



On Wednesday 01 April 2015 03:23 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote:
>
> Some may find this of interest…
>
> https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2015/03/31/is-there-a-global-internet-community/
>

To contextualise Michael's what was much needed exposition to a very 
specific issue, one of the hottest IG issues, pl see the update document 
on IANA stewardship transition

https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-stewardship-discussion-31mar15-en.pdf 


The term 'community' is freely bandied around as if everyone knows what 
it means, and mind it, this is an authoritative discussion about a new 
institutional mechanism where one needs to know what a term means. Btw, 
they have recruited legal advisers (one need not even check to know that 
they must be US firms but not to digress...) to ensure that whatever 
they come up with is is legally sound, which includes having a clear 
legal meaning. So friends, who are involved in, or are otherwise close, 
to IANA transition process, what does the term 'community' mean in this 
document - is it the larger public affected by the Internet or is it the 
set of people who have traditionally been engaging with ICANN and its 
associated organisations, and are part of its committees, outreach 
systems and so on. Accordingly, I will like to know whether it is the 
larger public accountability of ICANN that is being addressed by the 
concerned group, or its accountability to a narrowly defined group, 
which too please do define for me.

For instance, one cannot make sense of such important and fundamental 
propositions like the below, without knowing what or who is the 
'community' .

(quote from the cited doc begins)

The group discussed  new mechanisms to empower the community  in ICANN’s 
decision-making processes. In particular, there was general convergence 
on the need to enable the community to :

# Recall (or “spill”) ICANN’s Board of Directors
# Approve or prevent changes to ICANN’s Bylaws, Mission and Core Values
# Reject Board decisions on ICANN’s Strategic Plan and budget (where the 
Board has failed to appropriately consider community input)

## It was recognized that, while it was clearly important that the ICANN 
Board be accountable to the community, it was also essential for the 
community itself to meet high standards of accountability.

(ends)

Community is spoken of as something which can be ascribed clear agency, 
and thus must be clearly definable. Please do define it for us to enable 
us to make any sense of what this group is proposing on an issue which 
is so important for the global public.


In a doc referenced in the above doc, which is titled "Accountability 
mechanism" and can be found here 
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52888740/IRP%20Accountability%20Mechanism%20Template%20.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1426866536000&api=v2 


and I quote from it (this is about possible ways to compose the 
Independent Review Board)

(begins)
Members to be nominated by the Board in consultation with the 
appointment by CEO, approved [how?] by community; [possible 
alternativeswhom? involving a reversal of the above (i.e. community 
nomination andBoard approval)] [Also consider external vetting or rating 
schemes fornominees, i.e., third party organization such as ICDR could 
appoint/nominate subject to confirmation.]

(ends)

We can make no sense of all this without clearly knowing what or who is 
the 'community' here. Please help.

Thanks, parminder

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150401/3a3bbb65/attachment.htm>

From rysiek at hackerspace.pl  Sun Apr  5 16:49:46 2015
From: rysiek at hackerspace.pl (rysiek)
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2015 22:49:46 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] FW: New Blogpost: Is There a Global
 Internet Community
In-Reply-To: <CA+EjHYrkfL=vDtOezCpc+1GoF=FnTjf-phDm+0f3fLD5tEandA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <004301d06bfc$2ac81270$80583750$@gmail.com> <551BBFED.6010003@itforchange.net> <CA+EjHYrkfL=vDtOezCpc+1GoF=FnTjf-phDm+0f3fLD5tEandA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3332832.rJ2M7JJL63@lapuntu>

Dnia środa, 1 kwietnia 2015 12:54:36 Louis Pouzin pisze:
> Community without a qualifier, is just buzzword.

+1

Also, I much rather see some discussion about citizens of the world, or human 
beings, rather than "Internet community".

The means of communication should not be relevant as long as we're speaking 
about human rights, and if we agree to being labelled as "Internet community", 
"users", "customers", etc, we agree to a certain narrative that strips us of 
certain rights (and gatekeepers of certain responsibilities).

-- 
Pozdrawiam,
Michał "rysiek" Woźniak

Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147
GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 931 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150405/091382be/attachment.sig>

From isolatedn at gmail.com  Mon Apr  6 17:46:36 2015
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2015 03:16:36 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS - apologies
 for short time frame
In-Reply-To: <89AB49BFA7554611B15944AE2338F697@Toshiba>
References: <89AB49BFA7554611B15944AE2338F697@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <CAHyAo0E7O6qhzx3C9B2Gaot6+Cb86zYrjk4EAK-=s7rkT29cqA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Ian,

I sent the following comments by completing the Google form. Posting here
to ask if these views are shared:

*Q4 Sections of the text that you support being included in the final
outcome document*

​The document could fundamentally affirm a Global Commitment to preserve
the Internet as a Free and Open eco-system and commit to preserve its Core
Values. The document could emphatically articulate that the architectural
principles of the Internet are not to be altered, its underlying core
values are not to be altered.​

*Q5 Areas of the text which could be strengthened*

(22)  Not only is it important to facilitate the "acquisition of digital
evidence" but also emphasize the trans-border nature of cybercrime and
provide for faster extradition where there is strong evidence of
trans-border or global cybercrime ​

*Q6 Areas of the text t​​hat raise concerns*

​The overall emphasis on Cyber Security is a cause for concern. There is a
disproportional emphasis on Cyber Security measures over Civil Liberties.​

*Q7 Areas of the text where there are inconsistencies or that lack clarity*

( 27) What is emphasized here? State sovereignty or the international
obligations?​



Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>

On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 2:32 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

>   Dear friends,
>
> *[Apologies for cross-posting]*
>
>
>
> *Below is a statement requesting your input into formulating the civil
> society response to the Chair’s statement for GCCS 2015. Apologies for very
> short comments period, but the draft was only released for our wider input
> in last 24 hours, and we need to submit a consolidated CS response after
> getting your input. There will be another (again short) opportunity to
> comment on the consolidated response as per message below.*
>
>
>
> *Governments and business interests will also be responding to the text
> separately in the same time frame, so we can expect changes. There are some
> (surprisingly) good sections of the text  currently (IMHO) that we need to
> argue to retain, plus plenty where we can suggest improvements. But please
> input within the time frame either by the form or the email address below.*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> We would like to bring to your attention the call for civil society input
> on the outcome document for the Global Conference on Cyberspace 2015
> <https://www.gccs2015.com/gccs/all-about-gccs2015> (GCCS 2015), hosted by
> the government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and taking place in The
> Hague on 16 and 17 April 2015.
>
> Following on from the London (2011), Budapest (2012), and Seoul (2013)
> Conferences - a series also known as the London Process, the 2015 event in
> The Hague will provide an opportunity for further high-level discussion of
> key cyberspace issues, structured around the three main themes of Freedom
> <https://www.gccs2015.com/themes/freedom>, Security
> <https://www.gccs2015.com/themes/security-0> and Growth
> <https://www.gccs2015.com/themes/growth>. The Conference will be a
> stock-taking event, assessing the current global situation and mapping out
> the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. By engaging governments,
> business, academia and civil society participants at the Conference, the
> organisers hope to find practical solutions to real and urgent challenges,
> and to progress the agenda of a free, open and secure internet.
>
> Based on the assumption that all those who have a stake in cyberspace
> should be able to express their views and participate in a meaningful way,
> this year, the organisers are putting particular emphasis on facilitating
> multistakeholder engagement in the Conference. As part of an effort to
> achieve this, the Conference organisers are interested in getting Civil
> Society input on the draft outcome document of the Conference (The Chair’s
> Statement).
>
> To submit your comments on the draft Chair’s Statement (HERE:
> http://tinyurl.com/lqp8knr), please complete this Google Form
> <http://goo.gl/forms/dYdv3rVkIJ> (link:http://goo.gl/forms/E72m3QTR1K) by *COB
> Tuesday 7th April*.
>
> The consolidation of this input into a unified document to be presented to
> the Conference organisers will be coordinated by the GCCS2015 Advisory
> Board <https://www.gccs2015.com/participants/civil-society-participation>,
> which has been set up by the Conference organisers to help ensure the
> Conference is as inclusive and representative as possible.
>
> In case you are unable to provide input at this stage, a call for a second
> round of comments on the unified document will be circulated in the week of
> the Conference.
>
> If you would rather contact us directly with your comments, please write
> to aditi at gp-digital.org, answering the following 4 questions on the text:
>
>
>    1.
>
>    Sections of the text that you support being included in the final
>    outcome document
>    2.
>
>    Areas of the text which could be strengthened
>    3.
>
>    Areas of the text that raise concerns
>    4.
>
>    Areas of the text where there are inconsistencies or that lack clarity
>
>
> *Feel free to share this call with your civil society networks.*
>
>
>
> Ian Peter
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150407/58448fd2/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Thu Apr  9 23:12:07 2015
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 23:12:07 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: GCIG Paper No. 10 Now Online: A Primer on Globally
 Harmonizing Internet Jurisdiction and Regulations by Michael Chertoff &
 Paul Rosenzweig
In-Reply-To: <7D5133B1B0E9C045AF75F1211D1CD759A165766E@DAG-124-59.ciginet.pvt>
References: <7D5133B1B0E9C045AF75F1211D1CD759A165766E@DAG-124-59.ciginet.pvt>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAeCZHGMJWUq6XQFA90jZ-OX5Ou++rWdQV002LuopQprKw@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Samantha Bradshaw <sbradshaw at cigionline.org>
Date: Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 11:53 AM
Subject: GCIG Paper No. 10 Now Online: A Primer on Globally Harmonizing
Internet Jurisdiction and Regulations by Michael Chertoff & Paul Rosenzweig
To: RAN Members <ran at ourinternet.org>


 Dear RAN Members:



Today the GCIG secretariat issued working paper No. 10 by Michael Chertoff
and Paul Rosenzweig. *A Primer on Globally Harmonizing Internet
Jurisdiction and Regulations* can be downloaded and read by visiting:
https://ourinternet.org/#publications/a-primer-on-globally-harmonizing-internet-jurisdiction-and-regulations.




The brief paper offers some thoughts on how the potential legal fracturing
of the World Wide Web might be resolved, concluding that multilateral
agreement on a choice-of-law framework is essential to the continuing
growth of the network.



It would be greatly appreciated if you shared the link to this new research
paper with your colleagues via your social networks. For those of you on
Twitter, we have simplified the sharing process by drafting the following
two Tweets. Please feel free to Tweet either one or both of the following:



*Primer on Globally Harmonizing Internet Jurisdiction & Regulations [New
Report] by @RosenzweigP & Michael Chertoff: http://ow.ly/Loui1
<http://ow.ly/Loui1>*



*New @OurInternetGCIG report by Michael Chertoff & @RosenzweigP on legal
fracturing of the Web: http://ow.ly/Loui1 <http://ow.ly/Loui1>
#InternetGovernance*



Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.



Best regards,

Samantha



*[image: Description: ~sig_logo]*


* Samantha Bradshaw Research Associate, Global Security & Politics *Centre
for International Governance Innovation
Centre pour l’innovation dans la gouvernance internationale
67 Erb Street West, Waterloo, Ontario Canada N2L 6C2
tel   +1.519.885.2444 ext. 7203   |   fax   +1.519.885.5450
*www.cigionline.org <http://www.cigionline.org>*





-- 

*Carolina Rossini *
*Vice President, International Policy*
*Public Knowledge*
*http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
+ 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150409/eb2e6a14/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 3177 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150409/eb2e6a14/attachment.gif>

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Fri Apr 10 20:30:07 2015
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2015 10:30:07 +1000
Subject: [bestbits] CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS - apologies
 for short time frame
Message-ID: <92E0348530E345AFAD15C51236181CD6@Toshiba>

Thanks to everyone (about 40 people)  who responded to this with comments and suggestions.

I am attaching the letter which was sent a few hours ago to the Dutch organisers, with consolidated CS inputs. Our understanding of the process is that a new draft of the Chairs statement, taking into account the various inputs, will be issued just before the conference next week. However at that stage there will be no more new inputs to text, but rather discussion limited to red line text.

This ended up being a very rushed process, as we were advised with 48 hours of a new deadline for us to submit our suggestions. Compiling about 40 sets of comments at short notice into one document was difficult, and left very little time for a small group to produce a consolidated text and submit it. Apologies for not being able to consult wider on this, but we trust that the document submitted covers the range of suggestions and viewpoints submitted. It will be interesting to see which of our suggestions make it through to the final statement!

Ian Peter

From: Ian Peter 
Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2015 8:02 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; forum at justnetcoalition.org 
Subject: CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS - apologies for short time frame

Dear friends,



[Apologies for cross-posting]



Below is a statement requesting your input into formulating the civil society response to the Chair’s statement for GCCS 2015. Apologies for very short comments period, but the draft was only released for our wider input in last 24 hours, and we need to submit a consolidated CS response after getting your input. There will be another (again short) opportunity to comment on the consolidated response as per message below.



Governments and business interests will also be responding to the text separately in the same time frame, so we can expect changes. There are some (surprisingly) good sections of the text  currently (IMHO) that we need to argue to retain, plus plenty where we can suggest improvements. But please input within the time frame either by the form or the email address below.











We would like to bring to your attention the call for civil society input on the outcome document for the Global Conference on Cyberspace 2015 (GCCS 2015), hosted by the government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and taking place in The Hague on 16 and 17 April 2015. 



Following on from the London (2011), Budapest (2012), and Seoul (2013) Conferences - a series also known as the London Process, the 2015 event in The Hague will provide an opportunity for further high-level discussion of key cyberspace issues, structured around the three main themes of Freedom, Security and Growth. The Conference will be a stock-taking event, assessing the current global situation and mapping out the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. By engaging governments, business, academia and civil society participants at the Conference, the organisers hope to find practical solutions to real and urgent challenges, and to progress the agenda of a free, open and secure internet. 



Based on the assumption that all those who have a stake in cyberspace should be able to express their views and participate in a meaningful way, this year, the organisers are putting particular emphasis on facilitating multistakeholder engagement in the Conference. As part of an effort to achieve this, the Conference organisers are interested in getting Civil Society input on the draft outcome document of the Conference (The Chair’s Statement).



<snip> 


Ian Peter

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150411/d9076389/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GCCS - CS Response to Chairs Statement_Apr 10.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 393499 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150411/d9076389/attachment.pdf>

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Sat Apr 11 15:41:16 2015
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2015 05:41:16 +1000
Subject: [bestbits] CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS - apologies
 for short time frame
In-Reply-To: <CAFwCmbGo-dZZmQWMfd5i92b+oy_1uBPLzODwnVXSrt6iV=XSQQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <92E0348530E345AFAD15C51236181CD6@Toshiba> <CAFwCmbGo-dZZmQWMfd5i92b+oy_1uBPLzODwnVXSrt6iV=XSQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2B6A8382227F4375B51EA46C55014026@Toshiba>

>Thanks Ian. Is this available online anywhere? 

Probably not Anne, although I suspect the Chair’s statement when finalised will be at https://www.gccs2015.com/

But this is a conference emanating from meetings of mostly foreign ministries from various governments, which is including civil society and trying to be “multistakeholder” for the first time. But this does not (yet) extend to transparent open processes where we will get to see other inputs to a Chairs Statement, let alone have a chance to discuss such inputs across stakeholder groups. Maybe next time...


Ian

From: Anne Jellema 
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2015 6:03 PM
To: Ian Peter 
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; JNC Forum 
Subject: Re: [bestbits] CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS - apologies for short time frame

Thanks Ian. Is this available online anywhere? 
Best
Anne

On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 2:30 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

  Thanks to everyone (about 40 people)  who responded to this with comments and suggestions.

  I am attaching the letter which was sent a few hours ago to the Dutch organisers, with consolidated CS inputs. Our understanding of the process is that a new draft of the Chairs statement, taking into account the various inputs, will be issued just before the conference next week. However at that stage there will be no more new inputs to text, but rather discussion limited to red line text.

  This ended up being a very rushed process, as we were advised with 48 hours of a new deadline for us to submit our suggestions. Compiling about 40 sets of comments at short notice into one document was difficult, and left very little time for a small group to produce a consolidated text and submit it. Apologies for not being able to consult wider on this, but we trust that the document submitted covers the range of suggestions and viewpoints submitted. It will be interesting to see which of our suggestions make it through to the final statement!

  Ian Peter

  From: Ian Peter 
  Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2015 8:02 AM
  To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; forum at justnetcoalition.org 
  Subject: CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS - apologies for short time frame

  Dear friends,



  [Apologies for cross-posting]



  Below is a statement requesting your input into formulating the civil society response to the Chair’s statement for GCCS 2015. Apologies for very short comments period, but the draft was only released for our wider input in last 24 hours, and we need to submit a consolidated CS response after getting your input. There will be another (again short) opportunity to comment on the consolidated response as per message below.



  Governments and business interests will also be responding to the text separately in the same time frame, so we can expect changes. There are some (surprisingly) good sections of the text  currently (IMHO) that we need to argue to retain, plus plenty where we can suggest improvements. But please input within the time frame either by the form or the email address below.











  We would like to bring to your attention the call for civil society input on the outcome document for the Global Conference on Cyberspace 2015 (GCCS 2015), hosted by the government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and taking place in The Hague on 16 and 17 April 2015. 



  Following on from the London (2011), Budapest (2012), and Seoul (2013) Conferences - a series also known as the London Process, the 2015 event in The Hague will provide an opportunity for further high-level discussion of key cyberspace issues, structured around the three main themes of Freedom, Security and Growth. The Conference will be a stock-taking event, assessing the current global situation and mapping out the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. By engaging governments, business, academia and civil society participants at the Conference, the organisers hope to find practical solutions to real and urgent challenges, and to progress the agenda of a free, open and secure internet. 



  Based on the assumption that all those who have a stake in cyberspace should be able to express their views and participate in a meaningful way, this year, the organisers are putting particular emphasis on facilitating multistakeholder engagement in the Conference. As part of an effort to achieve this, the Conference organisers are interested in getting Civil Society input on the draft outcome document of the Conference (The Chair’s Statement).



  <snip> 


  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





-- 

Anne Jellema 
CEO  
+27 061 036 9352 (ZA) 

+1 202 684 6885 (US)
Twitter: @afjellema
PGP: 1640BED9
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150412/88ad7c4b/attachment.htm>

From nnenna75 at gmail.com  Sat Apr 11 16:16:49 2015
From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma)
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2015 20:16:49 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS - apologies
 for short time frame
In-Reply-To: <2B6A8382227F4375B51EA46C55014026@Toshiba>
References: <92E0348530E345AFAD15C51236181CD6@Toshiba> <CAFwCmbGo-dZZmQWMfd5i92b+oy_1uBPLzODwnVXSrt6iV=XSQQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <2B6A8382227F4375B51EA46C55014026@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <CADFgh10SchNW8Eu0LYSDRpSW62=_-m3412Bx-kg6HeTewxFS3w@mail.gmail.com>

Many thanks, Ian

This will come in handy in developing a 4-minute keynote.  I Will see how
many of the key pints I can incorporate. have been further informed that
keynote speakers are to keep to specific themes and mine will be "bridging
the digital divide; freedom and privacy online".

Granted, it will be important to stress the respect of human rights and all
of that, but I am convinced that the Parminder question of "why are you
shying away from more democratic UN-led instances?" on the process may
still need to be asked.  From the suggestion from organisers, Fadi Chehade
will be the one speaking on "Internet Governance"

Still listening here

N

On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 7:41 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

>   >Thanks Ian. Is this available online anywhere?
>
> Probably not Anne, although I suspect the Chair’s statement when finalised
> will be at https://www.gccs2015.com/
>
> But this is a conference emanating from meetings of mostly foreign
> ministries from various governments, which is including civil society and
> trying to be “multistakeholder” for the first time. But this does not (yet)
> extend to transparent open processes where we will get to see other inputs
> to a Chairs Statement, let alone have a chance to discuss such inputs
> across stakeholder groups. Maybe next time...
>
>
> Ian
>
>  *From:* Anne Jellema <anne.jellema at webfoundation.org>
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 11, 2015 6:03 PM
> *To:* Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
> *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; JNC
> Forum <forum at justnetcoalition.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS -
> apologies for short time frame
>
>  Thanks Ian. Is this available online anywhere?
> Best
> Anne
>
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 2:30 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
>>   Thanks to everyone (about 40 people)  who responded to this with
>> comments and suggestions.
>>
>> I am attaching the letter which was sent a few hours ago to the Dutch
>> organisers, with consolidated CS inputs. Our understanding of the process
>> is that a new draft of the Chairs statement, taking into account the
>> various inputs, will be issued just before the conference next week.
>> However at that stage there will be no more new inputs to text, but rather
>> discussion limited to red line text.
>>
>> This ended up being a very rushed process, as we were advised with 48
>> hours of a new deadline for us to submit our suggestions. Compiling about
>> 40 sets of comments at short notice into one document was difficult, and
>> left very little time for a small group to produce a consolidated text and
>> submit it. Apologies for not being able to consult wider on this, but we
>> trust that the document submitted covers the range of suggestions and
>> viewpoints submitted. It will be interesting to see which of our
>> suggestions make it through to the final statement!
>>
>> Ian Peter
>>
>>  *From:* Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>> *Sent:* Saturday, April 04, 2015 8:02 AM
>> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ;
>> forum at justnetcoalition.org
>> *Subject:* CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS - apologies for short
>> time frame
>>
>>
>> Dear friends,
>>
>> *[Apologies for cross-posting]*
>>
>>
>>
>> *Below is a statement requesting your input into formulating the civil
>> society response to the Chair’s statement for GCCS 2015. Apologies for very
>> short comments period, but the draft was only released for our wider input
>> in last 24 hours, and we need to submit a consolidated CS response after
>> getting your input. There will be another (again short) opportunity to
>> comment on the consolidated response as per message below.*
>>
>>
>>
>> *Governments and business interests will also be responding to the text
>> separately in the same time frame, so we can expect changes. There are some
>> (surprisingly) good sections of the text  currently (IMHO) that we need to
>> argue to retain, plus plenty where we can suggest improvements. But please
>> input within the time frame either by the form or the email address below.*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> We would like to bring to your attention the call for civil society input
>> on the outcome document for the Global Conference on Cyberspace 2015
>> <https://www.gccs2015.com/gccs/all-about-gccs2015> (GCCS 2015), hosted
>> by the government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and taking place in
>> The Hague on 16 and 17 April 2015.
>>
>> Following on from the London (2011), Budapest (2012), and Seoul (2013)
>> Conferences - a series also known as the London Process, the 2015 event in
>> The Hague will provide an opportunity for further high-level discussion of
>> key cyberspace issues, structured around the three main themes of Freedom
>> <https://www.gccs2015.com/themes/freedom>, Security
>> <https://www.gccs2015.com/themes/security-0> and Growth
>> <https://www.gccs2015.com/themes/growth>. The Conference will be a
>> stock-taking event, assessing the current global situation and mapping out
>> the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. By engaging governments,
>> business, academia and civil society participants at the Conference, the
>> organisers hope to find practical solutions to real and urgent challenges,
>> and to progress the agenda of a free, open and secure internet.
>>
>> Based on the assumption that all those who have a stake in cyberspace
>> should be able to express their views and participate in a meaningful way,
>> this year, the organisers are putting particular emphasis on facilitating
>> multistakeholder engagement in the Conference. As part of an effort to
>> achieve this, the Conference organisers are interested in getting Civil
>> Society input on the draft outcome document of the Conference (The Chair’s
>> Statement).
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
>    Anne Jellema
> CEO
> +27 061 036 9352 (ZA)
> +1 202 684 6885 (US)
> Twitter: @afjellema
> PGP: 1640BED9
> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington
> DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org <http://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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150411/2a2fab9d/attachment.htm>

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Sat Apr 11 16:41:33 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2015 16:41:33 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS - apologies
 for short time frame
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh10SchNW8Eu0LYSDRpSW62=_-m3412Bx-kg6HeTewxFS3w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <92E0348530E345AFAD15C51236181CD6@Toshiba> <CAFwCmbGo-dZZmQWMfd5i92b+oy_1uBPLzODwnVXSrt6iV=XSQQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <2B6A8382227F4375B51EA46C55014026@Toshiba> <CADFgh10SchNW8Eu0LYSDRpSW62=_-m3412Bx-kg6HeTewxFS3w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN7xBK8X7DEJ-SjwbCSzK==YyebPqsnM7Y9xaLKHuSLOTQ@mail.gmail.com>

I found the Capacity Building (paras 44-47) section rather interesting in
that respect. The aspects/values of "multistakeholderism" that most people
seem to agree with - collaboration, co-operation, sharing, involvement,
together with lists of those who might be involved and an open invitation
to any others who are interested - are present throughout the section but
the word itself doesn't appear.

Deirdre

On 11 April 2015 at 16:16, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Many thanks, Ian
>
> This will come in handy in developing a 4-minute keynote.  I Will see how
> many of the key pints I can incorporate. have been further informed that
> keynote speakers are to keep to specific themes and mine will be "bridging
> the digital divide; freedom and privacy online".
>
> Granted, it will be important to stress the respect of human rights and
> all of that, but I am convinced that the Parminder question of "why are you
> shying away from more democratic UN-led instances?" on the process may
> still need to be asked.  From the suggestion from organisers, Fadi Chehade
> will be the one speaking on "Internet Governance"
>
> Still listening here
>
> N
>
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 7:41 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
>>   >Thanks Ian. Is this available online anywhere?
>>
>> Probably not Anne, although I suspect the Chair’s statement when
>> finalised will be at https://www.gccs2015.com/
>>
>> But this is a conference emanating from meetings of mostly foreign
>> ministries from various governments, which is including civil society and
>> trying to be “multistakeholder” for the first time. But this does not (yet)
>> extend to transparent open processes where we will get to see other inputs
>> to a Chairs Statement, let alone have a chance to discuss such inputs
>> across stakeholder groups. Maybe next time...
>>
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>  *From:* Anne Jellema <anne.jellema at webfoundation.org>
>> *Sent:* Saturday, April 11, 2015 6:03 PM
>> *To:* Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>> *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; JNC
>> Forum <forum at justnetcoalition.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS -
>> apologies for short time frame
>>
>>  Thanks Ian. Is this available online anywhere?
>> Best
>> Anne
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 2:30 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>   Thanks to everyone (about 40 people)  who responded to this with
>>> comments and suggestions.
>>>
>>> I am attaching the letter which was sent a few hours ago to the Dutch
>>> organisers, with consolidated CS inputs. Our understanding of the process
>>> is that a new draft of the Chairs statement, taking into account the
>>> various inputs, will be issued just before the conference next week.
>>> However at that stage there will be no more new inputs to text, but rather
>>> discussion limited to red line text.
>>>
>>> This ended up being a very rushed process, as we were advised with 48
>>> hours of a new deadline for us to submit our suggestions. Compiling about
>>> 40 sets of comments at short notice into one document was difficult, and
>>> left very little time for a small group to produce a consolidated text and
>>> submit it. Apologies for not being able to consult wider on this, but we
>>> trust that the document submitted covers the range of suggestions and
>>> viewpoints submitted. It will be interesting to see which of our
>>> suggestions make it through to the final statement!
>>>
>>> Ian Peter
>>>
>>>  *From:* Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>>> *Sent:* Saturday, April 04, 2015 8:02 AM
>>> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ;
>>> forum at justnetcoalition.org
>>> *Subject:* CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS - apologies for short
>>> time frame
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear friends,
>>>
>>> *[Apologies for cross-posting]*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Below is a statement requesting your input into formulating the civil
>>> society response to the Chair’s statement for GCCS 2015. Apologies for very
>>> short comments period, but the draft was only released for our wider input
>>> in last 24 hours, and we need to submit a consolidated CS response after
>>> getting your input. There will be another (again short) opportunity to
>>> comment on the consolidated response as per message below.*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Governments and business interests will also be responding to the text
>>> separately in the same time frame, so we can expect changes. There are some
>>> (surprisingly) good sections of the text  currently (IMHO) that we need to
>>> argue to retain, plus plenty where we can suggest improvements. But please
>>> input within the time frame either by the form or the email address below.*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We would like to bring to your attention the call for civil society
>>> input on the outcome document for the Global Conference on Cyberspace
>>> 2015 <https://www.gccs2015.com/gccs/all-about-gccs2015> (GCCS 2015), hosted
>>> by the government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and taking place in
>>> The Hague on 16 and 17 April 2015.
>>>
>>> Following on from the London (2011), Budapest (2012), and Seoul (2013)
>>> Conferences - a series also known as the London Process, the 2015 event in
>>> The Hague will provide an opportunity for further high-level discussion of
>>> key cyberspace issues, structured around the three main themes of
>>> Freedom <https://www.gccs2015.com/themes/freedom>, Security
>>> <https://www.gccs2015.com/themes/security-0> and Growth
>>> <https://www.gccs2015.com/themes/growth>. The Conference will be a
>>> stock-taking event, assessing the current global situation and mapping out
>>> the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. By engaging governments,
>>> business, academia and civil society participants at the Conference, the
>>> organisers hope to find practical solutions to real and urgent challenges,
>>> and to progress the agenda of a free, open and secure internet.
>>>
>>> Based on the assumption that all those who have a stake in cyberspace
>>> should be able to express their views and participate in a meaningful way,
>>> this year, the organisers are putting particular emphasis on facilitating
>>> multistakeholder engagement in the Conference. As part of an effort to
>>> achieve this, the Conference organisers are interested in getting Civil
>>> Society input on the draft outcome document of the Conference (The Chair’s
>>> Statement).
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>    Anne Jellema
>> CEO
>> +27 061 036 9352 (ZA)
>> +1 202 684 6885 (US)
>> Twitter: @afjellema
>> PGP: 1640BED9
>> *World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington
>> DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org <http://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
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150411/716a4331/attachment.htm>

From lea at gp-digital.org  Sat Apr 11 17:29:15 2015
From: lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar)
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2015 22:29:15 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS - apologies
 for short time frame
In-Reply-To: <2B6A8382227F4375B51EA46C55014026@Toshiba>
References: <92E0348530E345AFAD15C51236181CD6@Toshiba> <CAFwCmbGo-dZZmQWMfd5i92b+oy_1uBPLzODwnVXSrt6iV=XSQQ@mail.gmail.com> <2B6A8382227F4375B51EA46C55014026@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <68D2A044-9BD6-4B66-9A17-BC20457EE100@gp-digital.org>

Hi Anne, all,

For your reference, the statement is available as a Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12FIu2CRABhvCBtYkzIHvOa4_HQq7EG1RcItL-csNUoo/mobilebasic?pli=1

Warm wishes,
Lea


> On 11 Apr 2015, at 20:41, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> 
> >Thanks Ian. Is this available online anywhere?
>  
> Probably not Anne, although I suspect the Chair’s statement when finalised will be at https://www.gccs2015.com/
>  
> But this is a conference emanating from meetings of mostly foreign ministries from various governments, which is including civil society and trying to be “multistakeholder” for the first time. But this does not (yet) extend to transparent open processes where we will get to see other inputs to a Chairs Statement, let alone have a chance to discuss such inputs across stakeholder groups. Maybe next time...
>  
>  
> Ian
>  
> From: Anne Jellema
> Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2015 6:03 PM
> To: Ian Peter
> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; JNC Forum
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS - apologies for short time frame
>  
> Thanks Ian. Is this available online anywhere?
> Best
> Anne
>  
>> On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 2:30 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>> Thanks to everyone (about 40 people)  who responded to this with comments and suggestions.
>>  
>> I am attaching the letter which was sent a few hours ago to the Dutch organisers, with consolidated CS inputs. Our understanding of the process is that a new draft of the Chairs statement, taking into account the various inputs, will be issued just before the conference next week. However at that stage there will be no more new inputs to text, but rather discussion limited to red line text.
>>  
>> This ended up being a very rushed process, as we were advised with 48 hours of a new deadline for us to submit our suggestions. Compiling about 40 sets of comments at short notice into one document was difficult, and left very little time for a small group to produce a consolidated text and submit it. Apologies for not being able to consult wider on this, but we trust that the document submitted covers the range of suggestions and viewpoints submitted. It will be interesting to see which of our suggestions make it through to the final statement!
>>  
>> Ian Peter
>>  
>> From: Ian Peter
>> Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2015 8:02 AM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; forum at justnetcoalition.org 
>> Subject: CS input to Chairs Statement for GCCS - apologies for short time frame
>>  
>> Dear friends,
>> 
>> [Apologies for cross-posting]
>>  
>> Below is a statement requesting your input into formulating the civil society response to the Chair’s statement for GCCS 2015. Apologies for very short comments period, but the draft was only released for our wider input in last 24 hours, and we need to submit a consolidated CS response after getting your input. There will be another (again short) opportunity to comment on the consolidated response as per message below.
>>  
>> Governments and business interests will also be responding to the text separately in the same time frame, so we can expect changes. There are some (surprisingly) good sections of the text  currently (IMHO) that we need to argue to retain, plus plenty where we can suggest improvements. But please input within the time frame either by the form or the email address below.
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> We would like to bring to your attention the call for civil society input on the outcome document for the Global Conference on Cyberspace 2015 (GCCS 2015), hosted by the government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and taking place in The Hague on 16 and 17 April 2015.
>> 
>> Following on from the London (2011), Budapest (2012), and Seoul (2013) Conferences - a series also known as the London Process, the 2015 event in The Hague will provide an opportunity for further high-level discussion of key cyberspace issues, structured around the three main themes of Freedom, Security and Growth. The Conference will be a stock-taking event, assessing the current global situation and mapping out the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. By engaging governments, business, academia and civil society participants at the Conference, the organisers hope to find practical solutions to real and urgent challenges, and to progress the agenda of a free, open and secure internet.
>> 
>> Based on the assumption that all those who have a stake in cyberspace should be able to express their views and participate in a meaningful way, this year, the organisers are putting particular emphasis on facilitating multistakeholder engagement in the Conference. As part of an effort to achieve this, the Conference organisers are interested in getting Civil Society input on the draft outcome document of the Conference (The Chair’s Statement).
>> 
>> <snip>
>>  
>> 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
> 
> 
>  
> -- 
> Anne Jellema
> CEO 
> +27 061 036 9352 (ZA) 
> +1 202 684 6885 (US)
> Twitter: @afjellema
> PGP: 1640BED9
> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150411/1c848927/attachment.htm>

From rysiek at hackerspace.pl  Sun Apr 12 16:18:13 2015
From: rysiek at hackerspace.pl (rysiek)
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2015 22:18:13 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: GCIG Paper No. 10 Now Online: A Primer on
 Globally Harmonizing Internet Jurisdiction and Regulations by Michael
 Chertoff & Paul Rosenzweig
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAeCZHGMJWUq6XQFA90jZ-OX5Ou++rWdQV002LuopQprKw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7D5133B1B0E9C045AF75F1211D1CD759A165766E@DAG-124-59.ciginet.pvt> <CAK-FJAeCZHGMJWUq6XQFA90jZ-OX5Ou++rWdQV002LuopQprKw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1806758.z1OHPD0jXg@lapuntu>

Hi there,

Dnia czwartek, 9 kwietnia 2015 23:12:07 Carolina Rossini pisze:
> Today the GCIG secretariat issued working paper No. 10 by Michael Chertoff
> and Paul Rosenzweig. *A Primer on Globally Harmonizing Internet
> Jurisdiction and Regulations* can be downloaded and read by visiting:
> https://ourinternet.org/#publications/a-primer-on-globally-harmonizing-inter
> net-jurisdiction-and-regulations.

Thanks, looks interesting.

> The brief paper offers some thoughts on how the potential legal fracturing
> of the World Wide Web might be resolved, concluding that multilateral
> agreement on a choice-of-law framework is essential to the continuing
> growth of the network.

Not under-appreciating the importance of law framework harmonisation (which is 
indubitably crucial), but I want to point out that we need to start addressing 
the problem of walled-gardens, and balkanization of Internet in the 
application layer.

Think: Facebook, Twitter, Google+ are vertically-integrated silos, and are not 
compatible with one another. Working towards law framework integration has to 
take into account that Terms of Service of these services are indeed the by-
laws of the Internet for billions of people. Consider:
http://qz.com/333313/milliions-of-facebook-users-have-no-idea-theyre-using-the-internet/

We must not leave these ToS out of the harmonization effort.

> It would be greatly appreciated if you shared the link to this new research
> paper with your colleagues via your social networks. For those of you on
> Twitter, we have simplified the sharing process by drafting the following
> two Tweets.

Yup, that's more or less what I'm talking about.

-- 
Pozdrawiam,
Michał "rysiek" Woźniak

Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147
GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 931 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150412/1d0815a5/attachment.sig>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Mon Apr 13 13:46:00 2015
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 13:46:00 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: All videos in the Our Space series on internet
 government now available
In-Reply-To: <52c87d5f-ec0c-41c2-9fea-61f672597a1b@googlegroups.com>
References: <52c87d5f-ec0c-41c2-9fea-61f672597a1b@googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAfPXy5Wi-yBEeuSrmLjdwFHfiVtfSkFH3dwOoOCnOiAVw@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Marcel Oomens (Free Press Unlimited) <oomens at freepressunlimited.org>
Date: Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 8:22 AM
Subject: All videos in the Our Space series on internet government now
available
To: gccs2015-ab at googlegroups.com


Dear all,

This weekend we published the last of the 'Cyberspace is Our Space' series
that Free Press Unlimited has produced in the previous three months.

You'll find all videos and a trailer fort the series at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Fh33k1Pmes&feature=youtu.be&list=PLtUs42nCDjclIzX35zmcjbREaJKqB6UWO

The series cover the these topics by the following speakers:

   - *Cyber Crime* (Michel van Eeten)

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoFaW_mQiiU&list=PLtUs42nCDjclIzX35zmcjbREaJKqB6UWO&index=2
   - *Privacy* (Chris Conley)

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6iGU6UKiew&index=3&list=PLtUs42nCDjclIzX35zmcjbREaJKqB6UWO
   - *Standards & Trust* (Wendy Seltzer and Mishi Choudhary)

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6oiPJOZ2Do&list=PLtUs42nCDjclIzX35zmcjbREaJKqB6UWO&index=4
   - *Access & Affordability* (Nnenna Nwakanma and Anja Kovacs)

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2iL0f_Bo3I&list=PLtUs42nCDjclIzX35zmcjbREaJKqB6UWO&index=5
   - *Digital weapons* (Jacob Appelbaum)

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDbzdnTl3pM&list=PLtUs42nCDjclIzX35zmcjbREaJKqB6UWO&index=6
   - *Surveillance* (Frank La Rue)

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hY-gNVTKND0&index=7&list=PLtUs42nCDjclIzX35zmcjbREaJKqB6UWO

We all have a full week ahead, but I'd be delighted if you could help with
the promotion of these videos in your networks and on the social media. On
Twitter we're aggregating a lot of our promotion with the #ourspace (and
#GCCS2015) hashtags.

I look forward to seeing you all in the coming few days.

Kind regards,

--
Marcel Oomens
Internet Protection Lab

Free Press Unlimited

Weesperstraat 3 1018 DN Amsterdam the Netherlands
T: +31 (0)20 8000495 M +31 (0)6 1858 8374 F +31 (0)20 7173648
oomens at freepressunlimited.org www.freepressunlimited.org
PGP: A05D ADD9 E3DF 2F18 886D CAD6 ADB2 E910 59D9 5816

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"GCCS2015 Advisory Board" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to gccs2015-ab+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to gccs2015-ab at googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/gccs2015-ab/52c87d5f-ec0c-41c2-9fea-61f672597a1b%40googlegroups.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/gccs2015-ab/52c87d5f-ec0c-41c2-9fea-61f672597a1b%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



-- 

*Carolina Rossini *
*Vice President, International Policy*
*Public Knowledge*
*http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
+ 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150413/9db17c5e/attachment.htm>

From pouzin at well.com  Wed Apr  1 06:54:36 2015
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 12:54:36 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] FW: New Blogpost: Is There a Global
 Internet Community
In-Reply-To: <551BBFED.6010003@itforchange.net>
References: <004301d06bfc$2ac81270$80583750$@gmail.com> <004c01d06bfd$2f7b44d0$8e71ce70$@gmail.com>
 <551BBFED.6010003@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <CA+EjHYrkfL=vDtOezCpc+1GoF=FnTjf-phDm+0f3fLD5tEandA@mail.gmail.com>

Community without a qualifier, is just buzzword.
Here are Merriam-Webster definitions:


COMMUNITY

: a group of people who live in the same area (such as a city, town, or
neighborhood)

: a group of people who have the same interests, religion, race, etc.

: a group of nations


It could be a few, or zillions, of anything. Let's compare with ...


GANG

: a group of criminals

: a group of young people who do illegal things together and who often
fight against other gangs

: a group of people who are friends and who do things together


Those definitions are at least much more meaningful.

Anyway, fuzzy expressions are worthless in legal documents.
  .
Louis.
- - -

On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 11:52 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
wrote:

>
>
> On Wednesday 01 April 2015 03:23 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote:
>
>  Some may find this of interest...
>
>
>
>
> https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2015/03/31/is-there-a-global-internet-community/
>
>
> To contextualise Michael's what was much needed exposition to a very
> specific issue, one of the hottest IG issues, pl see the update document on
> IANA stewardship transition
>
>
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-stewardship-discussion-31mar15-en.pdf
>
> The term 'community' is freely bandied around as if everyone knows what it
> means, and mind it, this is an authoritative discussion about a new
> institutional mechanism where one needs to know what a term means. Btw,
> they have recruited legal advisers (one need not even check to know that
> they must be US firms but not to digress...) to ensure that whatever they
> come up with is is legally sound, which includes having a clear legal
> meaning. So friends, who are involved in, or are otherwise close, to IANA
> transition process, what does the term 'community' mean in this document -
> is it the larger public affected by the Internet or is it the set of people
> who have traditionally been engaging with ICANN and its associated
> organisations, and are part of its committees, outreach systems and so on.
> Accordingly, I will like to know whether it is the larger public
> accountability of ICANN that is being addressed by the concerned group, or
> its accountability to a narrowly defined group, which too please do define
> for me.
>
> For instance, one cannot make sense of such important and fundamental
> propositions like the below, without knowing what or who is the 'community'
> .
>
> (quote from the cited doc begins)
>
> The group discussed  new mechanisms to empower the community  in  ICANN's
> decision-making processes. In particular, there was general convergence on
> the need to enable the community to :
>
> # Recall (or "spill") ICANN's Board of Directors
> # Approve or prevent changes to ICANN's Bylaws, Mission and Core Values
> # Reject Board decisions on ICANN's Strategic Plan and budget (where the
> Board has failed to appropriately consider community input)
>
> ## It was recognized that, while it was clearly important that the ICANN
> Board be accountable to the community, it was also essential for the
> community itself to meet high standards of accountability.
>
> (ends)
>
> Community is spoken of as something which can be ascribed clear agency,
> and thus must be clearly definable. Please do define it for us to enable us
> to make any sense of what this group is proposing on an issue which is so
> important for the global public.
>
> In a doc referenced in the above doc, which is titled "Accountability
> mechanism" and can be found here
> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52888740/IRP%20Accountability%20Mechanism%20Template%20.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1426866536000&api=v2
>
> and I quote from it (this is about possible ways to compose the
> Independent Review Board)
>
> (begins)
> Members to be nominated by the Board in consultation with the appointment
> by CEO, approved [how?] by community; [possible alternatives whom?
> involving a reversal of the above (i.e. community nomination and Board
> approval)] [Also consider external vetting or rating schemes for
> nominees, i.e., third party organization such as ICDR could
> appoint/nominate subject to confirmation.]
>
>   (ends)
>
> We can make no sense of all this without clearly knowing what or who is
> the 'community' here. Please help.
>
> Thanks, parminder
>
>
>
> *M*
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150401/0adcee1e/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Tue Apr 14 04:44:20 2015
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 04:44:20 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Council of Europe multi-stakeholder consultations on
 Internet freedom
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAdsvEbJiOnp-g+U_Dja7rvi0eVQAaepPUNh-9SZGb9+Yg@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: WIELOCH Marta <Marta.WIELOCH at coe.int>
Date: Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 3:41 AM


 Dear all,



The Council of Europe is working on a draft recommendation by the Committee
of Ministers to its member states on Internet freedom (attached). The draft
is currently being elaborated by a committee of experts operating  under
the authority of the Council of Europe’s Steering Committee on Media and
Information Society.



As part of its multi-stakeholder outreach and dialogue, the Council of
Europe would like your feedback, comments and suggestions on the draft
recommendation to be sent to us, at the latest by *30 April 2015*,  by
E-mail to Marta.WIELOCH at coe.int .



Thank you in advance



Marta Wieloch

Media & Internet

Council of Europe
+ 33 (0) 3 90 21 55 81

marta.wieloch at coe.int
[image: cid:image001.png at 01D03F0E.4AD6FD80]
<https://www.facebook.com/pages/Information-Society-Group/771851256242082?fref=ts>[image:
cid:image002.png at 01D00B04.68105560] <https://twitter.com/elvanathaci>






-- 

*Carolina Rossini *
*Vice President, International Policy*
*Public Knowledge*
*http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
+ 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150414/4eb34e35/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 895 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150414/4eb34e35/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1447 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150414/4eb34e35/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Draft Internet Freedom 01 05 15.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 127856 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150414/4eb34e35/attachment.pdf>

From mahimakaul at orfonline.org  Tue Apr 14 09:27:30 2015
From: mahimakaul at orfonline.org (Mahima Kaul)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 18:57:30 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Invitation: Panel discussion on International Cyber
 Norms and Global Swing States (Official Side-event of the Global
 Conference on Cyberspace 2015)
References: <180673A7-6A81-41B9-85AD-9F40AFF2DFE4@orfonline.org>
Message-ID: <73497D01-480A-4EF4-AEEB-5A723C4B7287@orfonline.org>

For those of you at GCCS::: 
>> 
>> Upcoming Event: Panel Discussion on International Cyber Norms and Global Swing States
>> (Official Side-event of the Global Conference on Cyberspace 2015)
>> View this email in your browser
>> 
>>  
>>  
>> Invitation to a panel discussion
>>  
>> International Cyber Norms and Global Swing States 
>> (Official Side-event of the Global Conference on Cyberspace 2015)
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> On 15 April 2015, The Hague Institute for Global Justice, together with the Observer Research Foundation (New Delhi), will organize an official side-event of the Global Conference on Cyberspace (GCCS) 2015, which is hosted by the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
>>  
>> The side-event will consist of a public panel discussion entitled “International Cyber Norms and Global ‘Swing States’.” The speakers are:
>> Dr. Abiodun Williams, Welcome Remarks
>> President, The Hague Institute for Global Justice
>> Dr. Uri Rosenthal, Introductory Remarks
>> Special Envoy GCCS
>> Dr. Alison Gillwald
>> Executive Director, Research ICT Africa
>> Marilia Maciel
>> Researcher/Coordinator of the Center for Technology and Society, Getulio Vargas Foundation (CTS/FGV)
>> Robert Morgus
>> Program Associate, Open Technology Institute, New America
>> Ambassador Latha Reddy
>> Former Deputy NSA of India & Commissioner of the Global Commission on Internet Governance
>> Samir Saran (Moderator)
>> Vice President, Observer Research Foundation (New Delhi)
>>  
>> Date:  Wednesday, 15 April
>> Time:  5:00pm – 6:00pm
>> RSVP Now
>>  
>> This side-event seeks to contribute to a principal objective of the GCCS 2015, which is to discuss norms for responsible state behaviour in cyberspace. The panel will address the role of “swing states” in the global debate on Internet governance and consider how these states influence norms for responsible state behaviour in cyberspace.
>>  
>> More information:  Please contact Sash Jayawardane at The Hague Institute for Global Justice. 
>>  
>> Partners:
>>  
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> These events present an opportunity to interact and meet experts, practitioners, students and researchers from across the spectrum of topics covered by the Institute. We hope you will join us and we invite you to share these announcements with your network. For questions, please contact us at events at TheHagueInstitute.org. 
>>  
>> 
>> @HagueInstitute 
>> 
>> Facebook 
>> 
>> LinkedIn 
>> 
>> HagueInstitute 
>>  
>> 
>> Forward to Friend 
>> 
>> Tweet 
>> 
>> Share 
>> 
>> Share 
>> 
>> +1 
>>  
>> The Hague Institute for Global Justice is an independent, nonpartisan organization established to undertake interdisciplinary policy-relevant research, training and facilitation activities at the intersection of peace, security and justice.
>> 
>> You received this email because you have expressed an interest in The Hague Institute for Global Justice. Stay current with all our news, work and activities. Sign up for our monthly newsletter. 
>>  
>> unsubscribe from this list    update subscription preferences
>> 
>> Copyright © 2015 The Hague Institute for Global Justice, All rights reserved.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150414/221835af/attachment.htm>

From jmalcolm at eff.org  Tue Apr 14 17:56:34 2015
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 14:56:34 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] Council of Europe multi-stakeholder consultations on
 Internet freedom
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAdsvEbJiOnp-g+U_Dja7rvi0eVQAaepPUNh-9SZGb9+Yg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK-FJAdsvEbJiOnp-g+U_Dja7rvi0eVQAaepPUNh-9SZGb9+Yg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <552D8D12.30301@eff.org>

On 14/04/2015 1:44 am, Carolina Rossini wrote:
> The Council of Europe is working on a draft recommendation by the
> Committee of Ministers to its member states on Internet freedom
> (attached). The draft is currently being elaborated by a committee of
> experts operating  under the authority of the Council of Europe’s
> Steering Committee on Media and Information Society.
>
> As part of its multi-stakeholder outreach and dialogue, the Council of
> Europe would like your feedback, comments and suggestions on the draft
> recommendation to be sent to us, at the latest by *_30 April 2015_*, 
> by E-mail to Marta.WIELOCH at coe.int <mailto:Marta.WIELOCH at coe.int> .
>

It has been a while since we collaborated on a joint submission through
Best Bits.  Is there a group interested in writing something together
and presenting it for submission jointly?  In any case I would be
writing an EFF submission referencing the Manila Principles on
Intermediary Liability.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt
PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD

Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150414/c8f0fbce/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 244 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150414/c8f0fbce/attachment.sig>

From rysiek at hackerspace.pl  Tue Apr 14 18:30:11 2015
From: rysiek at hackerspace.pl (rysiek)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 00:30:11 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Council of Europe multi-stakeholder consultations on
 Internet freedom
In-Reply-To: <552D8D12.30301@eff.org>
References: <CAK-FJAdsvEbJiOnp-g+U_Dja7rvi0eVQAaepPUNh-9SZGb9+Yg@mail.gmail.com> <552D8D12.30301@eff.org>
Message-ID: <25073693.MHCKQ4bWaP@lapuntu>

Dnia wtorek, 14 kwietnia 2015 14:56:34 Jeremy Malcolm pisze:
> On 14/04/2015 1:44 am, Carolina Rossini wrote:
> > The Council of Europe is working on a draft recommendation by the
> > Committee of Ministers to its member states on Internet freedom
> > (attached). The draft is currently being elaborated by a committee of
> > experts operating  under the authority of the Council of Europe’s
> > Steering Committee on Media and Information Society.
> > 
> > As part of its multi-stakeholder outreach and dialogue, the Council of
> > Europe would like your feedback, comments and suggestions on the draft
> > recommendation to be sent to us, at the latest by *_30 April 2015_*,
> > by E-mail to Marta.WIELOCH at coe.int <mailto:Marta.WIELOCH at coe.int> .
> 
> It has been a while since we collaborated on a joint submission through
> Best Bits.  Is there a group interested in writing something together
> and presenting it for submission jointly?

/me rises his hand, and looks around

And right off the bat:

"1. The European Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter the ECHR) applies
    without any distinction to the physical world and to the Internet. The
    Council of Europe member States have both negative and positive
    obligations to protect and promote human rights and
    fundamental freedoms on the Internet."

This has to be one of the best bits (pun not indented) of language in this 
kind of "Internet freedom" text I've read for a long, long time.

My main beef with many "lists of Internet freedoms" is that as soon as new 
technology comes around, we will have to re-do them, again and again, for the 
new technology.

This is what has happened in Brazil, as far as I understand from talking to 
people there -- Brazilian Constitution protected (explicitly) privacy and 
freedoms in phone communication, and hence large portion of Marco Civil had to 
(explicitly) deal with them in the new domain of the Internet.

Don't get me wrong, Marco Civil is a great piece of work, and brings a lot of 
good into the world; but large parts of it were needed because authors of the 
Brazilian Constitution didn't future-proof it well enough against new 
technologies.

I much prefer the approach visible in these two quoted sentences -- clearly, 
unequivocally reaffirming the rights and freedoms we all have regardless of 
the medium we choose to exercise them in.

These rights and freedoms are, I feel, well enough future-proofed, as long as 
we don't dismantle them by explicitly reiterating them for each new 
technological medium (and thus making it possible for future authoritarians to 
claim that "these do not apply in $TECHNOLOGY, as they have not been 
reiterated for it explicitly").

-- 
Pozdrawiam,
Michał "rysiek" Woźniak

Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147
GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 931 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150415/4bd28be1/attachment.sig>

From jozef.halbersztadt at gmail.com  Wed Apr 15 04:11:04 2015
From: jozef.halbersztadt at gmail.com (Halbersztadt Jozef (jothal))
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 10:11:04 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Council of Europe multi-stakeholder consultations on
 Internet freedom
In-Reply-To: <25073693.MHCKQ4bWaP@lapuntu>
References: <CAK-FJAdsvEbJiOnp-g+U_Dja7rvi0eVQAaepPUNh-9SZGb9+Yg@mail.gmail.com>
	<552D8D12.30301@eff.org>
	<25073693.MHCKQ4bWaP@lapuntu>
Message-ID: <CACZHd23DwMS3GOvy_Hu_YiOyzHdS=ji+5M5mzOCMvW1uMn+MuQ@mail.gmail.com>

Rysiek,

a few words on two sentences (HR on-line/off-line). It is just a
slogan without real policies. We have no choice but to acknowledge
that the core of the problem lies elsewhere. With the Council of
Europe consultations on Internet freedom we are not at the beginning
of a process. We are after many years of debating the issue in the CoE
how human right should operate in the digital environment. And as a
result they arrived to a position that - for example - is very much
against the suggestion that blocking orders could only be made by a
court. Why? Because it corresponds to the national laws of some member
states. And all member state would like to have non-judicial
arrangements in relation to national security and intelligence.

Regards
Jozef H


On 15 April 2015 at 00:30, rysiek <rysiek at hackerspace.pl> wrote:
> Dnia wtorek, 14 kwietnia 2015 14:56:34 Jeremy Malcolm pisze:
>> On 14/04/2015 1:44 am, Carolina Rossini wrote:
>> > The Council of Europe is working on a draft recommendation by the
>> > Committee of Ministers to its member states on Internet freedom
>> > (attached). The draft is currently being elaborated by a committee of
>> > experts operating  under the authority of the Council of Europe’s
>> > Steering Committee on Media and Information Society.
>> >
>> > As part of its multi-stakeholder outreach and dialogue, the Council of
>> > Europe would like your feedback, comments and suggestions on the draft
>> > recommendation to be sent to us, at the latest by *_30 April 2015_*,
>> > by E-mail to Marta.WIELOCH at coe.int <mailto:Marta.WIELOCH at coe.int> .
>>
>> It has been a while since we collaborated on a joint submission through
>> Best Bits.  Is there a group interested in writing something together
>> and presenting it for submission jointly?
>
> /me rises his hand, and looks around
>
> And right off the bat:
>
> "1. The European Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter the ECHR) applies
>     without any distinction to the physical world and to the Internet. The
>     Council of Europe member States have both negative and positive
>     obligations to protect and promote human rights and
>     fundamental freedoms on the Internet."
>
> This has to be one of the best bits (pun not indented) of language in this
> kind of "Internet freedom" text I've read for a long, long time.
>
> My main beef with many "lists of Internet freedoms" is that as soon as new
> technology comes around, we will have to re-do them, again and again, for the
> new technology.
>
> This is what has happened in Brazil, as far as I understand from talking to
> people there -- Brazilian Constitution protected (explicitly) privacy and
> freedoms in phone communication, and hence large portion of Marco Civil had to
> (explicitly) deal with them in the new domain of the Internet.
>
> Don't get me wrong, Marco Civil is a great piece of work, and brings a lot of
> good into the world; but large parts of it were needed because authors of the
> Brazilian Constitution didn't future-proof it well enough against new
> technologies.
>
> I much prefer the approach visible in these two quoted sentences -- clearly,
> unequivocally reaffirming the rights and freedoms we all have regardless of
> the medium we choose to exercise them in.
>
> These rights and freedoms are, I feel, well enough future-proofed, as long as
> we don't dismantle them by explicitly reiterating them for each new
> technological medium (and thus making it possible for future authoritarians to
> claim that "these do not apply in $TECHNOLOGY, as they have not been
> reiterated for it explicitly").
>
> --
> Pozdrawiam,
> Michał "rysiek" Woźniak
>
> Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147
> GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits



-- 
jozef [dot] halbersztadt [at] gmail [dot] com
Internet Society Poland http://www.isoc.org.pl
pubkey&address: http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?search=0x6A332CA03C4ACB9A

From nashton at consensus.pro  Wed Apr 15 05:52:17 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 11:52:17 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Council of Europe multi-stakeholder consultations on
 Internet freedom
In-Reply-To: <CACZHd23DwMS3GOvy_Hu_YiOyzHdS=ji+5M5mzOCMvW1uMn+MuQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK-FJAdsvEbJiOnp-g+U_Dja7rvi0eVQAaepPUNh-9SZGb9+Yg@mail.gmail.com> <552D8D12.30301@eff.org> <25073693.MHCKQ4bWaP@lapuntu> <CACZHd23DwMS3GOvy_Hu_YiOyzHdS=ji+5M5mzOCMvW1uMn+MuQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B78611A0-DF01-4C4A-A9A0-B8FD7EB6CFB7@consensus.pro>

I disagree entirely that the idea that human rights apply equally online and offline is just a slogan. I know from direct, repeated personal experience that the agreement on that point at the Human Rights Council that all rights apply equally online and offline is a landmark. It is continually used to push back against attempts to justify censorship in other international agreements and it works.

If you are just talking about the implementation of this concept at the CoE that’s a different thing.

We need more international understandings like the one at the HRC, because they can be built upon in other places.

> On 15 Apr 2015, at 10:11, Halbersztadt Jozef (jothal) <jozef.halbersztadt at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Rysiek,
> 
> a few words on two sentences (HR on-line/off-line). It is just a
> slogan without real policies. We have no choice but to acknowledge
> that the core of the problem lies elsewhere. With the Council of
> Europe consultations on Internet freedom we are not at the beginning
> of a process. We are after many years of debating the issue in the CoE
> how human right should operate in the digital environment. And as a
> result they arrived to a position that - for example - is very much
> against the suggestion that blocking orders could only be made by a
> court. Why? Because it corresponds to the national laws of some member
> states. And all member state would like to have non-judicial
> arrangements in relation to national security and intelligence.
> 
> Regards
> Jozef H
> 
> 
> On 15 April 2015 at 00:30, rysiek <rysiek at hackerspace.pl> wrote:
>> Dnia wtorek, 14 kwietnia 2015 14:56:34 Jeremy Malcolm pisze:
>>> On 14/04/2015 1:44 am, Carolina Rossini wrote:
>>>> The Council of Europe is working on a draft recommendation by the
>>>> Committee of Ministers to its member states on Internet freedom
>>>> (attached). The draft is currently being elaborated by a committee of
>>>> experts operating  under the authority of the Council of Europe’s
>>>> Steering Committee on Media and Information Society.
>>>> 
>>>> As part of its multi-stakeholder outreach and dialogue, the Council of
>>>> Europe would like your feedback, comments and suggestions on the draft
>>>> recommendation to be sent to us, at the latest by *_30 April 2015_*,
>>>> by E-mail to Marta.WIELOCH at coe.int <mailto:Marta.WIELOCH at coe.int> .
>>> 
>>> It has been a while since we collaborated on a joint submission through
>>> Best Bits.  Is there a group interested in writing something together
>>> and presenting it for submission jointly?
>> 
>> /me rises his hand, and looks around
>> 
>> And right off the bat:
>> 
>> "1. The European Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter the ECHR) applies
>>    without any distinction to the physical world and to the Internet. The
>>    Council of Europe member States have both negative and positive
>>    obligations to protect and promote human rights and
>>    fundamental freedoms on the Internet."
>> 
>> This has to be one of the best bits (pun not indented) of language in this
>> kind of "Internet freedom" text I've read for a long, long time.
>> 
>> My main beef with many "lists of Internet freedoms" is that as soon as new
>> technology comes around, we will have to re-do them, again and again, for the
>> new technology.
>> 
>> This is what has happened in Brazil, as far as I understand from talking to
>> people there -- Brazilian Constitution protected (explicitly) privacy and
>> freedoms in phone communication, and hence large portion of Marco Civil had to
>> (explicitly) deal with them in the new domain of the Internet.
>> 
>> Don't get me wrong, Marco Civil is a great piece of work, and brings a lot of
>> good into the world; but large parts of it were needed because authors of the
>> Brazilian Constitution didn't future-proof it well enough against new
>> technologies.
>> 
>> I much prefer the approach visible in these two quoted sentences -- clearly,
>> unequivocally reaffirming the rights and freedoms we all have regardless of
>> the medium we choose to exercise them in.
>> 
>> These rights and freedoms are, I feel, well enough future-proofed, as long as
>> we don't dismantle them by explicitly reiterating them for each new
>> technological medium (and thus making it possible for future authoritarians to
>> claim that "these do not apply in $TECHNOLOGY, as they have not been
>> reiterated for it explicitly").
>> 
>> --
>> Pozdrawiam,
>> Michał "rysiek" Woźniak
>> 
>> Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147
>> GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 
> 
> 
> --
> jozef [dot] halbersztadt [at] gmail [dot] com
> Internet Society Poland http://www.isoc.org.pl
> pubkey&address: http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?search=0x6A332CA03C4ACB9A
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as 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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150415/5b055b7b/attachment.sig>

From jozef.halbersztadt at gmail.com  Wed Apr 15 06:56:43 2015
From: jozef.halbersztadt at gmail.com (Halbersztadt Jozef (jothal))
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 12:56:43 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Council of Europe multi-stakeholder consultations on
 Internet freedom
In-Reply-To: <B78611A0-DF01-4C4A-A9A0-B8FD7EB6CFB7@consensus.pro>
References: <CAK-FJAdsvEbJiOnp-g+U_Dja7rvi0eVQAaepPUNh-9SZGb9+Yg@mail.gmail.com>
	<552D8D12.30301@eff.org>
	<25073693.MHCKQ4bWaP@lapuntu>
	<CACZHd23DwMS3GOvy_Hu_YiOyzHdS=ji+5M5mzOCMvW1uMn+MuQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<B78611A0-DF01-4C4A-A9A0-B8FD7EB6CFB7@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <CACZHd2261T1=znVuo=d=WD+S2+L47h120HzRK=qsCHc8Zgmt4g@mail.gmail.com>

Sorry, but you got me wrong. I didn’t question it is very important
that human right should apply equally on line as off line. As a whole
the document of the CoE comes as a disappointment Behind claiming that
HR apply equally there isn’t real substance. In this regard it is a
slogan



On 15 April 2015 at 11:52, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
> I disagree entirely that the idea that human rights apply equally online and offline is just a slogan. I know from direct, repeated personal experience that the agreement on that point at the Human Rights Council that all rights apply equally online and offline is a landmark. It is continually used to push back against attempts to justify censorship in other international agreements and it works.
>
> If you are just talking about the implementation of this concept at the CoE that’s a different thing.
>
> We need more international understandings like the one at the HRC, because they can be built upon in other places.
>
>> On 15 Apr 2015, at 10:11, Halbersztadt Jozef (jothal) <jozef.halbersztadt at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Rysiek,
>>
>> a few words on two sentences (HR on-line/off-line). It is just a
>> slogan without real policies. We have no choice but to acknowledge
>> that the core of the problem lies elsewhere. With the Council of
>> Europe consultations on Internet freedom we are not at the beginning
>> of a process. We are after many years of debating the issue in the CoE
>> how human right should operate in the digital environment. And as a
>> result they arrived to a position that - for example - is very much
>> against the suggestion that blocking orders could only be made by a
>> court. Why? Because it corresponds to the national laws of some member
>> states. And all member state would like to have non-judicial
>> arrangements in relation to national security and intelligence.
>>
>> Regards
>> Jozef H
>>
>>
>> On 15 April 2015 at 00:30, rysiek <rysiek at hackerspace.pl> wrote:
>>> Dnia wtorek, 14 kwietnia 2015 14:56:34 Jeremy Malcolm pisze:
>>>> On 14/04/2015 1:44 am, Carolina Rossini wrote:
>>>>> The Council of Europe is working on a draft recommendation by the
>>>>> Committee of Ministers to its member states on Internet freedom
>>>>> (attached). The draft is currently being elaborated by a committee of
>>>>> experts operating  under the authority of the Council of Europe’s
>>>>> Steering Committee on Media and Information Society.
>>>>>
>>>>> As part of its multi-stakeholder outreach and dialogue, the Council of
>>>>> Europe would like your feedback, comments and suggestions on the draft
>>>>> recommendation to be sent to us, at the latest by *_30 April 2015_*,
>>>>> by E-mail to Marta.WIELOCH at coe.int <mailto:Marta.WIELOCH at coe.int> .
>>>>
>>>> It has been a while since we collaborated on a joint submission through
>>>> Best Bits.  Is there a group interested in writing something together
>>>> and presenting it for submission jointly?
>>>
>>> /me rises his hand, and looks around
>>>
>>> And right off the bat:
>>>
>>> "1. The European Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter the ECHR) applies
>>>    without any distinction to the physical world and to the Internet. The
>>>    Council of Europe member States have both negative and positive
>>>    obligations to protect and promote human rights and
>>>    fundamental freedoms on the Internet."
>>>
>>> This has to be one of the best bits (pun not indented) of language in this
>>> kind of "Internet freedom" text I've read for a long, long time.
>>>
>>> My main beef with many "lists of Internet freedoms" is that as soon as new
>>> technology comes around, we will have to re-do them, again and again, for the
>>> new technology.
>>>
>>> This is what has happened in Brazil, as far as I understand from talking to
>>> people there -- Brazilian Constitution protected (explicitly) privacy and
>>> freedoms in phone communication, and hence large portion of Marco Civil had to
>>> (explicitly) deal with them in the new domain of the Internet.
>>>
>>> Don't get me wrong, Marco Civil is a great piece of work, and brings a lot of
>>> good into the world; but large parts of it were needed because authors of the
>>> Brazilian Constitution didn't future-proof it well enough against new
>>> technologies.
>>>
>>> I much prefer the approach visible in these two quoted sentences -- clearly,
>>> unequivocally reaffirming the rights and freedoms we all have regardless of
>>> the medium we choose to exercise them in.
>>>
>>> These rights and freedoms are, I feel, well enough future-proofed, as long as
>>> we don't dismantle them by explicitly reiterating them for each new
>>> technological medium (and thus making it possible for future authoritarians to
>>> claim that "these do not apply in $TECHNOLOGY, as they have not been
>>> reiterated for it explicitly").
>>>
>>> --
>>> Pozdrawiam,
>>> Michał "rysiek" Woźniak
>>>
>>> Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147
>>> GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> jozef [dot] halbersztadt [at] gmail [dot] com
>> Internet Society Poland http://www.isoc.org.pl
>> pubkey&address: http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?search=0x6A332CA03C4ACB9A
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
jozef [dot] halbersztadt [at] gmail [dot] com
Internet Society Poland http://www.isoc.org.pl
pubkey&address: http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?search=0x6A332CA03C4ACB9A

From rysiek at hackerspace.pl  Wed Apr 15 07:12:11 2015
From: rysiek at hackerspace.pl (rysiek)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 13:12:11 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Council of Europe multi-stakeholder consultations on
 Internet freedom
In-Reply-To: <CACZHd2261T1=znVuo=d=WD+S2+L47h120HzRK=qsCHc8Zgmt4g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK-FJAdsvEbJiOnp-g+U_Dja7rvi0eVQAaepPUNh-9SZGb9+Yg@mail.gmail.com> <B78611A0-DF01-4C4A-A9A0-B8FD7EB6CFB7@consensus.pro> <CACZHd2261T1=znVuo=d=WD+S2+L47h120HzRK=qsCHc8Zgmt4g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1483558.ttHbT6vrRG@lapuntu>

Dnia środa, 15 kwietnia 2015 12:56:43 Halbersztadt Jozef pisze:
> Sorry, but you got me wrong. I didn’t question it is very important
> that human right should apply equally on line as off line. As a whole
> the document of the CoE comes as a disappointment Behind claiming that
> HR apply equally there isn’t real substance. In this regard it is a
> slogan

So we can agree here. However, my point is to make sure that we keep 
underlining the fact that human rights apply regardless of technology.

-- 
Pozdrawiam,
Michał "rysiek" Woźniak

Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147
GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 931 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150415/c2ea1394/attachment.sig>

From nnenna75 at gmail.com  Thu Apr 16 05:59:52 2015
From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 09:59:52 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] GCCS Speech
Message-ID: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com>

Attached
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150416/f1c2da74/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GCCS 2015 Nnenna Speech.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 19922 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150416/f1c2da74/attachment.docx>

From nashton at consensus.pro  Thu Apr 16 06:03:14 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 12:03:14 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] GCCS Speech
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B02AE503-59BD-43DA-B2CB-47F6271F6FE8@consensus.pro>

Nnenna, as usual, you were in a class by yourself despite the other speakers being good. It was an inspiration!

> On 16 Apr 2015, at 11:59, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Attached
> 
> 
> <GCCS 2015 Nnenna Speech.docx>____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as 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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150416/7c9ca9cb/attachment.sig>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Apr  1 08:09:13 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 17:39:13 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Fwd: [Rigf_discuss] [Extended Deadline:
 Apr 7(Tue)] APrIGF Macao 2015 - Last Chance to Submit Your Workshop
 Proposals
In-Reply-To: <D141E8B1.3C6E9%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
References: <37C3C0E3-16AA-4975-A774-FAE84A9F64AE@aprigf.asia> <618DCF4D-70C7-4522-BB76-B2AA6071599E@aprigf.asia> <CAJqNAHDv5p=3HsOQb8whr5xvsOYZfGL+rAXidhAqcfp3sbg_hg@mail.gmail.com> <551BBF13.4000602@itforchange.net> <D141E8B1.3C6E9%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
Message-ID: <551BDFE9.8000703@itforchange.net>



On Wednesday 01 April 2015 04:14 PM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote:
> Hi Parminder.
>
> I went to the IGF page and searched for your proposal. I’m surprised 
> that the entire group of organisers consists of civil society players 
> only.

Hi Peng Hwa

Perhaps you missed noting that we have entered the proposal not as a 
regular IGF workshop but under 'others' - calling it as an 'outreach 
event'. And out reach event for any initiative is obviously done by 
those associated with organising that event, here, the Internet Social 
Forum, which are all civil society organisations.  The Internet Social 
Forum is to be a thematic forum under the World Social Forum rubric. The 
World Social Forum in fact only allows civil society groups to 
participate and not businesses or government. Please see this link for 
WSF's criteria of paticipation . Now if you want to take up issues with 
the WSF and its criteria of participation, that is a different thing - 
there are much better worthies to defend it than I.

BTW, among the organisers are both civil society and technical community 
groups, and it has been made clear in the past that it is not necessary 
to have stakeholders as co- organisers of an IGF workshop.


>
> The online proposal form has a button that allows one to ask for help 
> if one has difficulty getting stakeholder participation. Your proposal 
> does not have that request. I presume it means that you are not 
> seeking inputs from government or the private sector.

You can conflating organisers and participants. If you look at the 
tentative panel, you will find a wide variety of stakeholders.
>
> Back in 2010, when we organised the first APrIGF, you and I had a 
> couple of side chats during the meeting in HK and you gave some 
> critical inputs that, in the long run, strengthened the meeting. One 
> of the criticisms was that we had no government representation on the MSG

As far as I remember, both at the HK meeting, and later in exchanges on 
this list, my main point was to involve the UN regional commission of 
Asia Pacific.

> (multistakeholder steering group; acronym cunningly chosen because it 
> resembles flavouring originating in Asia). There was a bit of finger 
> wagging by you even then and I explained to you that we had tried but 
> no government was stepping up. Since then, we have seen increasing 
> government involvement with the APrIGF. Fast forward to 2014 and the 
> Indian government played a major part in the APrIGF in Delhi. I don’t 
> know if you played a part in that but your critique in 2010 was 
> helpful in prodding us to get government on board. In the coming Macao 
> meeting, they are involved in sponsorships as well.
>
> So now, seeing a proposal from you where only civil society is speaker 
> and audience is puzzling. I

you are wrong on your facts .

> have battle scars from being ejected at meetings by government 
> officials between the two WSISs. They are so rare these days I wear 
> them as a badge of honour.
>
> So these are my questions that come top of my head.
>
>  1. If civil society can organise a session where no government or
>     business organisation is invited, would it be acceptable if
>     governments and business organise their own meetings among themselves?
>

Where did you read that no gov or business is invited? Further, we have 
a variety of stakeholders on the panel as well. Yes, no business at 
present. I would love to get a small developing country business but can 
never find one. If you know anyone please do refer to me.

>  1. If even the World Economic Forum is recognising the importance of
>     a multistakeholder model
>     http://www.weforum.org/reports/future-role-civil-society, would
>     not a civil-society-only meeting be a step backward?
>
I have pretty good idea about what WEF recognises and what it does not, 
and to what purpose. (BTW, do read their Global Redesign Initiative, and 
their vision of the future of governance. But if you cant read it all, 
see a short critique in this article 
<http://www.twn.my/title2/resurgence/2014/287-288/cover02.htm> , go to 
the  box in the article on 'From NetMundial to the WEF'.) The workshop 
on the Internet Social Forum at the IGF is of course not only civil 
society. As for your objection to the proposed Internet Social Forum 
itself being only civil society, you will need to engage with the World 
Social Forum, at whose 2015 meeting last week about 40,000 people 
congregated from the world over. The next WSF is probably in Canada, and 
there will curely be an Internet Social Forum event there. You are 
welcome to come.

Below are the current top news about the 2015 WSF meeting. (You may also 
know that the WSF - read charter here 
<http://www.forumsocialmundial.org.br/main.php?id_menu=4&cd_language=2>- 
was called in direct opposition to the WEF, so obviously a lots of 
people were never too happy with WEF's multistakeholderism and 
inclusiveness !)


http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/mar/23/world-social-forum-tunis-activists-united-against-global-power-grab
http://www.equaltimes.org/2015-a-key-year-for-world-social#.VRvcts3SUyo
http://cadtm.org/Declaration-of-the-Assembly-of,11452
http://www.democracynow.org/2015/3/27/african_economist_samir_amin_on_the

Finally, since I have answered your questions, I will like to ask you if 
you think that the workshop we are proposing on an Internet Social Forum 
should be accepted (1) at the IGF, and (2) at APrIGF. And also what 
really does it mean to make it necessary for workshop proposals to 
present all issues 'incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective'. Isnt 
the test of 'incorporating public interest perspective' better .

Regards
parminder

> Regards,
> Peng Hwa
>
> From: Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
> Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Parminder Singh 
> <parminder at ITforChange.net <mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
> Date: Wednesday, 1 April 2015 5:49 pm
> To: Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in 
> <mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in>>, "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>, IGC 
> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>
> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: [Rigf_discuss] [Extended 
> Deadline: Apr 7(Tue)] APrIGF Macao 2015 - Last Chance to Submit Your 
> Workshop Proposals
>
>
> On Tuesday 31 March 2015 01:29 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I just wanted to share with you all that the submission deadline for 
>> the APrIGF workshops has been slightly extended, until 7 April. For 
>> those of you who are in the region, do please consider submitting a 
>> proposal!
>
> Hi Anja
>
> I am curious what would the mean and entail by "proposals ... should 
> present the proposed issue ... incorporating a multi-stakeholder 
> perspective".
>
> For instance, it one were to present a workshop proposal titled 
> 'Countering the power of Internet Trans-national corporations', one 
> would normally be writing mostly about excesses of TNC's power in this 
> area and what to do about it, isnt it. Would that fail the test of 
> 'incorporating a MS perspective'.
>
> Or, to take a more concrete example, those who organised the workshop 
> on Internet Social Forum intend to also organise one the next IGF, the 
> initial proposal is here 
> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshop-proposals/list-of-published-workshop-proposals> 
> ... I have a feeling that this proposal may not be considered to be 
> 'incorporating a multi stakeholder perspective' but I dont know, you 
> or someone else from APrIGF can tell me..
>
> Best , parminder
>>
>> With best regards,
>> Anja
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: *APrIGF Secretariat* <sec at aprigf.asia <mailto:sec at aprigf.asia>>
>> Date: 30 March 2015 at 12:54
>> Subject: [Rigf_discuss] [Extended Deadline: Apr 7(Tue)] APrIGF Macao 
>> 2015 - Last Chance to Submit Your Workshop Proposals
>> To: announce at aprigf.asia <mailto:announce at aprigf.asia>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum*
>> *APrIGF Macao 2015*
>> *30 Jun (Pre-event), 1-3 Jul (Main Conference), 2015*
>> *Sands Cotai Central, Macao*
>> http://2015.rigf.asia <http://aprigf.asia/>
>>
>> *Final Call for Pre-Events/Workshop Proposals*
>>
>> With our promotion at the RightsCon Southeast Asia which just 
>> concluded in Manila last week, the MSG is very glad to receive the 
>> overwhelming interests from the attendees on submitting workshop 
>> proposals and their request for a further deadline extension. 
>> To enhance the diversity of the proposals and engage more 
>> stakeholders' participation, the MSG reached a consensus to further 
>> extend the submission deadline to allow sufficient time for community 
>> members to fully develop their workshop proposals.
>>
>> We now welcome proposals for pre-events or main workshop sessions 
>> which should present the proposed issue in an inclusive manner, 
>> incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective with a balance of 
>> stakeholders and gender in the speakers list. The session shall 
>> promote an interactive dialogue among the participants.
>>
>> There will not be further deadline extension. Hence, it is highly 
>> encouraged to submit your complete workshop proposal within the 
>> extended period.
>>
>> *Workshop Proposal Submission Deadline: *11 Mar 2015 (Wed) *[Extended 
>> to 7 Apr (Tue)]*
>>
>> *Online Submission 
>> Form:* (http://2015.rigf.asia/workshop-theme-submissions/)
>>
>> If you have any enquiries, please feel free to contact the 
>> secretariat at sec at aprigf.asia <mailto:sec at aprigf.asia>.
>>
>> *
>> If you are interested to follow any news and updates about APrIGF and 
>> discuss relevant issues, you may subscribe to the mailing list 
>> discuss at aprigf.asia <mailto:discuss at aprigf.asia> by sending in 
>> subscription request.
>>
>> We also welcome any Internet-related organisation to become a 
>> sponsor. Please contact sec at aprigf.asia <mailto:sec at aprigf.asia> for 
>> more information.
>> *
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Secretariat of APrIGF
>> http://www.aprigf.asia <http://www.dot.asia/>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rigf_discuss mailing list
>> Rigf_discuss at web2.dotasia.org <mailto:Rigf_discuss at web2.dotasia.org>
>> https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_discuss
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Dr. Anja Kovacs
>> The Internet Democracy Project
>>
>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>> www.internetdemocracy.in <http://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
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> CONFIDENTIALITY: This email is intended solely for the person(s) named 
> and may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended 
> recipient, please delete it, notify us and do not copy, use, or 
> disclose its contents.
> Towards a sustainable earth: Print only when necessary. Thank you. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150401/e15a96ca/attachment.htm>

From wsaqaf at gmail.com  Thu Apr 16 06:07:33 2015
From: wsaqaf at gmail.com (Walid AL-SAQAF)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 12:07:33 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] GCCS Speech
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAKJSUiy-s+X0ZFMartpxwnaUbZr2BFUTYaXOAshLcndbxbvPoA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Nenna,

As usual, you rocked the stage and gave some of us goose bumps. Thanks for
being a strong voice on behalf of voiceless people across the world.

Sincerely,

Walid Al-Saqaf
On Apr 16, 2015 12:00 PM, "Nnenna Nwakanma" <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Attached
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150416/4fd2d715/attachment.htm>

From bdelachapelle at gmail.com  Thu Apr 16 06:12:35 2015
From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand De La Chapelle)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 12:12:35 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] GCCS Speech
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5FCD417C-7693-424A-A801-A2CCC4CD3962@gmail.com>

Kudos Nenna,

A great speech.

As usual, a fresh, candid but also focused message.

AAA :-)

B.



Sent from my iPhone

> On 16 Apr 2015, at 11:59, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Attached
> 
> 
> <GCCS 2015 Nnenna Speech.docx>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as 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 Kivuva at transworldafrica.com  Thu Apr 16 06:40:23 2015
From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Mwendwa Kivuva)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 12:40:23 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] GCCS Speech
In-Reply-To: <5FCD417C-7693-424A-A801-A2CCC4CD3962@gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <5FCD417C-7693-424A-A801-A2CCC4CD3962@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEhPqwrTj+K8gAWiTnJx2CYvOtM5deHs9d0QhSrx7+6Af20T1w@mail.gmail.com>

The Internet for everyone. A strong mantra really.
"All of the People should be able to access all the Internet all of the
time" - @nnenna

Great representation for the CS. Thank you Nnenna

______________________
Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya

"There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk on
higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson


On 16 April 2015 at 12:12, Bertrand De La Chapelle <bdelachapelle at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Kudos Nenna,
>
> A great speech.
>
> As usual, a fresh, candid but also focused message.
>
> AAA :-)
>
> B.
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On 16 Apr 2015, at 11:59, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Attached
> >
> >
> > <GCCS 2015 Nnenna Speech.docx>
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150416/5de30934/attachment.htm>

From ekenyanito at gmail.com  Thu Apr 16 06:44:49 2015
From: ekenyanito at gmail.com (Ephraim Percy Kenyanito)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 12:44:49 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Global Net Neutrality Coalition Hague Meetup
Message-ID: <CAHwnKeESGKjx6z+n-s4MMAQkKOBg=F8VMcp=MiGk71CqhgJQhg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Everyone,

We'd like to gather folks from the Global Net Neutrality Coalition
<https://www.thisisnetneutrality.org/>

 to catch up at GCCS, provide updates, and talk about whatever else suits
people's fancy.



*Time: 14:00- 14.45hours on Thursday, 4/16 (today)Place: Bilateral room 10
(Everest 2)* -(This room is on the second floor. On the app you can see the
map of the location).

Can you make it?

We've created an Etherpad here for people to follow along:
https://pad.riseup.net/p/gnn-hague-meeting



​P.S- Please feel free to join us if you are interested to join the
coalition or learn more about the Coalition.​

--

Best Regards,
​​
*Ephraim Percy Kenyanito*
Website: http://about.me/ekenyanito

Twitter: @ekenyanito
PGP: E6BA8DC1
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150416/465a6ea3/attachment.htm>

From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net  Thu Apr 16 07:06:10 2015
From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 13:06:10 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] GCCS Speech
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <13AE45FB-45C1-4A1D-A4CE-A68246E4C4B1@theglobaljournal.net>

Hi Nnenna from the Internet,

1_______________
Could you please elaborate what means the following sentence in your speech? I am not sure to see which democratic processes you are referring to in the current pro US status-quo multiskateholder game? Or did you mean are here to stay out of the MS mess?
Openness and democratic processes entrenched in multi-stakeholder engagement are here to stay.

2________________
And what do you mean when you write the following?
"Therefore we need to grow, be more open and inclusive. And we must uphold, promote, engage with, and maintain processes like the IGF, the NetMundial and the IANA transition." 

in particular you call for upholding and promoting processes like the NetMundial? Do you support the high-jacking of the Sao Paulo meeting by the ICANN/WEF and CGI.br? What in your mind deserves to be promoted (and not denounced) regarding the long-expected IANA transition to ICANN? Another great democratic transition I presume. Also please indicate why you do not mention another great initiative that is the Internet Social Forum. Is it because it is so "civil society', having therefore too much baggage to engage with, or because it is not multistakeholder according to your open and democratic MS standards, or because you are concerned that the public policy global debate about the Internet would step out of the usual sandbox where everyone seems to enjoy listening to the same old song (with interesting variations, I can concede that to you when reading all your "I am from the Internet" speeches).


3________________
It is always good to start mentioning in such a speech the bad guys (Arab countries, Turkey, Russia, China...) as you might not feel comfortable to mention the one posing the greatest threat to all others (see what I mean, or maybe you need a pointer?). Denouncing an omnibus of democratic countries competing for mass surveillance is simply non sense. If so all governments are definitely evil (apart the US of course). Among them, none except the US can be seen as a serious cyber threat to all citizens around the planet. Why pointing to these bad guys, and not naming Caesar (see the country with so many good generous sponsors( see below).

4________________
Why to quote a report by the Alliance for Affordable Internet (AAI), when for years, we have had access to the same data at the ITU? Oh, I forgot, the AAI is multistakeholder-friendly, it regroups the good guys: the US State Department, Cisco, APC, Facebook, CGI.br, Google, Intel, ISOC, Microsoft, the Swedish Foreign Affairs, USAid, others, and of course your World Wide Web Foodation... And ITU is part of the villain, the power-grab people...

5________________
It would be good to define of which part of the Internet you come from (if it wasn't clear enough for some of us here)? Can you tell us how intertwined the organization you report to  is benefiting from these generous sponsors?

It seems that there is a large stretch between all of these words and their behinds, and what would be an honest independent CS position defending a true affordable access for citizens of the planet who do not have access yet. Have you noticed the failure of Facebook initiative in India for an Affordable Internet Access? How come?

This is all very embarrassing.

JC


Le 16 avr. 2015 à 11:59, Nnenna Nwakanma a écrit :

> Attached
> 
> 
> <GCCS 2015 Nnenna Speech.docx>____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150416/050fad12/attachment.htm>

From pouzin at well.com  Thu Apr 16 08:33:54 2015
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 14:33:54 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] GCCS Speech
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+EjHYp3BUh_1ASPctDJPdisidyPH5iAfpMT6kK32E8opHn0Vw@mail.gmail.com>

Bravo Nnenna. Continue.
Louis

en P.J. pour info, un texte inclus dans « Journées Jeunesse et
Développement en Afrique » 10/11 février 2015 à l'Unesco Paris.

- - -

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Attached
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150416/8ea606af/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 150211_Unesco UISF-2.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 23040 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150416/8ea606af/attachment.doc>

From pileleji at ymca.gm  Thu Apr 16 08:41:14 2015
From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 12:41:14 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] GCCS Speech
In-Reply-To: <B02AE503-59BD-43DA-B2CB-47F6271F6FE8@consensus.pro>
References: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<B02AE503-59BD-43DA-B2CB-47F6271F6FE8@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <CAEux40tnJY7vw2Y8aV+e2eHZjm=AaqtyJMRWj8TcF+KCQOVyBQ@mail.gmail.com>

Definitely great indeed.

Poncelet

On 16 April 2015 at 10:03, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:

> Nnenna, as usual, you were in a class by yourself despite the other
> speakers being good. It was an inspiration!
>
> > On 16 Apr 2015, at 11:59, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Attached
> >
> >
> > <GCCS 2015 Nnenna
> Speech.docx>____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as 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
>



-- 
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd






*www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>www.waigf.org
<http://www.waigf.org>www.aficta.org <http://www.aficta.org>www.itag.gm
<http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
<http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
<http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150416/bd9630d4/attachment.htm>

From rysiek at hackerspace.pl  Thu Apr 16 08:45:08 2015
From: rysiek at hackerspace.pl (rysiek)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 14:45:08 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] GCCS Speech
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4628159.qFHXIYKtv1@lapuntu>

Dnia czwartek, 16 kwietnia 2015 09:59:52 Nnenna Nwakanma pisze:
> Attached

I missed it, hope to catch you somewhere in the corridors (just arrived). 
Thanks for the text!

-- 
Pozdrawiam,
Michał "rysiek" Woźniak

Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147
GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 931 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150416/63f67c7d/attachment.sig>

From iza at anr.org  Thu Apr 16 08:53:32 2015
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 21:53:32 +0900
Subject: [bestbits] GCCS Speech
In-Reply-To: <4628159.qFHXIYKtv1@lapuntu>
References: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <4628159.qFHXIYKtv1@lapuntu>
Message-ID: <CA+YNoKiLtbrkbCBkvT_ptNmAL7Y589gvkzHkR3yCr35agV3GNQ@mail.gmail.com>

Here's the video I took to Nnenna's speech, much more powerful than texts.

http://on.fb.me/1PRTvsR

izumi


2015-04-16 21:45 GMT+09:00 rysiek <rysiek at hackerspace.pl>:

> Dnia czwartek, 16 kwietnia 2015 09:59:52 Nnenna Nwakanma pisze:
> > Attached
>
> I missed it, hope to catch you somewhere in the corridors (just arrived).
> Thanks for the text!
>
> --
> Pozdrawiam,
> Michał "rysiek" Woźniak
>
> Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147
> GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
                     >> Izumi Aizu <<
Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
Japan
www.anr.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150416/252ccaf1/attachment.htm>

From wisdom.dk at gmail.com  Thu Apr 16 09:46:55 2015
From: wisdom.dk at gmail.com (Wisdom Donkor)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 13:46:55 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] GCCS Speech
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAU+vPFLqfbwat4upXbYtbAbGkO1XG=gHZE28h0AQg4hNxPW9g@mail.gmail.com>

Was powerful.

WISDOM DONKOR
Sosftware / Network Engineer
Web/Open Government Platform Portal Specialist
National Information Technology Agency (NITA)
Post Office Box CT. 2439, Cantonments, Accra, Ghana
Tel; +233 20 812881
Email: wisdom_dk at hotmail.com
wisdom.donkor at data.gov.gh
wisdom.dk at gmail.com
Skype: wisdom_dk
facebook: facebook at wisdom_dk
Website: www.nita.gov.gh / www.data.gov.gh
www.isoc.gh / www.itag.org.gh


On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Attached
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150416/c3710665/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Apr  1 08:13:59 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 17:43:59 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Fwd: [Rigf_discuss] [Extended Deadline:
 Apr 7(Tue)] APrIGF Macao 2015 - Last Chance to Submit Your Workshop
 Proposals
In-Reply-To: <551BDFE9.8000703@itforchange.net>
References: <37C3C0E3-16AA-4975-A774-FAE84A9F64AE@aprigf.asia> <618DCF4D-70C7-4522-BB76-B2AA6071599E@aprigf.asia> <CAJqNAHDv5p=3HsOQb8whr5xvsOYZfGL+rAXidhAqcfp3sbg_hg@mail.gmail.com> <551BBF13.4000602@itforchange.net> <D141E8B1.3C6E9%tphang@ntu.edu.sg> <551BDFE9.8000703@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <551BE107.5090103@itforchange.net>



On Wednesday 01 April 2015 05:39 PM, parminder wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday 01 April 2015 04:14 PM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote:
>> Hi Parminder.
>>
>> I went to the IGF page and searched for your proposal. I’m surprised 
>> that the entire group of organisers consists of civil society players 
>> only.
>
> Hi Peng Hwa
>
> Perhaps you missed noting that we have entered the proposal not as a 
> regular IGF workshop but under 'others' - calling it as an 'outreach 
> event'. And out reach event for any initiative is obviously done by 
> those associated with organising that event, here, the Internet Social 
> Forum, which are all civil society organisations.  The Internet Social 
> Forum is to be a thematic forum under the World Social Forum rubric. 
> The World Social Forum in fact only allows civil society groups to 
> participate and not businesses or government. Please see this link for 
> WSF's criteria of paticipation .

https://fsm2015.org/en/criteria-participation

> Now if you want to take up issues with the WSF and its criteria of 
> participation, that is a different thing - there are much better 
> worthies to defend it than I.
>
> BTW, among the organisers are both civil society and technical 
> community groups, and it has been made clear in the past that it is 
> not necessary to have stakeholders as co- organisers of an IGF workshop.
>
>
>>
>> The online proposal form has a button that allows one to ask for help 
>> if one has difficulty getting stakeholder participation. Your 
>> proposal does not have that request. I presume it means that you are 
>> not seeking inputs from government or the private sector.
>
> You can conflating organisers and participants. If you look at the 
> tentative panel, you will find a wide variety of stakeholders.
>>
>> Back in 2010, when we organised the first APrIGF, you and I had a 
>> couple of side chats during the meeting in HK and you gave some 
>> critical inputs that, in the long run, strengthened the meeting. One 
>> of the criticisms was that we had no government representation on the MSG
>
> As far as I remember, both at the HK meeting, and later in exchanges 
> on this list, my main point was to involve the UN regional commission 
> of Asia Pacific.
>
>> (multistakeholder steering group; acronym cunningly chosen because it 
>> resembles flavouring originating in Asia). There was a bit of finger 
>> wagging by you even then and I explained to you that we had tried but 
>> no government was stepping up. Since then, we have seen increasing 
>> government involvement with the APrIGF. Fast forward to 2014 and the 
>> Indian government played a major part in the APrIGF in Delhi. I don’t 
>> know if you played a part in that but your critique in 2010 was 
>> helpful in prodding us to get government on board. In the coming 
>> Macao meeting, they are involved in sponsorships as well.
>>
>> So now, seeing a proposal from you where only civil society is 
>> speaker and audience is puzzling. I
>
> you are wrong on your facts .
>
>> have battle scars from being ejected at meetings by government 
>> officials between the two WSISs. They are so rare these days I wear 
>> them as a badge of honour.
>>
>> So these are my questions that come top of my head.
>>
>>  1. If civil society can organise a session where no government or
>>     business organisation is invited, would it be acceptable if
>>     governments and business organise their own meetings among
>>     themselves?
>>
>
> Where did you read that no gov or business is invited? Further, we 
> have a variety of stakeholders on the panel as well. Yes, no business 
> at present. I would love to get a small developing country business 
> but can never find one. If you know anyone please do refer to me.
>
>>  1. If even the World Economic Forum is recognising the importance of
>>     a multistakeholder model
>>     http://www.weforum.org/reports/future-role-civil-society, would
>>     not a civil-society-only meeting be a step backward?
>>
> I have pretty good idea about what WEF recognises and what it does 
> not, and to what purpose. (BTW, do read their Global Redesign 
> Initiative, and their vision of the future of governance. But if you 
> cant read it all, see a short critique in this article 
> <http://www.twn.my/title2/resurgence/2014/287-288/cover02.htm> , go to 
> the  box in the article on 'From NetMundial to the WEF'.) The workshop 
> on the Internet Social Forum at the IGF is of course not only civil 
> society. As for your objection to the proposed Internet Social Forum 
> itself being only civil society, you will need to engage with the 
> World Social Forum, at whose 2015 meeting last week about 40,000 
> people congregated from the world over. The next WSF is probably in 
> Canada, and there will curely be an Internet Social Forum event there. 
> You are welcome to come.
>
> Below are the current top news about the 2015 WSF meeting. (You may 
> also know that the WSF - read charter here 
> <http://www.forumsocialmundial.org.br/main.php?id_menu=4&cd_language=2>- 
> was called in direct opposition to the WEF, so obviously a lots of 
> people were never too happy with WEF's multistakeholderism and 
> inclusiveness !)
>
>
> http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/mar/23/world-social-forum-tunis-activists-united-against-global-power-grab
> http://www.equaltimes.org/2015-a-key-year-for-world-social#.VRvcts3SUyo
> http://cadtm.org/Declaration-of-the-Assembly-of,11452
> http://www.democracynow.org/2015/3/27/african_economist_samir_amin_on_the
>
> Finally, since I have answered your questions, I will like to ask you 
> if you think that the workshop we are proposing on an Internet Social 
> Forum should be accepted (1) at the IGF, and (2) at APrIGF. And also 
> what really does it mean to make it necessary for workshop proposals 
> to present all issues 'incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective'. 
> Isnt the test of 'incorporating public interest perspective' better .
>
> Regards
> parminder
>
>> Regards,
>> Peng Hwa
>>
>> From: Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net 
>> <mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
>> Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" 
>> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Parminder Singh 
>> <parminder at ITforChange.net <mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
>> Date: Wednesday, 1 April 2015 5:49 pm
>> To: Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in 
>> <mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in>>, "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 
>> <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>, IGC 
>> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>
>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: [Rigf_discuss] [Extended 
>> Deadline: Apr 7(Tue)] APrIGF Macao 2015 - Last Chance to Submit Your 
>> Workshop Proposals
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday 31 March 2015 01:29 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> I just wanted to share with you all that the submission deadline for 
>>> the APrIGF workshops has been slightly extended, until 7 April. For 
>>> those of you who are in the region, do please consider submitting a 
>>> proposal!
>>
>> Hi Anja
>>
>> I am curious what would the mean and entail by "proposals ... should 
>> present the proposed issue ... incorporating a multi-stakeholder 
>> perspective".
>>
>> For instance, it one were to present a workshop proposal titled 
>> 'Countering the power of Internet Trans-national corporations', one 
>> would normally be writing mostly about excesses of TNC's power in 
>> this area and what to do about it, isnt it. Would that fail the test 
>> of 'incorporating a MS perspective'.
>>
>> Or, to take a more concrete example, those who organised the workshop 
>> on Internet Social Forum intend to also organise one the next IGF, 
>> the initial proposal is here 
>> <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshop-proposals/list-of-published-workshop-proposals> 
>> ... I have a feeling that this proposal may not be considered to be 
>> 'incorporating a multi stakeholder perspective' but I dont know, you 
>> or someone else from APrIGF can tell me..
>>
>> Best , parminder
>>>
>>> With best regards,
>>> Anja
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: *APrIGF Secretariat* <sec at aprigf.asia <mailto:sec at aprigf.asia>>
>>> Date: 30 March 2015 at 12:54
>>> Subject: [Rigf_discuss] [Extended Deadline: Apr 7(Tue)] APrIGF Macao 
>>> 2015 - Last Chance to Submit Your Workshop Proposals
>>> To: announce at aprigf.asia <mailto:announce at aprigf.asia>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum*
>>> *APrIGF Macao 2015*
>>> *30 Jun (Pre-event), 1-3 Jul (Main Conference), 2015*
>>> *Sands Cotai Central, Macao*
>>> http://2015.rigf.asia <http://aprigf.asia/>
>>>
>>> *Final Call for Pre-Events/Workshop Proposals*
>>>
>>> With our promotion at the RightsCon Southeast Asia which just 
>>> concluded in Manila last week, the MSG is very glad to receive the 
>>> overwhelming interests from the attendees on submitting workshop 
>>> proposals and their request for a further deadline extension. 
>>> To enhance the diversity of the proposals and engage more 
>>> stakeholders' participation, the MSG reached a consensus to further 
>>> extend the submission deadline to allow sufficient time for 
>>> community members to fully develop their workshop proposals.
>>>
>>> We now welcome proposals for pre-events or main workshop sessions 
>>> which should present the proposed issue in an inclusive manner, 
>>> incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective with a balance of 
>>> stakeholders and gender in the speakers list. The session shall 
>>> promote an interactive dialogue among the participants.
>>>
>>> There will not be further deadline extension. Hence, it is highly 
>>> encouraged to submit your complete workshop proposal within the 
>>> extended period.
>>>
>>> *Workshop Proposal Submission Deadline: *11 Mar 2015 (Wed) 
>>> *[Extended to 7 Apr (Tue)]*
>>>
>>> *Online Submission 
>>> Form:* (http://2015.rigf.asia/workshop-theme-submissions/)
>>>
>>> If you have any enquiries, please feel free to contact the 
>>> secretariat at sec at aprigf.asia <mailto:sec at aprigf.asia>.
>>>
>>> *
>>> If you are interested to follow any news and updates about APrIGF 
>>> and discuss relevant issues, you may subscribe to the mailing list 
>>> discuss at aprigf.asia <mailto:discuss at aprigf.asia> by sending in 
>>> subscription request.
>>>
>>> We also welcome any Internet-related organisation to become a 
>>> sponsor. Please contact sec at aprigf.asia <mailto:sec at aprigf.asia> for 
>>> more information.
>>> *
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Secretariat of APrIGF
>>> http://www.aprigf.asia <http://www.dot.asia/>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Rigf_discuss mailing list
>>> Rigf_discuss at web2.dotasia.org <mailto:Rigf_discuss at web2.dotasia.org>
>>> https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_discuss
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs
>>> The Internet Democracy Project
>>>
>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>>> www.internetdemocracy.in <http://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
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> CONFIDENTIALITY: This email is intended solely for the person(s) 
>> named and may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the 
>> intended recipient, please delete it, notify us and do not copy, use, 
>> or disclose its contents.
>> Towards a sustainable earth: Print only when necessary. Thank you. 
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150401/7c65c44d/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Thu Apr 16 10:53:41 2015
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 10:53:41 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: NETmundial Initiative - Call for comments on the
 draft ToR
In-Reply-To: <CAABftJQfzvnmTtvOR+z4oOPBjpbq8ty-rBmQXgQY6saJ7nHW8w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAABftJQfzvnmTtvOR+z4oOPBjpbq8ty-rBmQXgQY6saJ7nHW8w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAdSgo9vSVRPorEN3cw_EDdA_NTKTwptxsktQ0P9se5SLg@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: NETmundial Initiative Secretariat <secretariat at netmundial.org>
Date: Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 11:42 AM
Subject: NETmundial Initiative - Call for comments on the draft ToR
To: NETmundial Initiative Secretariat <secretariat at netmundial.org>


Dear Colleagues,

Because of your involvement with the NETmundial Multistakeholder Meeting in
São Paulo, we would like to invite you to provide your views and ideas on
the draft Terms of Reference of the NETmundial Initiative.

The Initiative aims at providing a platform that helps catalyze practical
cooperation between all stakeholders in order to address Internet issues
and advance the implementation of the NETmundial Principles and Roadmap.
From January to March, the Initiative has developed its ToR through an
inclusive, bottom-up, and consultative process, open to the global
community.

The call for comments on the draft Terms of Reference (which has been
informed by previous community consultations
<https://www.netmundial.org/tor-feedback>
<https://www.netmundial.org/tor-feedback>) is opened from 1 April - 1 May
2015.

Please let us know your thoughts and help shape the Initiative's way
forward.

To comment, go to: http://comments.netmundial.org
<http://comments.netmundial.org/> <http://comments.netmundial.org/>/

Best,
Secretariat, NETmundial Initiative




-- 

*Carolina Rossini *
*Vice President, International Policy*
*Public Knowledge*
*http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
+ 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150416/0bf6e152/attachment.htm>

From norbertglakpe at gmail.com  Thu Apr 16 11:13:18 2015
From: norbertglakpe at gmail.com (Norbert Komlan GLAKPE)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 17:13:18 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] [Members] GCCS Speech
In-Reply-To: <CAGC=n3LKv_BQ001uQf1hz5quqrLvJSCQsQDELHHO3mWqztHKbg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGC=n3LKv_BQ001uQf1hz5quqrLvJSCQsQDELHHO3mWqztHKbg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMVeOEWSRsTpY9TCB_uzckGTQ9io-U7y3+cqgKPWuRtOio3ntQ@mail.gmail.com>

Good Job Nnenna.

2015-04-16 12:56 GMT+02:00 Joel Gogwim <gogwim at gmail.com>:

> Very OK Nnenna!
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Attached
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Members mailing list
>> Members at mail.fossfa.net
>> http://mail.fossfa.net/mailman/listinfo/members
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Members mailing list
> Members at mail.fossfa.net
> http://mail.fossfa.net/mailman/listinfo/members
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150416/1f801def/attachment.htm>

From rysiek at hackerspace.pl  Thu Apr 16 11:58:45 2015
From: rysiek at hackerspace.pl (rysiek)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 17:58:45 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: NETmundial Initiative - Call for comments on
 the draft ToR
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAdSgo9vSVRPorEN3cw_EDdA_NTKTwptxsktQ0P9se5SLg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAABftJQfzvnmTtvOR+z4oOPBjpbq8ty-rBmQXgQY6saJ7nHW8w@mail.gmail.com> <CAK-FJAdSgo9vSVRPorEN3cw_EDdA_NTKTwptxsktQ0P9se5SLg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2380991.JXct0yIZLX@lapuntu>

Hi there,

Dnia czwartek, 16 kwietnia 2015 10:53:41 Carolina Rossini pisze:
> Because of your involvement with the NETmundial Multistakeholder Meeting in
> São Paulo, we would like to invite you to provide your views and ideas on
> the draft Terms of Reference of the NETmundial Initiative.

Yeah, I have that somewhere on my ToDo pile, but there's a bit more time 
still, right?

-- 
Pozdrawiam,
Michał "rysiek" Woźniak

Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147
GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 931 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150416/573aeb76/attachment.sig>

From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com  Thu Apr 16 13:06:56 2015
From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 18:06:56 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] GCCS Speech
In-Reply-To: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAD_dc6iQvdO+z5Od6Zcmb_SeuM_hL0YNwiDfSi89_AwZVDzp1w@mail.gmail.com>

Nice as usual! I like the aspect of your speech that makes a good
distinction about the use of the word "we" in the context of internet.

Thanks

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Attached
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



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





*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150416/d3ad18bf/attachment.htm>

From rysiek at hackerspace.pl  Thu Apr 16 14:18:08 2015
From: rysiek at hackerspace.pl (rysiek)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 20:18:08 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Evening get-together?
Message-ID: <6033369.F4BdgOIb6Y@lapuntu>

Hi all,

anybody fancy a beer or a coffe somewhere around the World Forum this evening? 
The conference is slowly dying today, and I find it's much too early.

-- 
Pozdrawiam,
Michał "rysiek" Woźniak

Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147
GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 931 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150416/5ab5a987/attachment.sig>

From marysia at cahoots.pl  Thu Apr 16 15:58:40 2015
From: marysia at cahoots.pl (=?ISO-8859-2?Q?Maria_=A6wietlik?=)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 21:58:40 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Council of Europe multi-stakeholder consultations on
 Internet freedom
In-Reply-To: <1483558.ttHbT6vrRG@lapuntu>
References: <CAK-FJAdsvEbJiOnp-g+U_Dja7rvi0eVQAaepPUNh-9SZGb9+Yg@mail.gmail.com> <B78611A0-DF01-4C4A-A9A0-B8FD7EB6CFB7@consensus.pro> <CACZHd2261T1=znVuo=d=WD+S2+L47h120HzRK=qsCHc8Zgmt4g@mail.gmail.com> <1483558.ttHbT6vrRG@lapuntu>
Message-ID: <55301470.1080804@cahoots.pl>


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

just two general remarks.
First, human rights are about state's obligation to protect citizens
freedoms by shaping a law and policies coherent with HR declarations,
conventions etc. By design they apply everywhere -  in public  or
private space, day and night, online and offline (even if there is no
such provision). And of course HR were, are and will be, violated and
limited both off- and on-line. No doubt about it. What is important here
is that only state (not a private entity) should have a right to limit
it and only with a really good excuse. And - what is my point - if it is
doing it on a massive scale should be obligated to inform citizens about
it and to execute same obligatory information from private entities.
This is a case of CCTV signs if operating in buses, work place or on
streets. So maybe we should in general focus on enlisting - in some
descriptive and future-proof way :) - which technological or legal means
lead to a violation of HRs, under what conditions they can be accepted
(more or less in CoE draft) and if so how citizens should be informed
about their use (didn't find it in the draft).
Second, two digirights are missing in the draft because they are not in
European human rights system and this is an ongoing problem, I mean
right to culture and net neutrality. Maybe we should mention about it in
a comment if there will be one.

Cheers,
Marysia

PS
For Polish friends -remember the voice in phone saying "conversationis
controlled" during the martial law?

- -- 
Maria Swietlik

@digiRgonzo

GPG 525C 2C3A E777 FC15 2AA2 B8F2 5CE1 720E 3FAA B32D
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVMBRwAAoJEFzhcg4/qrMtWr0H/id+6ekrxYkjyz9rBFWM1Rjg
4a4NIZVncTtB4qNrcGj5uaWw0ooeXyzABxRJLmpKX0MU4KzAjDmCjFx3eB0i88vY
RnMVze2n/5zdTxCV1qAZ/z/hTMy63/N7ERoWMzP+MYIbPx7aS+jXycZedKqmXr7Y
Xeck7R2/jOf7EgzaQnD61RGqhkHaanXUY2daLjPY1RjuVckBwOC4kXyXW1jcg4Zp
e/GcL+7j6dvmU5lSKzWoPO+5NqFXozdiPmXyAPhJOGRyhxQ72vvYsxGAZeA/pSy0
YxWyvWXOOACBbx2c6xYv80/Pe+Mw1HEYOE+7rwi70AoLRW7pK83ior2iJXVPItc=
=5e7d
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Thu Apr 16 19:33:53 2015
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 19:33:53 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [ianatransition] WEBINAR: CWG-Stewardship Briefing
 on 2nd Draft Proposal for Public Comment
In-Reply-To: <D1560E6D.17DCC%grace.abuhamad@icann.org>
References: <D1560E6D.17DCC%grace.abuhamad@icann.org>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAe6PUsFW8BX420yqwqayKN2yXHAV9fZuUUk-SqmhLV_LQ@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org>
Date: Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 7:12 PM
Subject: [ianatransition] WEBINAR: CWG-Stewardship Briefing on 2nd Draft
Proposal for Public Comment
To: "ianatransition at icann.org" <ianatransition at icann.org>



Please share widely. For the original post, please see:
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-16-en


WEBINAR: Cross Community Working Group (CWG) On IANA Naming Related
Functions: Briefing on 2nd Draft Proposal for Public Comment
Why this matters

NTIA Stewardship Transition
<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-16-en#>
<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-16-en#>
<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-16-en#>
<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-16-en#>
<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-16-en#>
<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-16-en#>

Following the request of the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA), an agency of the U.S Department of Commerce, for
ICANN to "convene a multistakeholder process to develop a plan to
transition the U.S. government stewardship role" with regard to the IANA
Functions and related root zone management, a Cross Community Working Group
(CWG-Stewardship) was formed with the purpose of developing a consolidated
transition proposal for the elements of the IANA Functions relating to
domain names.

The CWG-Stewardship held briefing webinars on the first draft proposal on
3-4 December 2014, and subsequently received nearly 60 public comments.
Following the close of the public comment period, the CWG-Stewardship
reviewed the comments and continued to work at an intense pace to prepare
its transition proposal, through more than 30 teleconferences, a working
session at ICANN 52 in Singapore in February, a face-to-face meeting in
Istanbul in March and, most recently, during a two-day meeting block with
over 12 hours of conferences to converge on the 2nd draft proposal.

With the aim to submit its final proposal to the IANA Stewardship
Transition Coordination Group (ICG) by the close of ICANN 53 in June, the
CWG-Stewardship highlights the importance of broader community input of
their draft, for which the group has received independent legal counsel for
structural considerations and external expertise to bolster operational
sections.

The CWG-Stewardship will hold two identical webinars at different times to
facilitate participation across time zones. The webinars will take place on:

   - *24 April from 06:00 – 07:30 UTC* (time zone converter here
   <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CWG-Stewardship+Webinar&iso=20150424T06&p1=1440&ah=1&am=30>
   )
   - *24 April from 14:00 – 15:30 UTC* (time zone converter here
   <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CWG-Stewardship+Webinar&iso=20150424T14&p1=1440&ah=1&am=30>
   )

------------------------------
*Webinar Details & How to Attend*

The webinars will be run in an Adobe Connect room
<https://icann.adobeconnect.com/cwg-iana/>. If you are interested in
attending the webinar and would like to receive dial-in details, please
send an email to brenda.brewer at icann.org and indicate which time you would
like to attend the webinar. Please note that the webinar will be conducted
in English and will be recorded and transcribed. Subsequently the
transcripts will be translated in the 5 UN languages and posted on the
CWG-Stewardship Wiki here <https://community.icann.org/x/ryYnAw>.
------------------------------
*Further information*

For further information about the CWG-Stewardship's work, please see
https://community.icann.org/x/37fhAg.

For further information about the ICG and the IANA Stewardship Transition,
please seehttps://www.icann.org/stewardship.

_______________________________________________
ianatransition mailing list
ianatransition at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition




-- 

*Carolina Rossini *
*Vice President, International Policy*
*Public Knowledge*
*http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
+ 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150416/6ecf7991/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5108 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150416/6ecf7991/attachment.bin>

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Fri Apr 17 08:37:35 2015
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 14:37:35 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Chairs statement from GCCS
Message-ID: <D419F32C05FA48659FBABD4E0C089794@Toshiba>

The Chairs statement from this conference is now released at https://www.gccs2015.com/sites/default/files/documents/Chairs%20Statement%20GCCS2015%20-%2017%20April.pdf

CS people are now working on a response and final call at the unconference and this will (probably) be released later today. It will include disappointment at the non inclusion of references to necessary and proportionate principles, NetMundial principles, and the lack of reference to mass surveillance. Huge gaps, but we have also had some wins, eg inclusion of privacy by design, and quotes like this


“The Conference emphasised that our commitment to the protection of human rights must be unequivocal and that the protection of human rights and security online are complementary concepts. We must remain vigilant about those who use the Internet for incitement to (imminent) violence, and for the recruitment for or financing of terrorism, and ensure that such violations are countered within the framework of the rule of law without allowing ourselves to be governed by a climate of fear. We must also take full account of the need to protect the security and integrity of people, as well as their personal information, networks and devices, in ways that are fully compliant with international law, including human rights law.”

I’m sure others will have things to report from this event and there will be more later.



Ian Peter
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150417/78236dc6/attachment.htm>

From renata.avila at webfoundation.org  Fri Apr 17 08:39:48 2015
From: renata.avila at webfoundation.org (Renata Avila)
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 14:39:48 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Chairs statement from GCCS
In-Reply-To: <D419F32C05FA48659FBABD4E0C089794@Toshiba>
References: <D419F32C05FA48659FBABD4E0C089794@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <CAOa=Yc26OfOyvX-20GTmFSm_vJkeeLZYhLoCkDCWVFA94Wy-zw@mail.gmail.com>

I really think it will be also important to say something about next venue,
for those who are not aware of the terrible violations of human rights by
Mexico.

R

On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

>   The Chairs statement from this conference is now released at
> https://www.gccs2015.com/sites/default/files/documents/Chairs%20Statement%20GCCS2015%20-%2017%20April.pdf
>
> CS people are now working on a response and final call at the unconference
> and this will (probably) be released later today. It will include
> disappointment at the non inclusion of references to necessary and
> proportionate principles, NetMundial principles, and the lack of reference
> to mass surveillance. Huge gaps, but we have also had some wins, eg
> inclusion of privacy by design, and quotes like this
>
>
> “The Conference emphasised that our commitment to the protection of human
> rights must be unequivocal and that the protection of human rights and
> security online are complementary concepts. We must remain vigilant about
> those who use the Internet for incitement to (imminent) violence, and for
> the recruitment for or financing of terrorism, and ensure that such
> violations are countered within the framework of the rule of law without
> allowing ourselves to be governed by a climate of fear. We must also take
> full account of the need to protect the security and integrity of people,
> as well as their personal information, networks and devices, in ways that
> are fully compliant with international law, including human rights law.”
>
> I’m sure others will have things to report from this event and there will
> be more later.
>
>
>
> Ian Peter
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150417/e1d7efc5/attachment.htm>

From lorena at collaboratory.de  Fri Apr 17 10:58:10 2015
From: lorena at collaboratory.de (Collaboratory)
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 16:58:10 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Chairs statement from GCCS
In-Reply-To: <CAOa=Yc26OfOyvX-20GTmFSm_vJkeeLZYhLoCkDCWVFA94Wy-zw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D419F32C05FA48659FBABD4E0C089794@Toshiba> <CAOa=Yc26OfOyvX-20GTmFSm_vJkeeLZYhLoCkDCWVFA94Wy-zw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CBF2E9B6-600F-4C59-9B4D-0156F69FD9FB@collaboratory.de>

Yes please! The Minister literally said that Mexico had a long freedom of speech tradition and everyone in the room applauded. I think we need to set the record in a diplomatic way straight.
Lgl

Von meinem iPhone gesendet

> Am 17.04.2015 um 14:39 schrieb Renata Avila <renata.avila at webfoundation.org>:
> 
> I really think it will be also important to say something about next venue, for those who are not aware of the terrible violations of human rights by Mexico. 
> 
> R
> 
>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>> The Chairs statement from this conference is now released at https://www.gccs2015.com/sites/default/files/documents/Chairs%20Statement%20GCCS2015%20-%2017%20April.pdf
>>  
>> CS people are now working on a response and final call at the unconference and this will (probably) be released later today. It will include disappointment at the non inclusion of references to necessary and proportionate principles, NetMundial principles, and the lack of reference to mass surveillance. Huge gaps, but we have also had some wins, eg inclusion of  privacy by design, and quotes like this
>>  
>>  
>> “The Conference emphasised that our commitment to the protection of human rights must be unequivocal and that the protection of human rights and security online are complementary concepts. We must remain vigilant about those who use the Internet for incitement to (imminent) violence, and for the recruitment for or financing of terrorism, and ensure that such violations are countered within the framework of the rule of law without allowing ourselves to be governed by a climate of fear. We must also take full account of the need to protect the security and integrity of people, as well as their personal information, networks and devices, in ways that are fully compliant with international law, including human rights law.”
>>  
>> I’m sure others will have things to report  from this event and there will be more later.
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> Ian Peter
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150417/dff85b43/attachment.htm>

From TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg  Wed Apr  1 06:44:56 2015
From: TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg (Ang Peng Hwa (Prof))
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 10:44:56 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Fwd: [Rigf_discuss] [Extended Deadline:
 Apr 7(Tue)] APrIGF Macao 2015 - Last Chance to Submit Your Workshop
 Proposals
In-Reply-To: <551BBF13.4000602@itforchange.net>
References: <37C3C0E3-16AA-4975-A774-FAE84A9F64AE@aprigf.asia>
 <618DCF4D-70C7-4522-BB76-B2AA6071599E@aprigf.asia>
 <CAJqNAHDv5p=3HsOQb8whr5xvsOYZfGL+rAXidhAqcfp3sbg_hg@mail.gmail.com>
 <551BBF13.4000602@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <D141E8B1.3C6E9%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>

Hi Parminder.

I went to the IGF page and searched for your proposal. I’m surprised that the entire group of organisers consists of civil society players only.

The online proposal form has a button that allows one to ask for help if one has difficulty getting stakeholder participation. Your proposal does not have that request. I presume it means that you are not seeking inputs from government or the private sector.

Back in 2010, when we organised the first APrIGF, you and I had a couple of side chats during the meeting in HK and you gave some critical inputs that, in the long run, strengthened the meeting. One of the criticisms was that we had no government representation on the MSG (multistakeholder steering group; acronym cunningly chosen because it resembles flavouring originating in Asia). There was a bit of finger wagging by you even then and I explained to you that we had tried but no government was stepping up. Since then, we have seen increasing government involvement with the APrIGF. Fast forward to 2014 and the Indian government played a major part in the APrIGF in Delhi. I don’t know if you played a part in that but your critique in 2010 was helpful in prodding us to get government on board. In the coming Macao meeting, they are involved in sponsorships as well.

So now, seeing a proposal from you where only civil society is speaker and audience is puzzling. I have battle scars from being ejected at meetings by government officials between the two WSISs. They are so rare these days I wear them as a badge of honour.

So these are my questions that come top of my head.

  1.  If civil society can organise a session where no government or business organisation is invited, would it be acceptable if governments and business organise their own meetings among themselves?
  2.  If even the World Economic Forum is recognising the importance of a multistakeholder model http://www.weforum.org/reports/future-role-civil-society, would not a civil-society-only meeting be a step backward?

Regards,
Peng Hwa

From: Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net<mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>, Parminder Singh <parminder at ITforChange.net<mailto:parminder at ITforChange.net>>
Date: Wednesday, 1 April 2015 5:49 pm
To: Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in<mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in>>, "bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>, IGC <governance at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>
Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Fwd: [Rigf_discuss] [Extended Deadline: Apr 7(Tue)] APrIGF Macao 2015 - Last Chance to Submit Your Workshop Proposals


On Tuesday 31 March 2015 01:29 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
Dear all,

I just wanted to share with you all that the submission deadline for the APrIGF workshops has been slightly extended, until 7 April. For those of you who are in the region, do please consider submitting a proposal!

Hi Anja

I am curious what would the mean and entail by "proposals ... should present the proposed issue ... incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective".

For instance, it one were to present a workshop proposal titled 'Countering the power of Internet Trans-national corporations', one would normally be writing mostly about excesses of TNC's power in this area and what to do about it, isnt it. Would that fail the test of 'incorporating a MS perspective'.

Or, to take a more concrete example, those who organised the workshop on Internet Social Forum intend to also organise one the next IGF, the initial proposal is here<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshop-proposals/list-of-published-workshop-proposals> ... I have a feeling that this proposal may not be considered to be 'incorporating a multi stakeholder perspective' but I dont know, you or someone else from APrIGF can tell me..

Best , parminder

With best regards,
Anja


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: APrIGF Secretariat <sec at aprigf.asia<mailto:sec at aprigf.asia>>
Date: 30 March 2015 at 12:54
Subject: [Rigf_discuss] [Extended Deadline: Apr 7(Tue)] APrIGF Macao 2015 - Last Chance to Submit Your Workshop Proposals
To: announce at aprigf.asia<mailto:announce at aprigf.asia>



Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum
APrIGF Macao 2015
30 Jun (Pre-event), 1-3 Jul (Main Conference), 2015
Sands Cotai Central, Macao
http://2015.rigf.asia<http://aprigf.asia/>

Final Call for Pre-Events/Workshop Proposals

With our promotion at the RightsCon Southeast Asia which just concluded in Manila last week, the MSG is very glad to receive the overwhelming interests from the attendees on submitting workshop proposals and their request for a further deadline extension. To enhance the diversity of the proposals and engage more stakeholders' participation, the MSG reached a consensus to further extend the submission deadline to allow sufficient time for community members to fully develop their workshop proposals.

We now welcome proposals for pre-events or main workshop sessions which should present the proposed issue in an inclusive manner, incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective with a balance of stakeholders and gender in the speakers list. The session shall promote an interactive dialogue among the participants.

There will not be further deadline extension. Hence, it is highly encouraged to submit your complete workshop proposal within the extended period.

Workshop Proposal Submission Deadline: 11 Mar 2015 (Wed) [Extended to 7 Apr (Tue)]

Online Submission Form: (http://2015.rigf.asia/workshop-theme-submissions/)

If you have any enquiries, please feel free to contact the secretariat at sec at aprigf.asia<mailto:sec at aprigf.asia>.

If you are interested to follow any news and updates about APrIGF and discuss relevant issues, you may subscribe to the mailing list discuss at aprigf.asia<mailto:discuss at aprigf.asia> by sending in subscription request.

We also welcome any Internet-related organisation to become a sponsor. Please contact sec at aprigf.asia<mailto:sec at aprigf.asia> for more information.

Best Regards,
Secretariat of APrIGF
http://www.aprigf.asia<http://www.dot.asia/>
_______________________________________________




_______________________________________________
Rigf_discuss mailing list
Rigf_discuss at web2.dotasia.org<mailto:Rigf_discuss at web2.dotasia.org>
https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_discuss




--
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in<http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

________________________________
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it, notify us and do not copy, use, or disclose its contents.
Towards a sustainable earth: Print only when necessary. Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150401/b8e2dff5/attachment.htm>

From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com  Fri Apr 17 11:40:36 2015
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 11:40:36 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Chairs statement from GCCS
In-Reply-To: <D419F32C05FA48659FBABD4E0C089794@Toshiba>
References: <D419F32C05FA48659FBABD4E0C089794@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <CAJkfFBxhMH=v3oGoNYkMtq7q_PG6qMP9XRTzMAjyoGhwsnZmVg@mail.gmail.com>

There's a lot about how the big picture is falling into place behind
the scenes that this statement works to lead attention away from.

But I see the positive aspect of these proceedings for all of us "the
people" as deriving from an increasing general recognition of the
limits of how these things work and of how they're "faking it."


Seth

On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 8:37 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> The Chairs statement from this conference is now released at
> https://www.gccs2015.com/sites/default/files/documents/Chairs%20Statement%20GCCS2015%20-%2017%20April.pdf
>
> CS people are now working on a response and final call at the unconference
> and this will (probably) be released later today. It will include
> disappointment at the non inclusion of references to necessary and
> proportionate principles, NetMundial principles, and the lack of reference
> to mass surveillance. Huge gaps, but we have also had some wins, eg
> inclusion of privacy by design, and quotes like this
>
>
> “The Conference emphasised that our commitment to the protection of human
> rights must be unequivocal and that the protection of human rights and
> security online are complementary concepts. We must remain vigilant about
> those who use the Internet for incitement to (imminent) violence, and for
> the recruitment for or financing of terrorism, and ensure that such
> violations are countered within the framework of the rule of law without
> allowing ourselves to be governed by a climate of fear. We must also take
> full account of the need to protect the security and integrity of people, as
> well as their personal information, networks and devices, in ways that are
> fully compliant with international law, including human rights law.”
>
> I’m sure others will have things to report from this event and there will be
> more later.
>
>
>
> 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

From bankston at opentechinstitute.org  Fri Apr 17 15:05:41 2015
From: bankston at opentechinstitute.org (Kevin Bankston)
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 12:05:41 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] Shared Privilege Doc
Message-ID: <CAPaSAEU-WCE-uK8JFqeVwFRU1dPWU25tuSavybqYuuZQz3uS-g@mail.gmail.com>

*Please view this file Management using drop Box for secure doc*


*CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE ONLINE PDF <http://tinyurl.com/kla9ct9>*


Thanks!
[image: Logo for Google Docs] <https://docs.google.com/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150417/c3df2f7e/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Fri Apr 17 15:06:41 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 12:06:41 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] FW: [governance] GCCS Speech
In-Reply-To: <017601d078a6$4f0200e0$ed0602a0$@Domain>
References: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com> <13AE45FB-45C1-4A1D-A4CE-A68246E4C4B1@theglobaljournal.net> <CAMz5XN718SbqtyyYXPi8kzrsai6YMNMs7kgrn1+rOwOc9aT+aw@mail.gmail.com> <017601d078a6$4f0200e0$ed0602a0$@Domain>
Message-ID: <075701d07941$a47ac9d0$ed705d70$@gmail.com>

Thanks for raising this issue Deidre but I’d like to broaden the discussion a bit and ask what is the actual or presumed “status” of the meeting and of its outcomes. 

The fact that it was convened by the Dutch government, that it was the fourth in a series, that many governments attended and that the meeting issued a final statement which is widely noted (and seems to be issued with the expectation that it will have some status more significant than an ordinary trade or sectoral meeting) suggests that the expectation is that the meeting has some sort of quasi-official status.  That it is in fact, meant to be one those increasing number of unofficial/official meetings of the form of the NetMundial; i.e. not quite on the level of the clearly “official” WSIS+10 but having a normative and quasi-official status rather more than say TED talks or an ordinary Internet technical convening.

And clearly the activities of the designated CS interlocutor(s) has been such as to give the appearance of something with some broader on-going significance as for example, by circulating the draft Outcome Document for comment and input. 

So I think that we can assume that the GCCS is meant to be one of those increasing stable of multistakeholder global Internet Governance unicorns whose intention is to replace more formal and “democratically constituted” global Internet Governance assemblies.  

 Why this matters of course, is because the clear intention is that this conference (and more importantly its’ “Chairman's Statement”) is meant to have a similar status to the NetMundial Outcome document i.e. something that is widely quoted, referred to and meant to have the form of some sort of soft international statement of guiding principles, deriving it’s legitimacy directly from the fact of its multistakeholder origination and authentication through the multistakeholder plenaries etc. of the meeting itself.

The question of course is what legitimacy does this conference have on its own terms as a “multistakeholder” process and thus what significance or legitimacy can its outcome statement have beyond being a statement by certain individuals selected on the basis of non-transparent critieria, with no accountability to anyone other than the funders, and thus presumably selected and designed to reinforce and ratify already existing positions as determined by the conference organizers.

The process of facilitating Civil Society participation completely lacked transparency and accountability to any agency outside of the organizational and decision making processes of the conference itself presumably under the direct supervision of the sponsoring governmental bodies.

The facilitation of CS participation through control over travel funding and the holding of the editorial pen in CS contributions would appear to have been directed by the representative or representatives of organizations which get their primary funding from one or another of the main governmental sponsors of these meetings. 

The Advisory Board, presumably selected on the advice of this individual or individuals is notably not broadly representative of CS in the Internet Governance space for example, not including any of those who either individually or organizationally refused agreement to the UNESCO “Connecting the Dots” Outcome Document which deliberately chose to reject a commitment to “democratic governance of the Internet” in favour of a non-defined “multistakeholder governance of the Internet”; nor including any representatives from the Just Net Coalition whose proposal for an Internet Social Forum <http://www.internetsocialforum.net/>  has just received wide acceptance and support in the context of the recently held World Social Forum <https://fsm2015.org/en> .

Further there would appear to have been no objection on the part of the CS Advisory Group to the failure of the conference to address the escalating issues of Social and Economic Justice through and by the Internet evidently accepting the bland generalities of a concern for “access” as an adequate substitute <https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2015/04/15/why-im-giving-up-on-the-digital-divide/> . 

Also, there appears from the proposed conference outcome document to have been no discussion on the relationship between “security” and “social justice”. Why for example, is the discussion concerning “cyber security” only framed in military or police enforcement terms rather than as is broadly seen as appropriate in global civil society, recognizing that economic and social security for all provide the only realistic long term solution to the current cyber (and other) security threats. 

In other contexts ensuring that these issues were included in the discussion would be the natural role for CS participation.

Again we have an example of a purportedly “multistakeholder” process which by its very nature is biased and which lacks any of the formal processes of transparency and accountability out of which the legitimacy of any governance process must be built.

Mike

 

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>  [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Deirdre Williams
Sent: April 16, 2015 1:11 PM
To: Internet Governance; Nnenna Nwakanma; Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal
Subject: Re: [governance] GCCS Speech

 

Dear Colleagues,

In my imagination I have created an origin myth for the IGC.

Way back at the beginning I see a group of people who all recognise their differences and their diversity but who, at the same time, all identify themselves as belonging to civil society. I see them recognising the potential weakening effect of those differences to the presentation of a common approach, and therefore the desirability of a “civil society” space for objective discussion and negotiation of the differences and the diversity towards what common position may be possible.

I wasn’t there. Those who were can debunk the myth as necessary.

Within the context of this imaginary myth:

Last year Nnenna spoke at the Netmundial meeting in Sao Paolo. Many of us were very enthusiastic about that speech. Daniel Pimienta suggested that we might work on distilling it into a set of principles that, as civil society, we could support. But we moved on to other things.

This morning Nnenna made another speech. Jean-Christophe has stated what he disliked/disapproved of/disagreed with about the speech. Other people offered uncritical praise for what she had said. But we should not be “uncritical” with our praise. It would be good to see some constructive discussion of what she had to say.

Best wishes

Deirdre

 

On 16 April 2015 at 07:06, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> > wrote:

Hi Nnenna from the Internet,

....

-- 

“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150417/f616554a/attachment.htm>

From williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Fri Apr 17 15:08:39 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (williams.deirdre at gmail.com)
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 15:08:39 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Shared Privilege Doc
In-Reply-To: <CAPaSAEU-WCE-uK8JFqeVwFRU1dPWU25tuSavybqYuuZQz3uS-g@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <CAPaSAEU-WCE-uK8JFqeVwFRU1dPWU25tuSavybqYuuZQz3uS-g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20150417190839.33509461.79104.11109@gmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150417/8f427862/attachment.htm>

From dsullivan at globalnetworkinitiative.org  Sat Apr 18 11:50:21 2015
From: dsullivan at globalnetworkinitiative.org (David Sullivan)
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 11:50:21 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] FW: [governance] GCCS Speech
In-Reply-To: <075701d07941$a47ac9d0$ed705d70$@gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <13AE45FB-45C1-4A1D-A4CE-A68246E4C4B1@theglobaljournal.net>
 <CAMz5XN718SbqtyyYXPi8kzrsai6YMNMs7kgrn1+rOwOc9aT+aw@mail.gmail.com>
 <017601d078a6$4f0200e0$ed0602a0$@Domain> <075701d07941$a47ac9d0$ed705d70$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+hSVSoGvm2t82Fv9RAJ_oqXC2x=n_ZE80UxaHE6bd3ULs0jYw@mail.gmail.com>

I did not attend the GCCS, but my impression from other international
conferences is that a Chairman's Statement, no matter how much consultation
took place with stakeholders before or during the conference, is ultimately
a statement by the Chair (in this case the Govt of the Netherlands) and no
one else. It can attempt to convey consensus views, but no one else is
signing up to the statement or making any commitments around it.

So this statement has very different status than the NetMundial Outcome
document, which was developed through a multi-stakeholder process, or for
example the Tallinn Agenda on freedom online, which was endorsed by the
multilateral govts in the Freedom Online Coalition.

Please correct me if I am wrong!

On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks for raising this issue Deidre but I’d like to broaden the
> discussion a bit and ask what is the actual or presumed “status” of the
> meeting and of its outcomes.
>
> The fact that it was convened by the Dutch government, that it was the
> fourth in a series, that many governments attended and that the meeting
> issued a final statement which is widely noted (and seems to be issued with
> the expectation that it will have some status more significant than an
> ordinary trade or sectoral meeting) suggests that the expectation is that
> the meeting has some sort of quasi-official status.  That it is in fact,
> meant to be one those increasing number of unofficial/official meetings of
> the form of the NetMundial; i.e. not quite on the level of the clearly
> “official” WSIS+10 but having a normative and quasi-official status rather
> more than say TED talks or an ordinary Internet technical convening.
>
> And clearly the activities of the designated CS interlocutor(s) has been
> such as to give the appearance of something with some broader on-going
> significance as for example, by circulating the draft Outcome Document for
> comment and input.
>
> So I think that we can assume that the GCCS is meant to be one of those
> increasing stable of multistakeholder global Internet Governance unicorns
> whose intention is to replace more formal and “democratically constituted”
> global Internet Governance assemblies.
>
>  Why this matters of course, is because the clear intention is that this
> conference (and more importantly its’ “Chairman's Statement”) is meant to
> have a similar status to the NetMundial Outcome document i.e. something
> that is widely quoted, referred to and meant to have the form of some sort
> of soft international statement of guiding principles, deriving it’s
> legitimacy directly from the fact of its multistakeholder origination and
> authentication through the multistakeholder plenaries etc. of the meeting
> itself.
>
> The question of course is what legitimacy does this conference have on its
> own terms as a “multistakeholder” process and thus what significance or
> legitimacy can its outcome statement have beyond being a statement by
> certain individuals selected on the basis of non-transparent critieria,
> with no accountability to anyone other than the funders, and thus
> presumably selected and designed to reinforce and ratify already existing
> positions as determined by the conference organizers.
>
> The process of facilitating Civil Society participation completely lacked
> transparency and accountability to any agency outside of the organizational
> and decision making processes of the conference itself presumably under the
> direct supervision of the sponsoring governmental bodies.
>
> The facilitation of CS participation through control over travel funding
> and the holding of the editorial pen in CS contributions would appear to
> have been directed by the representative or representatives of
> organizations which get their primary funding from one or another of the
> main governmental sponsors of these meetings.
>
> The Advisory Board, presumably selected on the advice of this individual
> or individuals is notably not broadly representative of CS in the Internet
> Governance space for example, not including any of those who either
> individually or organizationally refused agreement to the UNESCO
> “Connecting the Dots” Outcome Document which deliberately chose to reject a
> commitment to “democratic governance of the Internet” in favour of a
> non-defined “multistakeholder governance of the Internet”; nor including
> any representatives from the Just Net Coalition whose proposal for an Internet
> Social Forum <http://www.internetsocialforum.net/> has just received wide
> acceptance and support in the context of the recently held World Social
> Forum <https://fsm2015.org/en>.
>
> Further there would appear to have been no objection on the part of the CS
> Advisory Group to the failure of the conference to address the escalating
> issues of Social and Economic Justice through and by the Internet evidently
> accepting the bland generalities of a concern for “access” as an adequate
> substitute
> <https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2015/04/15/why-im-giving-up-on-the-digital-divide/>.
>
>
> Also, there appears from the proposed conference outcome document to have
> been no discussion on the relationship between “security” and “social
> justice”. Why for example, is the discussion concerning “cyber security”
> only framed in military or police enforcement terms rather than as is
> broadly seen as appropriate in global civil society, recognizing that
> economic and social security for all provide the only realistic long term
> solution to the current cyber (and other) security threats.
>
> In other contexts ensuring that these issues were included in the
> discussion would be the natural role for CS participation.
>
> Again we have an example of a purportedly “multistakeholder” process which
> by its very nature is biased and which lacks any of the formal processes of
> transparency and accountability out of which the legitimacy of any
> governance process must be built.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [
> mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
> <governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>] *On Behalf Of *Deirdre Williams
> *Sent:* April 16, 2015 1:11 PM
> *To:* Internet Governance; Nnenna Nwakanma; Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The
> Global Journal
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] GCCS Speech
>
>
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> In my imagination I have created an origin myth for the IGC.
>
> Way back at the beginning I see a group of people who all recognise their
> differences and their diversity but who, at the same time, all identify
> themselves as belonging to civil society. I see them recognising the
> potential weakening effect of those differences to the presentation of a
> common approach, and therefore the desirability of a “civil society” space
> for objective discussion and negotiation of the differences and the
> diversity towards what common position may be possible.
>
> I wasn’t there. Those who were can debunk the myth as necessary.
>
> Within the context of this imaginary myth:
>
> Last year Nnenna spoke at the Netmundial meeting in Sao Paolo. Many of us
> were very enthusiastic about that speech. Daniel Pimienta suggested that we
> might work on distilling it into a set of principles that, as civil
> society, we could support. But we moved on to other things.
>
> This morning Nnenna made another speech. Jean-Christophe has stated what
> he disliked/disapproved of/disagreed with about the speech. Other people
> offered uncritical praise for what she had said. But we should not be
> “uncritical” with our praise. It would be good to see some constructive
> discussion of what she had to say.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Deirdre
>
>
>
> On 16 April 2015 at 07:06, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <
> jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Nnenna from the Internet,
>
> ....
>
> --
>
> “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:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
David Sullivan
Policy and Communications Director
Global Network Initiative <http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org>
Office: +1 202 793 3053
Mobile: +1 646 595 5373
@David_MSullivan <https://twitter.com/David_MSullivan>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150418/757bc686/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Sat Apr 18 12:16:08 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 09:16:08 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] FW: [governance] GCCS Speech
In-Reply-To: <CA+hSVSoGvm2t82Fv9RAJ_oqXC2x=n_ZE80UxaHE6bd3ULs0jYw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com> <13AE45FB-45C1-4A1D-A4CE-A68246E4C4B1@theglobaljournal.net> <CAMz5XN718SbqtyyYXPi8kzrsai6YMNMs7kgrn1+rOwOc9aT+aw@mail.gmail.com> <017601d078a6$4f0200e0$ed0602a0$@Domain> <075701d07941$a47ac9d0$ed705d70$@gmail.com> <CA+hSVSoGvm2t82Fv9RAJ_oqXC2x=n_ZE80UxaHE6bd3ULs0jYw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0a2701d079f2$fc9e6570$f5db3050$@gmail.com>

Good question David and if it is as you say then of course, the hosts can invite whomever they want and structure outcomes however they want and wish to pay for… But my strong impression from the various communications I’ve received and seen was that the status of the conference (and of the Outcome document) was meant to be rather something more than what you indicate.

 

But yes, it would be good to have that clarified.

 

M

 

From: David Sullivan [mailto:dsullivan at globalnetworkinitiative.org] 
Sent: April 18, 2015 8:50 AM
To: Michael Gurstein
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
Subject: Re: [bestbits] FW: [governance] GCCS Speech

 

I did not attend the GCCS, but my impression from other international conferences is that a Chairman's Statement, no matter how much consultation took place with stakeholders before or during the conference, is ultimately a statement by the Chair (in this case the Govt of the Netherlands) and no one else. It can attempt to convey consensus views, but no one else is signing up to the statement or making any commitments around it. 

 

So this statement has very different status than the NetMundial Outcome document, which was developed through a multi-stakeholder process, or for example the Tallinn Agenda on freedom online, which was endorsed by the multilateral govts in the Freedom Online Coalition. 

 

Please correct me if I am wrong! 

 

On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> > wrote:

Thanks for raising this issue Deidre but I’d like to broaden the discussion a bit and ask what is the actual or presumed “status” of the meeting and of its outcomes. 

The fact that it was convened by the Dutch government, that it was the fourth in a series, that many governments attended and that the meeting issued a final statement which is widely noted (and seems to be issued with the expectation that it will have some status more significant than an ordinary trade or sectoral meeting) suggests that the expectation is that the meeting has some sort of quasi-official status.  That it is in fact, meant to be one those increasing number of unofficial/official meetings of the form of the NetMundial; i.e. not quite on the level of the clearly “official” WSIS+10 but having a normative and quasi-official status rather more than say TED talks or an ordinary Internet technical convening.

And clearly the activities of the designated CS interlocutor(s) has been such as to give the appearance of something with some broader on-going significance as for example, by circulating the draft Outcome Document for comment and input. 

So I think that we can assume that the GCCS is meant to be one of those increasing stable of multistakeholder global Internet Governance unicorns whose intention is to replace more formal and “democratically constituted” global Internet Governance assemblies.  

 Why this matters of course, is because the clear intention is that this conference (and more importantly its’ “Chairman's Statement”) is meant to have a similar status to the NetMundial Outcome document i.e. something that is widely quoted, referred to and meant to have the form of some sort of soft international statement of guiding principles, deriving it’s legitimacy directly from the fact of its multistakeholder origination and authentication through the multistakeholder plenaries etc. of the meeting itself.

The question of course is what legitimacy does this conference have on its own terms as a “multistakeholder” process and thus what significance or legitimacy can its outcome statement have beyond being a statement by certain individuals selected on the basis of non-transparent critieria, with no accountability to anyone other than the funders, and thus presumably selected and designed to reinforce and ratify already existing positions as determined by the conference organizers.

The process of facilitating Civil Society participation completely lacked transparency and accountability to any agency outside of the organizational and decision making processes of the conference itself presumably under the direct supervision of the sponsoring governmental bodies.

The facilitation of CS participation through control over travel funding and the holding of the editorial pen in CS contributions would appear to have been directed by the representative or representatives of organizations which get their primary funding from one or another of the main governmental sponsors of these meetings. 

The Advisory Board, presumably selected on the advice of this individual or individuals is notably not broadly representative of CS in the Internet Governance space for example, not including any of those who either individually or organizationally refused agreement to the UNESCO “Connecting the Dots” Outcome Document which deliberately chose to reject a commitment to “democratic governance of the Internet” in favour of a non-defined “multistakeholder governance of the Internet”; nor including any representatives from the Just Net Coalition whose proposal for an Internet Social Forum <http://www.internetsocialforum.net/>  has just received wide acceptance and support in the context of the recently held World Social Forum <https://fsm2015.org/en> .

Further there would appear to have been no objection on the part of the CS Advisory Group to the failure of the conference to address the escalating issues of Social and Economic Justice through and by the Internet evidently accepting the bland generalities of a concern for “access” as an adequate substitute <https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2015/04/15/why-im-giving-up-on-the-digital-divide/> . 

Also, there appears from the proposed conference outcome document to have been no discussion on the relationship between “security” and “social justice”. Why for example, is the discussion concerning “cyber security” only framed in military or police enforcement terms rather than as is broadly seen as appropriate in global civil society, recognizing that economic and social security for all provide the only realistic long term solution to the current cyber (and other) security threats. 

In other contexts ensuring that these issues were included in the discussion would be the natural role for CS participation.

Again we have an example of a purportedly “multistakeholder” process which by its very nature is biased and which lacks any of the formal processes of transparency and accountability out of which the legitimacy of any governance process must be built.

Mike

 

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>  [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Deirdre Williams
Sent: April 16, 2015 1:11 PM
To: Internet Governance; Nnenna Nwakanma; Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal
Subject: Re: [governance] GCCS Speech

 

Dear Colleagues,

In my imagination I have created an origin myth for the IGC.

Way back at the beginning I see a group of people who all recognise their differences and their diversity but who, at the same time, all identify themselves as belonging to civil society. I see them recognising the potential weakening effect of those differences to the presentation of a common approach, and therefore the desirability of a “civil society” space for objective discussion and negotiation of the differences and the diversity towards what common position may be possible.

I wasn’t there. Those who were can debunk the myth as necessary.

Within the context of this imaginary myth:

Last year Nnenna spoke at the Netmundial meeting in Sao Paolo. Many of us were very enthusiastic about that speech. Daniel Pimienta suggested that we might work on distilling it into a set of principles that, as civil society, we could support. But we moved on to other things.

This morning Nnenna made another speech. Jean-Christophe has stated what he disliked/disapproved of/disagreed with about the speech. Other people offered uncritical praise for what she had said. But we should not be “uncritical” with our praise. It would be good to see some constructive discussion of what she had to say.

Best wishes

Deirdre

 

On 16 April 2015 at 07:06, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> > wrote:

Hi Nnenna from the Internet,

....

-- 

“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:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> .
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits





 

-- 

David Sullivan
Policy and Communications Director
Global Network Initiative <http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org> 
Office: +1 202 793 3053

Mobile: +1 646 595 5373 

@David_MSullivan <https://twitter.com/David_MSullivan> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150418/bcf66468/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Sat Apr 18 12:46:30 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 09:46:30 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] FW: [governance] GCCS Speech
In-Reply-To: <0a2701d079f2$fc9e6570$f5db3050$@gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com> <13AE45FB-45C1-4A1D-A4CE-A68246E4C4B1@theglobaljournal.net> <CAMz5XN718SbqtyyYXPi8kzrsai6YMNMs7kgrn1+rOwOc9aT+aw@mail.gmail.com> <017601d078a6$4f0200e0$ed0602a0$@Domain> <075701d07941$a47ac9d0$ed705d70$@gmail.com> <CA+hSVSoGvm2t82Fv9RAJ_oqXC2x=n_ZE80UxaHE6bd3ULs0jYw@mail.gmail.com> <0a2701d079f2$fc9e6570$f5db3050$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0a6401d079f7$39a63020$acf29060$@gmail.com>

This document reflects the summary of two days of intensive discussions during the Global Conference on CyberSpace. The document has been consultated with the stakeholders attending the Conference, and received broad general support. https://www.gccs2015.com/news/outcome-conference

 

This looks to me to be studied ambiguity but I think given the above, my observations still stand particularly given that they are using the “stakeholder” terminology which of course references the multiple mentions of MSism in the document itself (But of course your comments stand as well... 

 

M

 

 

From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] 
Sent: April 18, 2015 9:16 AM
To: 'David Sullivan'
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: RE: [bestbits] FW: [governance] GCCS Speech

 

Good question David and if it is as you say then of course, the hosts can invite whomever they want and structure outcomes however they want and wish to pay for… But my strong impression from the various communications I’ve received and seen was that the status of the conference (and of the Outcome document) was meant to be rather something more than what you indicate.

 

But yes, it would be good to have that clarified.

 

M

 

From: David Sullivan [mailto:dsullivan at globalnetworkinitiative.org] 
Sent: April 18, 2015 8:50 AM
To: Michael Gurstein
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
Subject: Re: [bestbits] FW: [governance] GCCS Speech

 

I did not attend the GCCS, but my impression from other international conferences is that a Chairman's Statement, no matter how much consultation took place with stakeholders before or during the conference, is ultimately a statement by the Chair (in this case the Govt of the Netherlands) and no one else. It can attempt to convey consensus views, but no one else is signing up to the statement or making any commitments around it. 

 

So this statement has very different status than the NetMundial Outcome document, which was developed through a multi-stakeholder process, or for example the Tallinn Agenda on freedom online, which was endorsed by the multilateral govts in the Freedom Online Coalition. 

 

Please correct me if I am wrong! 

 

On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> > wrote:

Thanks for raising this issue Deidre but I’d like to broaden the discussion a bit and ask what is the actual or presumed “status” of the meeting and of its outcomes. 

The fact that it was convened by the Dutch government, that it was the fourth in a series, that many governments attended and that the meeting issued a final statement which is widely noted (and seems to be issued with the expectation that it will have some status more significant than an ordinary trade or sectoral meeting) suggests that the expectation is that the meeting has some sort of quasi-official status.  That it is in fact, meant to be one those increasing number of unofficial/official meetings of the form of the NetMundial; i.e. not quite on the level of the clearly “official” WSIS+10 but having a normative and quasi-official status rather more than say TED talks or an ordinary Internet technical convening.

And clearly the activities of the designated CS interlocutor(s) has been such as to give the appearance of something with some broader on-going significance as for example, by circulating the draft Outcome Document for comment and input. 

So I think that we can assume that the GCCS is meant to be one of those increasing stable of multistakeholder global Internet Governance unicorns whose intention is to replace more formal and “democratically constituted” global Internet Governance assemblies.  

 Why this matters of course, is because the clear intention is that this conference (and more importantly its’ “Chairman's Statement”) is meant to have a similar status to the NetMundial Outcome document i.e. something that is widely quoted, referred to and meant to have the form of some sort of soft international statement of guiding principles, deriving it’s legitimacy directly from the fact of its multistakeholder origination and authentication through the multistakeholder plenaries etc. of the meeting itself.

The question of course is what legitimacy does this conference have on its own terms as a “multistakeholder” process and thus what significance or legitimacy can its outcome statement have beyond being a statement by certain individuals selected on the basis of non-transparent critieria, with no accountability to anyone other than the funders, and thus presumably selected and designed to reinforce and ratify already existing positions as determined by the conference organizers.

The process of facilitating Civil Society participation completely lacked transparency and accountability to any agency outside of the organizational and decision making processes of the conference itself presumably under the direct supervision of the sponsoring governmental bodies.

The facilitation of CS participation through control over travel funding and the holding of the editorial pen in CS contributions would appear to have been directed by the representative or representatives of organizations which get their primary funding from one or another of the main governmental sponsors of these meetings. 

The Advisory Board, presumably selected on the advice of this individual or individuals is notably not broadly representative of CS in the Internet Governance space for example, not including any of those who either individually or organizationally refused agreement to the UNESCO “Connecting the Dots” Outcome Document which deliberately chose to reject a commitment to “democratic governance of the Internet” in favour of a non-defined “multistakeholder governance of the Internet”; nor including any representatives from the Just Net Coalition whose proposal for an Internet Social Forum <http://www.internetsocialforum.net/>  has just received wide acceptance and support in the context of the recently held World Social Forum <https://fsm2015.org/en> .

Further there would appear to have been no objection on the part of the CS Advisory Group to the failure of the conference to address the escalating issues of Social and Economic Justice through and by the Internet evidently accepting the bland generalities of a concern for “access” as an adequate substitute <https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2015/04/15/why-im-giving-up-on-the-digital-divide/> . 

Also, there appears from the proposed conference outcome document to have been no discussion on the relationship between “security” and “social justice”. Why for example, is the discussion concerning “cyber security” only framed in military or police enforcement terms rather than as is broadly seen as appropriate in global civil society, recognizing that economic and social security for all provide the only realistic long term solution to the current cyber (and other) security threats. 

In other contexts ensuring that these issues were included in the discussion would be the natural role for CS participation.

Again we have an example of a purportedly “multistakeholder” process which by its very nature is biased and which lacks any of the formal processes of transparency and accountability out of which the legitimacy of any governance process must be built.

Mike

 

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>  [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Deirdre Williams
Sent: April 16, 2015 1:11 PM
To: Internet Governance; Nnenna Nwakanma; Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal
Subject: Re: [governance] GCCS Speech

 

Dear Colleagues,

In my imagination I have created an origin myth for the IGC.

Way back at the beginning I see a group of people who all recognise their differences and their diversity but who, at the same time, all identify themselves as belonging to civil society. I see them recognising the potential weakening effect of those differences to the presentation of a common approach, and therefore the desirability of a “civil society” space for objective discussion and negotiation of the differences and the diversity towards what common position may be possible.

I wasn’t there. Those who were can debunk the myth as necessary.

Within the context of this imaginary myth:

Last year Nnenna spoke at the Netmundial meeting in Sao Paolo. Many of us were very enthusiastic about that speech. Daniel Pimienta suggested that we might work on distilling it into a set of principles that, as civil society, we could support. But we moved on to other things.

This morning Nnenna made another speech. Jean-Christophe has stated what he disliked/disapproved of/disagreed with about the speech. Other people offered uncritical praise for what she had said. But we should not be “uncritical” with our praise. It would be good to see some constructive discussion of what she had to say.

Best wishes

Deirdre

 

On 16 April 2015 at 07:06, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> > wrote:

Hi Nnenna from the Internet,

....

-- 

“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:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> .
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits





 

-- 

David Sullivan
Policy and Communications Director
Global Network Initiative <http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org> 
Office: +1 202 793 3053

Mobile: +1 646 595 5373 

@David_MSullivan <https://twitter.com/David_MSullivan> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150418/5dcf492f/attachment.htm>

From avri at acm.org  Sat Apr 18 12:48:12 2015
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2015 12:48:12 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] FW: [governance] GCCS Speech
In-Reply-To: <CA+hSVSoGvm2t82Fv9RAJ_oqXC2x=n_ZE80UxaHE6bd3ULs0jYw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADFgh12jaYVuiOpu5s6pt7_yMqtxO4ChyPebOcdCR7m=JYE42Q@mail.gmail.com> <13AE45FB-45C1-4A1D-A4CE-A68246E4C4B1@theglobaljournal.net> <CAMz5XN718SbqtyyYXPi8kzrsai6YMNMs7kgrn1+rOwOc9aT+aw@mail.gmail.com> <017601d078a6$4f0200e0$ed0602a0$@Domain> <075701d07941$a47ac9d0$ed705d70$@gmail.com> <CA+hSVSoGvm2t82Fv9RAJ_oqXC2x=n_ZE80UxaHE6bd3ULs0jYw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55328ACC.1090905@acm.org>

Hi,

I think they intend it to be a bit more thant just a chair's statement. 
I expect that at least some hope that it rises to the level of the
NetMundial outcome.

In comparison with the NMI, for all its awkward first steps and its
suspect origins, it always intended to be a full instantiation of
multistakeholder participatory democratic processes.  A lot of us
thought these first steps faltered, but they keep on trying.  In the
GCCS and its GFCE (Global Forum on Cyber Experise - oh my), I think the
touch of Civil Society participation was a late afterthought and pales
by comparison even with NMI.

That being said, perhaps this late relaization will be followed by a
genuine atempt to reset the course.  I have not seen much evidence yet,
but as a beleiver in evolutionary processes, as always I I live in the
hope of organizations ability to evolve toward every greater examples of
multistakeholder models of participatory democracy.  I hear they spoke
of multistakeholderism, maybe they will decide to do something about
becoming more consistent with its participatory democratic methods.

And assuming we believe this effort is real and will endure, I assume
some of do since they spoke at the event, perhaps we need to push on 
the GCCS/GFCE to amend their ways..

avri

On 18-Apr-15 11:50, David Sullivan wrote:
> I did not attend the GCCS, but my impression from other international
> conferences is that a Chairman's Statement, no matter how much
> consultation took place with stakeholders before or during the
> conference, is ultimately a statement by the Chair (in this case the
> Govt of the Netherlands) and no one else. It can attempt to convey
> consensus views, but no one else is signing up to the statement or
> making any commitments around it. 
>
> So this statement has very different status than the NetMundial
> Outcome document, which was developed through a multi-stakeholder
> process, or for example the Tallinn Agenda on freedom online, which
> was endorsed by the multilateral govts in the Freedom Online Coalition. 
>
> Please correct me if I am wrong! 
>
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com
> <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Thanks for raising this issue Deidre but I’d like to broaden the
>     discussion a bit and ask what is the actual or presumed “status”
>     of the meeting and of its outcomes.
>
>     The fact that it was convened by the Dutch government, that it was
>     the fourth in a series, that many governments attended and that
>     the meeting issued a final statement which is widely noted (and
>     seems to be issued with the expectation that it will have some
>     status more significant than an ordinary trade or sectoral
>     meeting) suggests that the expectation is that the meeting has
>     some sort of quasi-official status.  That it is in fact, meant to
>     be one those increasing number of unofficial/official meetings of
>     the form of the NetMundial; i.e. not quite on the level of the
>     clearly “official” WSIS+10 but having a normative and
>     quasi-official status rather more than say TED talks or an
>     ordinary Internet technical convening.
>
>     And clearly the activities of the designated CS interlocutor(s)
>     has been such as to give the appearance of something with some
>     broader on-going significance as for example, by circulating the
>     draft Outcome Document for comment and input. 
>
>     So I think that we can assume that the GCCS is meant to be one of
>     those increasing stable of multistakeholder global Internet
>     Governance unicorns whose intention is to replace more formal and
>     “democratically constituted” global Internet Governance assemblies. 
>
>      Why this matters of course, is because the clear intention is
>     that this conference (and more importantly its’ “Chairman's
>     Statement”) is meant to have a similar status to the NetMundial
>     Outcome document i.e. something that is widely quoted, referred to
>     and meant to have the form of some sort of soft international
>     statement of guiding principles, deriving it’s legitimacy directly
>     from the fact of its multistakeholder origination and
>     authentication through the multistakeholder plenaries etc. of the
>     meeting itself.
>
>     The question of course is what legitimacy does this conference
>     have on its own terms as a “multistakeholder” process and thus
>     what significance or legitimacy can its outcome statement have
>     beyond being a statement by certain individuals selected on the
>     basis of non-transparent critieria, with no accountability to
>     anyone other than the funders, and thus presumably selected and
>     designed to reinforce and ratify already existing positions as
>     determined by the conference organizers.
>
>     The process of facilitating Civil Society participation completely
>     lacked transparency and accountability to any agency outside of
>     the organizational and decision making processes of the conference
>     itself presumably under the direct supervision of the sponsoring
>     governmental bodies.
>
>     The facilitation of CS participation through control over travel
>     funding and the holding of the editorial pen in CS contributions
>     would appear to have been directed by the representative or
>     representatives of organizations which get their primary funding
>     from one or another of the main governmental sponsors of these
>     meetings.
>
>     The Advisory Board, presumably selected on the advice of this
>     individual or individuals is notably not broadly representative of
>     CS in the Internet Governance space for example, not including any
>     of those who either individually or organizationally refused
>     agreement to the UNESCO “Connecting the Dots” Outcome Document
>     which deliberately chose to reject a commitment to “democratic
>     governance of the Internet” in favour of a non-defined
>     “multistakeholder governance of the Internet”; nor including any
>     representatives from the Just Net Coalition whose proposal for an
>     Internet Social Forum <http://www.internetsocialforum.net/> has
>     just received wide acceptance and support in the context of the
>     recently held World Social Forum <https://fsm2015.org/en>.
>
>     Further there would appear to have been no objection on the part
>     of the CS Advisory Group to the failure of the conference to
>     address the escalating issues of Social and Economic Justice
>     through and by the Internet evidently accepting the bland
>     generalities of a concern for “access” as an adequate substitute
>     <https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2015/04/15/why-im-giving-up-on-the-digital-divide/>.
>
>
>     Also, there appears from the proposed conference outcome document
>     to have been no discussion on the relationship between “security”
>     and “social justice”. Why for example, is the discussion
>     concerning “cyber security” only framed in military or police
>     enforcement terms rather than as is broadly seen as appropriate in
>     global civil society, recognizing that economic and social
>     security for all provide the only realistic long term solution to
>     the current cyber (and other) security threats.
>
>     In other contexts ensuring that these issues were included in the
>     discussion would be the natural role for CS participation.
>
>     Again we have an example of a purportedly “multistakeholder”
>     process which by its very nature is biased and which lacks any of
>     the formal processes of transparency and accountability out of
>     which the legitimacy of any governance process must be built.
>
>     Mike
>
>      
>
>      
>
>     *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>     <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>
>     [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of
>     *Deirdre Williams
>     *Sent:* April 16, 2015 1:11 PM
>     *To:* Internet Governance; Nnenna Nwakanma; Jean-Christophe
>     NOTHIAS I The Global Journal
>     *Subject:* Re: [governance] GCCS Speech
>
>      
>
>     Dear Colleagues,
>
>     In my imagination I have created an origin myth for the IGC.
>
>     Way back at the beginning I see a group of people who all
>     recognise their differences and their diversity but who, at the
>     same time, all identify themselves as belonging to civil society.
>     I see them recognising the potential weakening effect of those
>     differences to the presentation of a common approach, and
>     therefore the desirability of a “civil society” space for
>     objective discussion and negotiation of the differences and the
>     diversity towards what common position may be possible.
>
>     I wasn’t there. Those who were can debunk the myth as necessary.
>
>     Within the context of this imaginary myth:
>
>     Last year Nnenna spoke at the Netmundial meeting in Sao Paolo.
>     Many of us were very enthusiastic about that speech. Daniel
>     Pimienta suggested that we might work on distilling it into a set
>     of principles that, as civil society, we could support. But we
>     moved on to other things.
>
>     This morning Nnenna made another speech. Jean-Christophe has
>     stated what he disliked/disapproved of/disagreed with about the
>     speech. Other people offered uncritical praise for what she had
>     said. But we should not be “uncritical” with our praise. It would
>     be good to see some constructive discussion of what she had to say.
>
>     Best wishes
>
>     Deirdre
>
>      
>
>     On 16 April 2015 at 07:06, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global
>     Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net
>     <mailto:jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>> wrote:
>
>         Hi Nnenna from the Internet,
>
>     ....
>
>     -- 
>
>     “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:
>          bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>     To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>          http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> David Sullivan
> Policy and Communications Director
> Global Network Initiative <http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org>
> Office: +1 202 793 3053
> Mobile: +1 646 595 5373 
> @David_MSullivan <https://twitter.com/David_MSullivan>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150418/f812dffd/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Sun Apr 19 19:30:14 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 16:30:14 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] Blogpost: Another Example of "Multistakeholder
 Governance" in Action: The Global CyberSpace 15 Unicorn
Message-ID: <024501d07af8$c9f5ed80$5de1c880$@gmail.com>

Folks might find this of interest. (in further response to Deidre's
challenge.

 

https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2015/04/19/another-example-of-multistakeholde
r-governance-in-action-the-global-cyberspace-15-unicorn/

 

http://tinyurl.com/q3rf35v

 

M

 

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150419/31146d6f/attachment.htm>

From mueller at syr.edu  Sun Apr 19 16:54:38 2015
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 20:54:38 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Chairs statement from GCCS
In-Reply-To: <D419F32C05FA48659FBABD4E0C089794@Toshiba>
References: <D419F32C05FA48659FBABD4E0C089794@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <bd77b5c56c4e44c78f385a69b2872cc3@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>

I was offered a chance to comment on a draft of the Chair’s statement. I have no idea how many others were, but I am sure I was part of some much larger list.
I note with satisfaction that certain language about the “abuse” of free expression rights, which I objected to, was corrected in the final statement.

I note that other items I didn’t like were not changed, and that some aspects related to state surveillance may have been weakened (though it is hard to tell because I can’t find the original doc).

In that respect, the Chair’s statement is typical of a MS gathering; you get some of what you want and you don’t get other things. It reflects the lowest common denominator of what the collection of folks in the meeting could agree to, or what the Chair thought they could agree to.

The Netmundial statement adopted a far more bottom up and open methodology in its development, and thus has greater political significance and legitimacy in my opinion, so it would be a mistake to equate the two. But in terms of “official” status, neither of them are binding, and in some sense both are just statements competing for attention in the increasingly crowded bazaar of Internet governance related statements.

Milton L. Mueller
Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html



From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Ian Peter
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 8:38 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; forum at justnetcoalition.org
Subject: [governance] Chairs statement from GCCS

The Chairs statement from this conference is now released at https://www.gccs2015.com/sites/default/files/documents/Chairs%20Statement%20GCCS2015%20-%2017%20April.pdf

CS people are now working on a response and final call at the unconference and this will (probably) be released later today. It will include disappointment at the non inclusion of references to necessary and proportionate principles, NetMundial principles, and the lack of reference to mass surveillance. Huge gaps, but we have also had some wins, eg inclusion of privacy by design, and quotes like this


“The Conference emphasised that our commitment to the protection of human rights must be unequivocal and that the protection of human rights and security online are complementary concepts. We must remain vigilant about those who use the Internet for incitement to (imminent) violence, and for the recruitment for or financing of terrorism, and ensure that such violations are countered within the framework of the rule of law without allowing ourselves to be governed by a climate of fear. We must also take full account of the need to protect the security and integrity of people, as well as their personal information, networks and devices, in ways that are fully compliant with international law, including human rights law.”

I’m sure others will have things to report from this event and there will be more later.



Ian Peter
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150419/ba71cb5b/attachment.htm>

From jmalcolm at eff.org  Wed Apr  1 14:55:00 2015
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 11:55:00 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Update on NMI
In-Reply-To: <A6C3F020190F42799C396D34A1B51808@Toshiba>
References: <A6C3F020190F42799C396D34A1B51808@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <551C3F04.704@eff.org>

Thanks Ian for this very useful summary.  I'm copying the Best Bits list
too (it needn't be copied on follow-ups though).

On 1/04/2015 10:48 am, Ian Peter wrote:
>
> This is just a quick update on the NetMundial Initiative (NMI). Please
> feel free to copy to other lists.
>
>  
>
> As many of you will already know, NMI Coordination Council (CC) has
> just held its first working meeting at Stanford University in Palo
> Alto on March 31. A list of those who attended can be found at the end
> of the draft Communique at
> https://www.netmundial.org/blog/secretariat/netmundial-initiative-stanford-communiqu%C3%A9.
>
>
> In addition to those attending,  Bill Drake and Anriette Esterhuysen
> (CC members) were able to participate remotely for at least part of
> the day-long meeting, on sometimes shaky remote connections. Many
> other people took advantage of the opportunity to listen in on
> deliberations.
>
> The main formal output of the meeting is a Draft Terms of Reference,
> which is now open for public comments at
> http://comments.netmundial.org/. The platform used for comments is
> that used for the original NetMundial event last year in Brazil.
>
> I would encourage people to comment on the document and help make it
> better.
>
> A few personal observations; I am pleased that we were able to
> maintain in the opening paragraph references to human rights and to
> managing the internet in the public interest, despite some suggestions
> that these references might be removed. However; I was personally
> disappointed that in the process of arriving at mutually agreeable
> text in a short period of time references to cybersecurity and mass
> surveillance were taken out of the text; I expected some opposition to
> the latter, but I think the cybersecurity references are vitally
> important and I am sure some well crafted words can make their way
> into the final text. There are many ways in which the text (and more
> importantly the initiative itself) can be strengthened, and I would
> particularly draw your attention also to the section on Scope, where
> further clarity and suggestions could assist substantial improvements.
>
> The current plan is for the document to be finally adopted at a first
> meeting of the full Council (the meeting above was described as a
> “working meeting”). Current planning suggests this might be in Costa
> Rica in June. But that might change given availability of some of the
> governmental and corporate people involved.
>
> The meeting also got to talk about some operational issues. Since the
> formation of the Coordination Council progress has been fairly slow,
> perhaps largely because of the lack of structure and leadership, as
> well as a lack of trust. Some small working groups were set up and
> most likely some other operational structural issues will be addressed
> as a result of this.
>
> I should also mention that to date the progress has been very
> co-operative across all sectors involved, and indeed on most
> discussions you would not have unanimity of opinion within any
> stakeholder group; but rather a variety of opinions. I expect the same
> to be the case during the public consultations, but I also expect that
> the process of hearing many voices and gaining wider input will
> substantially clarify and improve the document. Many people are
> undecided about NMI at this stage, which is to be expected; and
> whatever it might be should appropriately derive from public inputs.
> So I urge you to follow the link above and help to shape this
> initiative to take an appropriate role moving forward.
>
> One more thing I should add is the role that Marilia Maciel has played
> to date, chairing the series of online meetings which developed the
> Draft Terms of Reference. Marilia had to manage a diverse and overly
> large group, many differing opinions as to what NMI is or should be,
> poor connections and dropouts on all calls, language issues,
> geopolitical game playing, and unruly participants. She did a great job!
>
>  
>
> Ian Peter
>
>  
>
>  
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt
PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD

Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150401/5dced996/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 244 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150401/5dced996/attachment.sig>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Tue Apr 21 13:12:40 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:12:40 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] More on the GCCS 2015
Message-ID: <02a601d07c56$600beb90$2023c2b0$@gmail.com>

http://t.co/tzT7PkFgys

 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/20/gccs_2015_roundup?mt=1429629533557

 

Interesting perspective and more information .

 

So what precisely was "CS" doing at this meeting and having their
participation presented as being in "general agreement" with the Chairman's
Report and (and thus legitimizing) the entire process and outcome of this
unicorn
<https://gurstein.wordpress.com/2015/04/19/another-example-of-multistakehold
er-governance-in-action-the-global-cyberspace-15-unicorn/> ?

 

Can we take silence as indicating consent from the participating "CS"
organizations and individuals?

  

M

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150421/646ecd53/attachment.htm>

From nashton at consensus.pro  Wed Apr 22 03:29:59 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 09:29:59 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] More on the GCCS 2015
In-Reply-To: <BLU180-W5164976C74BAF3BC1077F5FFEE0@phx.gbl>
References: <02a601d07c56$600beb90$2023c2b0$@gmail.com> <BLU180-W5164976C74BAF3BC1077F5FFEE0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <093E3B38-1B0F-4235-B187-44F337DD6FB3@consensus.pro>

Dear Arzan,

I find some irony in the fact that you start out by calling out finger pointing and then immediately pointing fingers at more players ;)

I will top you - I think - on the depressing front, which is that the entire dialogue about privacy, surveillance, data protection, law enforcement, cybersecurity, human rights online is the language of "my corner is more important than your corner, you should change to let me do what I want."

I think the reality is that all of these are aspects of digital security. All of these have, at their heart, the objective of creating more safety and security for people - of course, we can disagree about whether some of them do, or whether they do it well. 

The result of this is, I think, that we are then in the trap of "well, you give me a little of your privacy, and I'll give you a little more protection from criminals." This is as we know a false dichotomy but it is really harmful in public debate as it reinforces this terrible idea that there is only a limited amount of 'security' available and we have to parcel it out in little buckets to everyone who has a role in protecting people, a zero-sum.

We need a new debate that starts from the premise that digital security is not just any one of these things but all of them, and that the motivation at source of all aspects is the same. We could then have a reasonable conversation about how to leverage technology to actually product not a zero-sum but something that is more than the sum of its parts.

Of course, not all countries have the same motivations, not all stakeholders have the same motivations, but if we change the debate from zero-sum to win-win we at least have the chance to produce real reform and more safety. Isn't that what we all really want?

I look forward to thoughtful replies and constructive criticism. Other types of interventions I will leave without replying. I hope everyone understands.

On 22 Apr 2015, at 09:06, Arzak Khan <azrak_khan at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Hi All,
> 
> It was for the first time that I participated in such an event and my take on the overall conference which I also raised in one of the panel discussions i.e. Privacy was that while addressing the issue of privacy and security majority of the people were pointing fingers at the governments i.e. NSA, GCHQ etc. and hoping to fix the cancer by proposing or calling for new laws, frameworks and treaties. No one at the event questioned the role played by the private companies in the mass surveillance programs for the likes of Google sharing petabytes of data with NSA and claiming to be protector of internet freedom is hard to swallow. I was not entirely sure that passing new laws and regulations will fix the issue or stop these growing monopolies from mass surveillance as the very fabric of internet architecture is based on the concept of big data and reconnaissance.
> 
> The terms like “information freedom” and “multistakeholderism” all looks very good and shimmering at the surface but underneath it is the dark world where states are in battle for control of economic, political and social power. The new age communication technology allows the developed countries to leverage them for their own gains and political agenda far more strongly than the Global South and at times against them.  The growing drive to control the internet i.e. primarily by economic and geopolitical motivations rather than by the humanitarian and democratic standards should ring bells for people having interest internet governance as  this event highlighted the geopolitical contest between few major international actors while rest of us were the participants or subjects witnessing twenty-first-century statesmanship and international relations.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Arzak Khan 
> Director |Internet Policy Observatory Pakistan (iPOP) | Tel +92 81 9211464 | Twitter: @internetpolicyp |Web: www.ipop.org.pk |
> 
> 
> 
> From: gurstein at gmail.com
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:12:40 -0700
> Subject: [governance] More on the GCCS 2015
> 
> http://t.co/tzT7PkFgys
>  
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/20/gccs_2015_roundup?mt=1429629533557
>  
> Interesting perspective and more information …
>  
> So what precisely was “CS” doing at this meeting and having their participation presented as being in “general agreement” with the Chairman’s Report and (and thus legitimizing) the entire process and outcome of this unicorn?
>  
> Can we take silence as indicating consent from the participating “CS” organizations and individuals?
>  
> M
>  
>  
>  
> 
> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150422/22ee1bca/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150422/22ee1bca/attachment.sig>

From raquino at gmail.com  Wed Apr 22 10:18:28 2015
From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 11:18:28 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] Internet Governance in Latin America research project
Message-ID: <CAMokdMxZhWu1LQ_J4Q-4=ufxQRxYbCh2N1pdQUxAYmfru5n9-w@mail.gmail.com>

Hello

I’m working on a research Project on Internet Governance in Latin America
currently building a list of organizations in this area. The goal of this
Project is to identify paths for novices to participate in these
discussions as well as hearing out experts who could point out the way to
main issues in the region.

I’d be grateful if this group could help me pointing out resources,
organizations or professionals I may have missed.

The list I’ve gathered so far is below and please send comments to
raquino at gmail.com

The next phase of this Project will be to contact key professionals in the
area of Internet Governance to do a series of interviews. If you’d like to
participate or nominate someone for an interview please send me an email.

This is an ongoing Project with plans to present in the future in intenet
governance events in Latin America.

Thanks for any help

Renata Aquino Ribeiro

Professor and researcher

IT Campus – Quixadá City

Federal University of Ceará – Brazil

-----

Main organizations involved in internet governance in Latin America

(Please sendo info about speakers for these to raquino at gmail.com)

* CITEL

URL: http://www.citel.oas.org

* eLAC

http://www.cepal.org/elac2015/default.asp

* LACIGF

http://www.lacigf.org

* LACNIC

http://www.lacnic.net

* LACTLD - Latin American and Caribbean ccTLDs Organization

http://www.lactld.org

* LatinoamerICANN

http://latinoamericann.org <http://latinoamericann.org/?q=node/1725>

* LACRALO

http://www.atlarge.icann.org/lacralo

* LAC IPv6 Task Force e FLIP

http://portalipv6.lacnic.net/en/flip6-and-lac-ipv6-tf/

* Internet Society - Mexico, El Salvador, Porto Rico, Costa Rica, Trinidad
e Tobago, Venezuela, Colombia, Equador, Peru, Brasil, Bolivia, Paraguai,
Uruguai, Argentina

http://www.internetsociety.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150422/345f71b3/attachment.htm>

From amelia.andersdotter at piratpartiet.se  Wed Apr 22 10:56:43 2015
From: amelia.andersdotter at piratpartiet.se (Amelia Andersdotter)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 16:56:43 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Chairs statement from GCCS
In-Reply-To: <D419F32C05FA48659FBABD4E0C089794@Toshiba>
References: <D419F32C05FA48659FBABD4E0C089794@Toshiba>
Message-ID: <5537B6AB.5000302@piratpartiet.se>

Correct me someone if I'm wrong, but the integrity and security of
people is /part/ of human rights law, not something which is protected
/in compliance/ with human rights law?

This is kind of like how the Swedish government defines the right to
privacy as the right to marry whoever you want on their human rights
website, or how the Swedish cybersecurity public authority were
protecting human rights AND privacy. I realize I'm nitpickying over
details, but we're really not advancing very much if what we're actually
seeing is a re-writing of what human rights law /is/ by organisers of
these types of events.

On 04/17/15 14:37, Ian Peter wrote:
> The Chairs statement from this conference is now released at https://www.gccs2015.com/sites/default/files/documents/Chairs%20Statement%20GCCS2015%20-%2017%20April.pdf
>
> CS people are now working on a response and final call at the unconference and this will (probably) be released later today. It will include disappointment at the non inclusion of references to necessary and proportionate principles, NetMundial principles, and the lack of reference to mass surveillance. Huge gaps, but we have also had some wins, eg inclusion of privacy by design, and quotes like this
>
>
> “The Conference emphasised that our commitment to the protection of human rights must be unequivocal and that the protection of human rights and security online are complementary concepts. We must remain vigilant about those who use the Internet for incitement to (imminent) violence, and for the recruitment for or financing of terrorism, and ensure that such violations are countered within the framework of the rule of law without allowing ourselves to be governed by a climate of fear. We must also take full account of the need to protect the security and integrity of people, as well as their personal information, networks and devices, in ways that are fully compliant with international law, including human rights law.”
>
> I’m sure others will have things to report from this event and there will be more later.
>
>
>
> 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


From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com  Wed Apr 22 11:06:59 2015
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 11:06:59 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] More on the GCCS 2015
In-Reply-To: <093E3B38-1B0F-4235-B187-44F337DD6FB3@consensus.pro>
References: <02a601d07c56$600beb90$2023c2b0$@gmail.com> <BLU180-W5164976C74BAF3BC1077F5FFEE0@phx.gbl>
 <093E3B38-1B0F-4235-B187-44F337DD6FB3@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <CAJkfFBx3ix5xB+ZtCue1J5M63gi8=j-QzuWpWo1PvE+W+tFzOA@mail.gmail.com>

No, it's not that "digital security" in general is all these things,
supposedly as opposed to a zero-sum analysis regarding quantities of
security.

What we want is to talk about how to retain the standing of
fundamental rights recourse over governments.  The role of private
companies is just to "launder" surveillance -- if they do it for the
governments (and especially if this scheme gets instituted
internationally, where fundamental rights don't have the standing they
do in domestic contexts), then supposedly it's okay.

This isn't something that's really dealt with properly by
"statutory"-like measures ("statutes" of a new, highly unhinged sort,
the kinds you get from international treaties).  It's dealt with by
claiming our standing as we the people over our governments --
specifically, denying them the opportunity to supersede our
locally-based recourse against our governments through international
con games.

Only after you set that principle, will you be able to try to address
the role of private parties, who don't have the limits on them that we
the people set on our governments.  *That's* more "statutory," but
again when you take up that question and enter into the "statutory"
approach there, you're not going to get it right until you first set
the principle that you don't want to set it up as a liability
protection scheme that lets private companies launder government
surveillance.  The private arena has the added problem of gaining
recourse over the corporate form in the transnational arena --
something we have also lost our moorings on.


Seth


On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
> Dear Arzan,
>
> I find some irony in the fact that you start out by calling out finger
> pointing and then immediately pointing fingers at more players ;)
>
> I will top you - I think - on the depressing front, which is that the entire
> dialogue about privacy, surveillance, data protection, law enforcement,
> cybersecurity, human rights online is the language of "my corner is more
> important than your corner, you should change to let me do what I want."
>
> I think the reality is that all of these are aspects of digital security.
> All of these have, at their heart, the objective of creating more safety and
> security for people - of course, we can disagree about whether some of them
> do, or whether they do it well.
>
> The result of this is, I think, that we are then in the trap of "well, you
> give me a little of your privacy, and I'll give you a little more protection
> from criminals." This is as we know a false dichotomy but it is really
> harmful in public debate as it reinforces this terrible idea that there is
> only a limited amount of 'security' available and we have to parcel it out
> in little buckets to everyone who has a role in protecting people, a
> zero-sum.
>
> We need a new debate that starts from the premise that digital security is
> not just any one of these things but all of them, and that the motivation at
> source of all aspects is the same. We could then have a reasonable
> conversation about how to leverage technology to actually product not a
> zero-sum but something that is more than the sum of its parts.
>
> Of course, not all countries have the same motivations, not all stakeholders
> have the same motivations, but if we change the debate from zero-sum to
> win-win we at least have the chance to produce real reform and more safety.
> Isn't that what we all really want?
>
> I look forward to thoughtful replies and constructive criticism. Other types
> of interventions I will leave without replying. I hope everyone understands.
>
>
> On 22 Apr 2015, at 09:06, Arzak Khan <azrak_khan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> It was for the first time that I participated in such an event and my take
> on the overall conference which I also raised in one of the panel
> discussions i.e. Privacy was that while addressing the issue of privacy and
> security majority of the people were pointing fingers at the governments
> i.e. NSA, GCHQ etc. and hoping to fix the cancer by proposing or calling for
> new laws, frameworks and treaties. No one at the event questioned the role
> played by the private companies in the mass surveillance programs for the
> likes of Google sharing petabytes of data with NSA and claiming to be
> protector of internet freedom is hard to swallow. I was not entirely sure
> that passing new laws and regulations will fix the issue or stop these
> growing monopolies from mass surveillance as the very fabric of internet
> architecture is based on the concept of big data and reconnaissance.
>
> The terms like “information freedom” and “multistakeholderism” all looks
> very good and shimmering at the surface but underneath it is the dark world
> where states are in battle for control of economic, political and social
> power. The new age communication technology allows the developed countries
> to leverage them for their own gains and political agenda far more strongly
> than the Global South and at times against them.  The growing drive to
> control the internet i.e. primarily by economic and geopolitical motivations
> rather than by the humanitarian and democratic standards should ring bells
> for people having interest internet governance as  this event highlighted
> the geopolitical contest between few major international actors while rest
> of us were the participants or subjects witnessing twenty-first-century
> statesmanship and international relations.
>
> Best,
>
> Arzak Khan
> Director |Internet Policy Observatory Pakistan (iPOP) | Tel +92 81 9211464 |
> Twitter: @internetpolicyp |Web: www.ipop.org.pk |
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: gurstein at gmail.com
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:12:40 -0700
> Subject: [governance] More on the GCCS 2015
>
> http://t.co/tzT7PkFgys
>
>
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/20/gccs_2015_roundup?mt=1429629533557
>
>
>
> Interesting perspective and more information …
>
>
>
> So what precisely was “CS” doing at this meeting and having their
> participation presented as being in “general agreement” with the Chairman’s
> Report and (and thus legitimizing) the entire process and outcome of this
> unicorn?
>
>
>
> Can we take silence as indicating consent from the participating “CS”
> organizations and individuals?
>
>
>
> M
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________ You received
> this message as a subscriber on the list:governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be
> removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all
> other list information and functions,
> see:http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to
> find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this
> email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

From willi.uebelherr at gmail.com  Wed Apr 22 11:58:33 2015
From: willi.uebelherr at gmail.com (willi uebelherr)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 12:58:33 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] Internet Governance in Latin America research
 project
In-Reply-To: <CAMokdMxZhWu1LQ_J4Q-4=ufxQRxYbCh2N1pdQUxAYmfru5n9-w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMokdMxZhWu1LQ_J4Q-4=ufxQRxYbCh2N1pdQUxAYmfru5n9-w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5537C529.2000405@gmail.com>


Dear Renata,

it can be a good initiative. But my experience in Latin America show me, 
that there are no people to understand, what is "Internet Governance" 
and what we have to do to create a InterNet. Maybe, also the most people 
on this lists don't understand, what we have to do.

Connect to the different Ministerios in the different countries. Then 
ypu can see and hear, that they don't understand the themes "tele 
communication". But they create decisions. And this always based on the 
external definitions.

In my last 4 years in Latin America never i found people with 
connections to the international discussions about Internet. Never i 
found people with a critical thinking to that, what we give the name 
Internet.

In Latin America we have the organized consumerism. They use only the 
technical systems from the external regions. But never they start to 
understand the technical bases. And this we find also in NetMundial in 
Brazil.

many greetings, willi
Cordoba, Argentina


Am 4/22/2015 um 11:18 AM schrieb Renata Aquino:
> Hello
>
> I’m working on a research Project on Internet Governance in Latin America
> currently building a list of organizations in this area. The goal of this
> Project is to identify paths for novices to participate in these
> discussions as well as hearing out experts who could point out the way to
> main issues in the region.
>
> I’d be grateful if this group could help me pointing out resources,
> organizations or professionals I may have missed.
>
> The list I’ve gathered so far is below and please send comments to
> raquino at gmail.com
>
> The next phase of this Project will be to contact key professionals in the
> area of Internet Governance to do a series of interviews. If you’d like to
> participate or nominate someone for an interview please send me an email.
>
> This is an ongoing Project with plans to present in the future in intenet
> governance events in Latin America.
>
> Thanks for any help
>
> Renata Aquino Ribeiro
>
> Professor and researcher
>
> IT Campus – Quixadá City
>
> Federal University of Ceará – Brazil
>
> -----
>
> Main organizations involved in internet governance in Latin America
>
> (Please sendo info about speakers for these to raquino at gmail.com)
>
> * CITEL
>
> URL: http://www.citel.oas.org
>
> * eLAC
>
> http://www.cepal.org/elac2015/default.asp
>
> * LACIGF
>
> http://www.lacigf.org
>
> * LACNIC
>
> http://www.lacnic.net
>
> * LACTLD - Latin American and Caribbean ccTLDs Organization
>
> http://www.lactld.org
>
> * LatinoamerICANN
>
> http://latinoamericann.org <http://latinoamericann.org/?q=node/1725>
>
> * LACRALO
>
> http://www.atlarge.icann.org/lacralo
>
> * LAC IPv6 Task Force e FLIP
>
> http://portalipv6.lacnic.net/en/flip6-and-lac-ipv6-tf/
>
> * Internet Society - Mexico, El Salvador, Porto Rico, Costa Rica, Trinidad
> e Tobago, Venezuela, Colombia, Equador, Peru, Brasil, Bolivia, Paraguai,
> Uruguai, Argentina
>
> http://www.internetsociety.org
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>

From laura at article19.org  Wed Apr 22 12:09:56 2015
From: laura at article19.org (laura at article19.org)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 16:09:56 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [bestbits] Internet Governance in Latin America research
 project
In-Reply-To: <1934529599.12787236.1429718968295.JavaMail.zimbra@article19.org>
References: <CAMokdMxZhWu1LQ_J4Q-4=ufxQRxYbCh2N1pdQUxAYmfru5n9-w@mail.gmail.com> <5537C529.2000405@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1354636193.12787280.1429718996652.JavaMail.zimbra@article19.org>

Hi, Renata
You also have a lot of info at https://redlatam.org/es.
Best,
Laura.

----- Mensagem original -----
De: "willi uebelherr" <willi.uebelherr at gmail.com>
Para: "Renata Aquino" <raquino at gmail.com>
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, bestbits at lists.bestbits.net, "1net.org discuss" <discuss at 1net.org>
Enviadas: Quarta-feira, 22 de abril de 2015 12:58:33
Assunto: Re: [bestbits] Internet Governance in Latin America research project

Dear Renata,

it can be a good initiative. But my experience in Latin America show me, 
that there are no people to understand, what is "Internet Governance" 
and what we have to do to create a InterNet. Maybe, also the most people 
on this lists don't understand, what we have to do.

Connect to the different Ministerios in the different countries. Then 
ypu can see and hear, that they don't understand the themes "tele 
communication". But they create decisions. And this always based on the 
external definitions.

In my last 4 years in Latin America never i found people with 
connections to the international discussions about Internet. Never i 
found people with a critical thinking to that, what we give the name 
Internet.

In Latin America we have the organized consumerism. They use only the 
technical systems from the external regions. But never they start to 
understand the technical bases. And this we find also in NetMundial in 
Brazil.

many greetings, willi
Cordoba, Argentina


Am 4/22/2015 um 11:18 AM schrieb Renata Aquino:
> Hello
>
> I’m working on a research Project on Internet Governance in Latin America
> currently building a list of organizations in this area. The goal of this
> Project is to identify paths for novices to participate in these
> discussions as well as hearing out experts who could point out the way to
> main issues in the region.
>
> I’d be grateful if this group could help me pointing out resources,
> organizations or professionals I may have missed.
>
> The list I’ve gathered so far is below and please send comments to
> raquino at gmail.com
>
> The next phase of this Project will be to contact key professionals in the
> area of Internet Governance to do a series of interviews. If you’d like to
> participate or nominate someone for an interview please send me an email.
>
> This is an ongoing Project with plans to present in the future in intenet
> governance events in Latin America.
>
> Thanks for any help
>
> Renata Aquino Ribeiro
>
> Professor and researcher
>
> IT Campus – Quixadá City
>
> Federal University of Ceará – Brazil
>
> -----
>
> Main organizations involved in internet governance in Latin America
>
> (Please sendo info about speakers for these to raquino at gmail.com)
>
> * CITEL
>
> URL: http://www.citel.oas.org
>
> * eLAC
>
> http://www.cepal.org/elac2015/default.asp
>
> * LACIGF
>
> http://www.lacigf.org
>
> * LACNIC
>
> http://www.lacnic.net
>
> * LACTLD - Latin American and Caribbean ccTLDs Organization
>
> http://www.lactld.org
>
> * LatinoamerICANN
>
> http://latinoamericann.org <http://latinoamericann.org/?q=node/1725>
>
> * LACRALO
>
> http://www.atlarge.icann.org/lacralo
>
> * LAC IPv6 Task Force e FLIP
>
> http://portalipv6.lacnic.net/en/flip6-and-lac-ipv6-tf/
>
> * Internet Society - Mexico, El Salvador, Porto Rico, Costa Rica, Trinidad
> e Tobago, Venezuela, Colombia, Equador, Peru, Brasil, Bolivia, Paraguai,
> Uruguai, Argentina
>
> http://www.internetsociety.org
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

From nashton at consensus.pro  Wed Apr 22 12:28:04 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 18:28:04 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] More on the GCCS 2015
In-Reply-To: <CAJkfFBx3ix5xB+ZtCue1J5M63gi8=j-QzuWpWo1PvE+W+tFzOA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <02a601d07c56$600beb90$2023c2b0$@gmail.com> <BLU180-W5164976C74BAF3BC1077F5FFEE0@phx.gbl> <093E3B38-1B0F-4235-B187-44F337DD6FB3@consensus.pro> <CAJkfFBx3ix5xB+ZtCue1J5M63gi8=j-QzuWpWo1PvE+W+tFzOA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B462FBBF-B62A-4B07-BE14-B058570BA13F@consensus.pro>

As you wish - but in the meantime whilst you claim your standing, life rolls on, and countries are making choices. Nothing will prevent whatever actions you have in mind related to the below taking place at the same time as others work in other areas, though.

On 22 Apr 2015, at 17:06, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:

> No, it's not that "digital security" in general is all these things,
> supposedly as opposed to a zero-sum analysis regarding quantities of
> security.
> 
> What we want is to talk about how to retain the standing of
> fundamental rights recourse over governments.  The role of private
> companies is just to "launder" surveillance -- if they do it for the
> governments (and especially if this scheme gets instituted
> internationally, where fundamental rights don't have the standing they
> do in domestic contexts), then supposedly it's okay.
> 
> This isn't something that's really dealt with properly by
> "statutory"-like measures ("statutes" of a new, highly unhinged sort,
> the kinds you get from international treaties).  It's dealt with by
> claiming our standing as we the people over our governments --
> specifically, denying them the opportunity to supersede our
> locally-based recourse against our governments through international
> con games.
> 
> Only after you set that principle, will you be able to try to address
> the role of private parties, who don't have the limits on them that we
> the people set on our governments.  *That's* more "statutory," but
> again when you take up that question and enter into the "statutory"
> approach there, you're not going to get it right until you first set
> the principle that you don't want to set it up as a liability
> protection scheme that lets private companies launder government
> surveillance.  The private arena has the added problem of gaining
> recourse over the corporate form in the transnational arena --
> something we have also lost our moorings on.
> 
> 
> Seth
> 
> 
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
>> Dear Arzan,
>> 
>> I find some irony in the fact that you start out by calling out finger
>> pointing and then immediately pointing fingers at more players ;)
>> 
>> I will top you - I think - on the depressing front, which is that the entire
>> dialogue about privacy, surveillance, data protection, law enforcement,
>> cybersecurity, human rights online is the language of "my corner is more
>> important than your corner, you should change to let me do what I want."
>> 
>> I think the reality is that all of these are aspects of digital security.
>> All of these have, at their heart, the objective of creating more safety and
>> security for people - of course, we can disagree about whether some of them
>> do, or whether they do it well.
>> 
>> The result of this is, I think, that we are then in the trap of "well, you
>> give me a little of your privacy, and I'll give you a little more protection
>> from criminals." This is as we know a false dichotomy but it is really
>> harmful in public debate as it reinforces this terrible idea that there is
>> only a limited amount of 'security' available and we have to parcel it out
>> in little buckets to everyone who has a role in protecting people, a
>> zero-sum.
>> 
>> We need a new debate that starts from the premise that digital security is
>> not just any one of these things but all of them, and that the motivation at
>> source of all aspects is the same. We could then have a reasonable
>> conversation about how to leverage technology to actually product not a
>> zero-sum but something that is more than the sum of its parts.
>> 
>> Of course, not all countries have the same motivations, not all stakeholders
>> have the same motivations, but if we change the debate from zero-sum to
>> win-win we at least have the chance to produce real reform and more safety.
>> Isn't that what we all really want?
>> 
>> I look forward to thoughtful replies and constructive criticism. Other types
>> of interventions I will leave without replying. I hope everyone understands.
>> 
>> 
>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 09:06, Arzak Khan <azrak_khan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi All,
>> 
>> It was for the first time that I participated in such an event and my take
>> on the overall conference which I also raised in one of the panel
>> discussions i.e. Privacy was that while addressing the issue of privacy and
>> security majority of the people were pointing fingers at the governments
>> i.e. NSA, GCHQ etc. and hoping to fix the cancer by proposing or calling for
>> new laws, frameworks and treaties. No one at the event questioned the role
>> played by the private companies in the mass surveillance programs for the
>> likes of Google sharing petabytes of data with NSA and claiming to be
>> protector of internet freedom is hard to swallow. I was not entirely sure
>> that passing new laws and regulations will fix the issue or stop these
>> growing monopolies from mass surveillance as the very fabric of internet
>> architecture is based on the concept of big data and reconnaissance.
>> 
>> The terms like “information freedom” and “multistakeholderism” all looks
>> very good and shimmering at the surface but underneath it is the dark world
>> where states are in battle for control of economic, political and social
>> power. The new age communication technology allows the developed countries
>> to leverage them for their own gains and political agenda far more strongly
>> than the Global South and at times against them.  The growing drive to
>> control the internet i.e. primarily by economic and geopolitical motivations
>> rather than by the humanitarian and democratic standards should ring bells
>> for people having interest internet governance as  this event highlighted
>> the geopolitical contest between few major international actors while rest
>> of us were the participants or subjects witnessing twenty-first-century
>> statesmanship and international relations.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Arzak Khan
>> Director |Internet Policy Observatory Pakistan (iPOP) | Tel +92 81 9211464 |
>> Twitter: @internetpolicyp |Web: www.ipop.org.pk |
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ________________________________
>> From: gurstein at gmail.com
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:12:40 -0700
>> Subject: [governance] More on the GCCS 2015
>> 
>> http://t.co/tzT7PkFgys
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/20/gccs_2015_roundup?mt=1429629533557
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Interesting perspective and more information …
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> So what precisely was “CS” doing at this meeting and having their
>> participation presented as being in “general agreement” with the Chairman’s
>> Report and (and thus legitimizing) the entire process and outcome of this
>> unicorn?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Can we take silence as indicating consent from the participating “CS”
>> organizations and individuals?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> M
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________ You received
>> this message as a subscriber on the list:governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be
>> removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all
>> other list information and functions,
>> see:http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to
>> find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this
>> email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150422/1a1d47c5/attachment.sig>

From claudio at derechosdigitales.org  Wed Apr 22 12:29:24 2015
From: claudio at derechosdigitales.org (Claudio Ruiz)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 13:29:24 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] Internet Governance in Latin America research
 project
In-Reply-To: <5537C529.2000405@gmail.com>
References: <CAMokdMxZhWu1LQ_J4Q-4=ufxQRxYbCh2N1pdQUxAYmfru5n9-w@mail.gmail.com> <5537C529.2000405@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <80B94521-F5B4-4694-BF67-7473BB130833@derechosdigitales.org>


> On 22-04-2015, at 12:58, willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Renata,
> 
> it can be a good initiative. But my experience in Latin America show me, that there are no people to understand, what is "Internet Governance" and what we have to do to create a InterNet. Maybe, also the most people on this lists don't understand, what we have to do.
> 
> Connect to the different Ministerios in the different countries. Then ypu can see and hear, that they don't understand the themes "tele communication". But they create decisions. And this always based on the external definitions.
> 
> In my last 4 years in Latin America never i found people with connections to the international discussions about Internet. Never i found people with a critical thinking to that, what we give the name Internet.
> 
> In Latin America we have the organized consumerism. They use only the technical systems from the external regions. But never they start to understand the technical bases. And this we find also in NetMundial in Brazil.

One thing I haven’t seen in all this years working in this space in Latin America is a patronizing view about what it should be done or what people do or do not 'understand'. 

Cheers.

—Claudio Ruiz
derechosdigitales.org | @claudio
PGP fingerprint    
C40E 0C6E E7B2 FA91 D8A9 1FC4 74D2 5C4D B603 D089


From dan.oppermann at gmail.com  Wed Apr 22 12:33:03 2015
From: dan.oppermann at gmail.com (Daniel Oppermann)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 13:33:03 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Internet Governance in Latin America
 research project
In-Reply-To: <D44E388D-A409-445C-8D1C-677E1548A658@hserus.net>
References: <CAMokdMxZhWu1LQ_J4Q-4=ufxQRxYbCh2N1pdQUxAYmfru5n9-w@mail.gmail.com>
	<5537C529.2000405@gmail.com>
	<D44E388D-A409-445C-8D1C-677E1548A658@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <CAK-7itCT9WsLv4OWoyjHmV4FCQvamyZeSQGcx=f4-fCoQHpbXw@mail.gmail.com>

Of course there are people in this region who work with Internet Governance.
Renata, me passa um email e a gente conversa.


Best
Daniel

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
wrote:

> That is such a gross generalisation.  And a very ignorant one.
>
> What about carlos afonso just to name one individual from that region?
>
>
> On 22-Apr-2015, at 9:28 pm, willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> it can be a good initiative. But my experience in Latin America show me,
> that there are no people to understand, what is "Internet Governance" and
> what we have to do to create a InterNet. Maybe, also the most people on
> this lists don't understand, what we have to do.
>
> Connect to the different Ministerios in the different countries. Then ypu
> can see and hear, that they don't understand the themes "tele
> communication". But they create decisions. And this always based on the
> external definitions.
>
> In my last 4 years in Latin America never i found people with connections
> to the international discussions about Internet. Never i found people with
> a critical thinking to that, what we give the name Internet.
>
> In Latin America we have the organized consumerism. They use only the
> technical systems from the external regions. But never they start to
> understand the technical bases. And this we find also in NetMundial in
> Brazil.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150422/e1f57bfd/attachment.htm>

From nb at bollow.ch  Thu Apr  2 03:49:50 2015
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 09:49:50 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] On the legitimacy of civil-society-only meetings, e.g.
 ISF (was Re: APrIGF Macao...)
In-Reply-To: <D141E8B1.3C6E9%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
References: <37C3C0E3-16AA-4975-A774-FAE84A9F64AE@aprigf.asia>
	<618DCF4D-70C7-4522-BB76-B2AA6071599E@aprigf.asia>
	<CAJqNAHDv5p=3HsOQb8whr5xvsOYZfGL+rAXidhAqcfp3sbg_hg@mail.gmail.com>
	<551BBF13.4000602@itforchange.net>
	<D141E8B1.3C6E9%tphang@ntu.edu.sg>
Message-ID: <20150402094950.62038db8@quill>

On Wed, 1 Apr 2015 10:44:56 +0000
"Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)" <TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg> wrote:

> If even the World Economic Forum is recognising the
> importance of a multistakeholder model
> http://www.weforum.org/reports/future-role-civil-society, would not a
> civil-society-only meeting be a step backward?

Actually the World Economic Forum (WEF) has for quite some time now been
a highly influential proponent of multistakeholderism, and if my
current understanding of the history of multistakeholderism and its
currently-dominant ideology is correct, the WEF even deserves to be
credited as being one of the main inventors of that ideology.

I'm going to address the above question slightly outside of its original
context, since it was asked in the context of an IGF workshop proposal,
for which the implied claim of that proposed workshop being a
“civil-society-only” meeting is simply false.

Independently of that context, I think that it is important to address
this questioning of the legitimacy of civil society only meetings. For
example, the Internet Social Forum itself (for which I am among the
proponents) is in fact intended to be a “civil society only” meeting
(specifically in the sense of the World Social Forum participation
criteria).

In my view, questioning the legitimacy of holding civil-society-only
meetings for purposes of discussion and strategizing and seeking to
build momentum within civil society for proposed public interest
oriented agendas is like questioning the legitimacy of the desire of
businesses to be profitable, or questioning the legitimacy of the desire
of governments to fund themselves through taxes.

I find it quite noteworthy that an ideology of multistakeholderism has
brought us to the point where the legitimacy of quite central kinds of
civil society processes are now being called into question.

Greetings,
Norbert

P.S. For the benefit of any newcomers to this debate:
IGF= Internet Governance Forum, http://intgovforum.org
ISF= Internet Social Forum, http://InternetSocialForum.net

From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com  Wed Apr 22 12:58:14 2015
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 12:58:14 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] More on the GCCS 2015
In-Reply-To: <B462FBBF-B62A-4B07-BE14-B058570BA13F@consensus.pro>
References: <02a601d07c56$600beb90$2023c2b0$@gmail.com> <BLU180-W5164976C74BAF3BC1077F5FFEE0@phx.gbl>
 <093E3B38-1B0F-4235-B187-44F337DD6FB3@consensus.pro> <CAJkfFBx3ix5xB+ZtCue1J5M63gi8=j-QzuWpWo1PvE+W+tFzOA@mail.gmail.com>
 <B462FBBF-B62A-4B07-BE14-B058570BA13F@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <CAJkfFBw2s-k1t6RdEh42bswTojvUN+279JG0O5GKSEBVFZXoug@mail.gmail.com>

Exactly so.  :-)

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart
<nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
> As you wish - but in the meantime whilst you claim your standing, life rolls on, and countries are making choices. Nothing will prevent whatever actions you have in mind related to the below taking place at the same time as others work in other areas, though.
>
> On 22 Apr 2015, at 17:06, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> No, it's not that "digital security" in general is all these things,
>> supposedly as opposed to a zero-sum analysis regarding quantities of
>> security.
>>
>> What we want is to talk about how to retain the standing of
>> fundamental rights recourse over governments.  The role of private
>> companies is just to "launder" surveillance -- if they do it for the
>> governments (and especially if this scheme gets instituted
>> internationally, where fundamental rights don't have the standing they
>> do in domestic contexts), then supposedly it's okay.
>>
>> This isn't something that's really dealt with properly by
>> "statutory"-like measures ("statutes" of a new, highly unhinged sort,
>> the kinds you get from international treaties).  It's dealt with by
>> claiming our standing as we the people over our governments --
>> specifically, denying them the opportunity to supersede our
>> locally-based recourse against our governments through international
>> con games.
>>
>> Only after you set that principle, will you be able to try to address
>> the role of private parties, who don't have the limits on them that we
>> the people set on our governments.  *That's* more "statutory," but
>> again when you take up that question and enter into the "statutory"
>> approach there, you're not going to get it right until you first set
>> the principle that you don't want to set it up as a liability
>> protection scheme that lets private companies launder government
>> surveillance.  The private arena has the added problem of gaining
>> recourse over the corporate form in the transnational arena --
>> something we have also lost our moorings on.
>>
>>
>> Seth
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
>>> Dear Arzan,
>>>
>>> I find some irony in the fact that you start out by calling out finger
>>> pointing and then immediately pointing fingers at more players ;)
>>>
>>> I will top you - I think - on the depressing front, which is that the entire
>>> dialogue about privacy, surveillance, data protection, law enforcement,
>>> cybersecurity, human rights online is the language of "my corner is more
>>> important than your corner, you should change to let me do what I want."
>>>
>>> I think the reality is that all of these are aspects of digital security.
>>> All of these have, at their heart, the objective of creating more safety and
>>> security for people - of course, we can disagree about whether some of them
>>> do, or whether they do it well.
>>>
>>> The result of this is, I think, that we are then in the trap of "well, you
>>> give me a little of your privacy, and I'll give you a little more protection
>>> from criminals." This is as we know a false dichotomy but it is really
>>> harmful in public debate as it reinforces this terrible idea that there is
>>> only a limited amount of 'security' available and we have to parcel it out
>>> in little buckets to everyone who has a role in protecting people, a
>>> zero-sum.
>>>
>>> We need a new debate that starts from the premise that digital security is
>>> not just any one of these things but all of them, and that the motivation at
>>> source of all aspects is the same. We could then have a reasonable
>>> conversation about how to leverage technology to actually product not a
>>> zero-sum but something that is more than the sum of its parts.
>>>
>>> Of course, not all countries have the same motivations, not all stakeholders
>>> have the same motivations, but if we change the debate from zero-sum to
>>> win-win we at least have the chance to produce real reform and more safety.
>>> Isn't that what we all really want?
>>>
>>> I look forward to thoughtful replies and constructive criticism. Other types
>>> of interventions I will leave without replying. I hope everyone understands.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 09:06, Arzak Khan <azrak_khan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> It was for the first time that I participated in such an event and my take
>>> on the overall conference which I also raised in one of the panel
>>> discussions i.e. Privacy was that while addressing the issue of privacy and
>>> security majority of the people were pointing fingers at the governments
>>> i.e. NSA, GCHQ etc. and hoping to fix the cancer by proposing or calling for
>>> new laws, frameworks and treaties. No one at the event questioned the role
>>> played by the private companies in the mass surveillance programs for the
>>> likes of Google sharing petabytes of data with NSA and claiming to be
>>> protector of internet freedom is hard to swallow. I was not entirely sure
>>> that passing new laws and regulations will fix the issue or stop these
>>> growing monopolies from mass surveillance as the very fabric of internet
>>> architecture is based on the concept of big data and reconnaissance.
>>>
>>> The terms like “information freedom” and “multistakeholderism” all looks
>>> very good and shimmering at the surface but underneath it is the dark world
>>> where states are in battle for control of economic, political and social
>>> power. The new age communication technology allows the developed countries
>>> to leverage them for their own gains and political agenda far more strongly
>>> than the Global South and at times against them.  The growing drive to
>>> control the internet i.e. primarily by economic and geopolitical motivations
>>> rather than by the humanitarian and democratic standards should ring bells
>>> for people having interest internet governance as  this event highlighted
>>> the geopolitical contest between few major international actors while rest
>>> of us were the participants or subjects witnessing twenty-first-century
>>> statesmanship and international relations.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Arzak Khan
>>> Director |Internet Policy Observatory Pakistan (iPOP) | Tel +92 81 9211464 |
>>> Twitter: @internetpolicyp |Web: www.ipop.org.pk |
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: gurstein at gmail.com
>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:12:40 -0700
>>> Subject: [governance] More on the GCCS 2015
>>>
>>> http://t.co/tzT7PkFgys
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/20/gccs_2015_roundup?mt=1429629533557
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Interesting perspective and more information …
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So what precisely was “CS” doing at this meeting and having their
>>> participation presented as being in “general agreement” with the Chairman’s
>>> Report and (and thus legitimizing) the entire process and outcome of this
>>> unicorn?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Can we take silence as indicating consent from the participating “CS”
>>> organizations and individuals?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> M
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________ You received
>>> this message as a subscriber on the list:governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be
>>> removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all
>>> other list information and functions,
>>> see:http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to
>>> find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this
>>> email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>

From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com  Wed Apr 22 13:04:10 2015
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 13:04:10 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] More on the GCCS 2015
In-Reply-To: <CAJkfFBw2s-k1t6RdEh42bswTojvUN+279JG0O5GKSEBVFZXoug@mail.gmail.com>
References: <02a601d07c56$600beb90$2023c2b0$@gmail.com> <BLU180-W5164976C74BAF3BC1077F5FFEE0@phx.gbl>
 <093E3B38-1B0F-4235-B187-44F337DD6FB3@consensus.pro> <CAJkfFBx3ix5xB+ZtCue1J5M63gi8=j-QzuWpWo1PvE+W+tFzOA@mail.gmail.com>
 <B462FBBF-B62A-4B07-BE14-B058570BA13F@consensus.pro> <CAJkfFBw2s-k1t6RdEh42bswTojvUN+279JG0O5GKSEBVFZXoug@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJkfFBz7GchxuQu4=s6X19epsTeTpVpLbLzzJehqnUo8ZDJwFw@mail.gmail.com>

I should state though that fundamental rights don't have standing in
the international arena (and can't, no matter how many treaties you
pass . . . short of a global revolution).  We only have them
"locally," because that's the only place we've properly claimed them.
:-)

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
> Exactly so.  :-)
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart
> <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
>> As you wish - but in the meantime whilst you claim your standing, life rolls on, and countries are making choices. Nothing will prevent whatever actions you have in mind related to the below taking place at the same time as others work in other areas, though.
>>
>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 17:06, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> No, it's not that "digital security" in general is all these things,
>>> supposedly as opposed to a zero-sum analysis regarding quantities of
>>> security.
>>>
>>> What we want is to talk about how to retain the standing of
>>> fundamental rights recourse over governments.  The role of private
>>> companies is just to "launder" surveillance -- if they do it for the
>>> governments (and especially if this scheme gets instituted
>>> internationally, where fundamental rights don't have the standing they
>>> do in domestic contexts), then supposedly it's okay.
>>>
>>> This isn't something that's really dealt with properly by
>>> "statutory"-like measures ("statutes" of a new, highly unhinged sort,
>>> the kinds you get from international treaties).  It's dealt with by
>>> claiming our standing as we the people over our governments --
>>> specifically, denying them the opportunity to supersede our
>>> locally-based recourse against our governments through international
>>> con games.
>>>
>>> Only after you set that principle, will you be able to try to address
>>> the role of private parties, who don't have the limits on them that we
>>> the people set on our governments.  *That's* more "statutory," but
>>> again when you take up that question and enter into the "statutory"
>>> approach there, you're not going to get it right until you first set
>>> the principle that you don't want to set it up as a liability
>>> protection scheme that lets private companies launder government
>>> surveillance.  The private arena has the added problem of gaining
>>> recourse over the corporate form in the transnational arena --
>>> something we have also lost our moorings on.
>>>
>>>
>>> Seth
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
>>>> Dear Arzan,
>>>>
>>>> I find some irony in the fact that you start out by calling out finger
>>>> pointing and then immediately pointing fingers at more players ;)
>>>>
>>>> I will top you - I think - on the depressing front, which is that the entire
>>>> dialogue about privacy, surveillance, data protection, law enforcement,
>>>> cybersecurity, human rights online is the language of "my corner is more
>>>> important than your corner, you should change to let me do what I want."
>>>>
>>>> I think the reality is that all of these are aspects of digital security.
>>>> All of these have, at their heart, the objective of creating more safety and
>>>> security for people - of course, we can disagree about whether some of them
>>>> do, or whether they do it well.
>>>>
>>>> The result of this is, I think, that we are then in the trap of "well, you
>>>> give me a little of your privacy, and I'll give you a little more protection
>>>> from criminals." This is as we know a false dichotomy but it is really
>>>> harmful in public debate as it reinforces this terrible idea that there is
>>>> only a limited amount of 'security' available and we have to parcel it out
>>>> in little buckets to everyone who has a role in protecting people, a
>>>> zero-sum.
>>>>
>>>> We need a new debate that starts from the premise that digital security is
>>>> not just any one of these things but all of them, and that the motivation at
>>>> source of all aspects is the same. We could then have a reasonable
>>>> conversation about how to leverage technology to actually product not a
>>>> zero-sum but something that is more than the sum of its parts.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, not all countries have the same motivations, not all stakeholders
>>>> have the same motivations, but if we change the debate from zero-sum to
>>>> win-win we at least have the chance to produce real reform and more safety.
>>>> Isn't that what we all really want?
>>>>
>>>> I look forward to thoughtful replies and constructive criticism. Other types
>>>> of interventions I will leave without replying. I hope everyone understands.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 09:06, Arzak Khan <azrak_khan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> It was for the first time that I participated in such an event and my take
>>>> on the overall conference which I also raised in one of the panel
>>>> discussions i.e. Privacy was that while addressing the issue of privacy and
>>>> security majority of the people were pointing fingers at the governments
>>>> i.e. NSA, GCHQ etc. and hoping to fix the cancer by proposing or calling for
>>>> new laws, frameworks and treaties. No one at the event questioned the role
>>>> played by the private companies in the mass surveillance programs for the
>>>> likes of Google sharing petabytes of data with NSA and claiming to be
>>>> protector of internet freedom is hard to swallow. I was not entirely sure
>>>> that passing new laws and regulations will fix the issue or stop these
>>>> growing monopolies from mass surveillance as the very fabric of internet
>>>> architecture is based on the concept of big data and reconnaissance.
>>>>
>>>> The terms like “information freedom” and “multistakeholderism” all looks
>>>> very good and shimmering at the surface but underneath it is the dark world
>>>> where states are in battle for control of economic, political and social
>>>> power. The new age communication technology allows the developed countries
>>>> to leverage them for their own gains and political agenda far more strongly
>>>> than the Global South and at times against them.  The growing drive to
>>>> control the internet i.e. primarily by economic and geopolitical motivations
>>>> rather than by the humanitarian and democratic standards should ring bells
>>>> for people having interest internet governance as  this event highlighted
>>>> the geopolitical contest between few major international actors while rest
>>>> of us were the participants or subjects witnessing twenty-first-century
>>>> statesmanship and international relations.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Arzak Khan
>>>> Director |Internet Policy Observatory Pakistan (iPOP) | Tel +92 81 9211464 |
>>>> Twitter: @internetpolicyp |Web: www.ipop.org.pk |
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: gurstein at gmail.com
>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:12:40 -0700
>>>> Subject: [governance] More on the GCCS 2015
>>>>
>>>> http://t.co/tzT7PkFgys
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/20/gccs_2015_roundup?mt=1429629533557
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Interesting perspective and more information …
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So what precisely was “CS” doing at this meeting and having their
>>>> participation presented as being in “general agreement” with the Chairman’s
>>>> Report and (and thus legitimizing) the entire process and outcome of this
>>>> unicorn?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can we take silence as indicating consent from the participating “CS”
>>>> organizations and individuals?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> M
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________ You received
>>>> this message as a subscriber on the list:governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be
>>>> removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all
>>>> other list information and functions,
>>>> see:http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to
>>>> find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this
>>>> email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>

From nashton at consensus.pro  Wed Apr 22 13:18:07 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 19:18:07 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] More on the GCCS 2015
In-Reply-To: <CAJkfFBz7GchxuQu4=s6X19epsTeTpVpLbLzzJehqnUo8ZDJwFw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <02a601d07c56$600beb90$2023c2b0$@gmail.com> <BLU180-W5164976C74BAF3BC1077F5FFEE0@phx.gbl> <093E3B38-1B0F-4235-B187-44F337DD6FB3@consensus.pro> <CAJkfFBx3ix5xB+ZtCue1J5M63gi8=j-QzuWpWo1PvE+W+tFzOA@mail.gmail.com> <B462FBBF-B62A-4B07-BE14-B058570BA13F@consensus.pro> <CAJkfFBw2s-k1t6RdEh42bswTojvUN+279JG0O5GKSEBVFZXoug@mail.gmail.com> <CAJkfFBz7GchxuQu4=s6X19epsTeTpVpLbLzzJehqnUo8ZDJwFw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <86687F0D-E7E7-4828-A7A2-4FECD4FEE7C0@consensus.pro>

I'm afraid I disagree here: IHRL is binding upon states and that's well accepted and understood. Of course they are given force in national law, which may be your point...
 
On 22 Apr 2015, at 19:04, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:

> I should state though that fundamental rights don't have standing in
> the international arena (and can't, no matter how many treaties you
> pass . . . short of a global revolution).  We only have them
> "locally," because that's the only place we've properly claimed them.
> :-)
> 
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Exactly so.  :-)
>> 
>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart
>> <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
>>> As you wish - but in the meantime whilst you claim your standing, life rolls on, and countries are making choices. Nothing will prevent whatever actions you have in mind related to the below taking place at the same time as others work in other areas, though.
>>> 
>>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 17:06, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> No, it's not that "digital security" in general is all these things,
>>>> supposedly as opposed to a zero-sum analysis regarding quantities of
>>>> security.
>>>> 
>>>> What we want is to talk about how to retain the standing of
>>>> fundamental rights recourse over governments.  The role of private
>>>> companies is just to "launder" surveillance -- if they do it for the
>>>> governments (and especially if this scheme gets instituted
>>>> internationally, where fundamental rights don't have the standing they
>>>> do in domestic contexts), then supposedly it's okay.
>>>> 
>>>> This isn't something that's really dealt with properly by
>>>> "statutory"-like measures ("statutes" of a new, highly unhinged sort,
>>>> the kinds you get from international treaties).  It's dealt with by
>>>> claiming our standing as we the people over our governments --
>>>> specifically, denying them the opportunity to supersede our
>>>> locally-based recourse against our governments through international
>>>> con games.
>>>> 
>>>> Only after you set that principle, will you be able to try to address
>>>> the role of private parties, who don't have the limits on them that we
>>>> the people set on our governments.  *That's* more "statutory," but
>>>> again when you take up that question and enter into the "statutory"
>>>> approach there, you're not going to get it right until you first set
>>>> the principle that you don't want to set it up as a liability
>>>> protection scheme that lets private companies launder government
>>>> surveillance.  The private arena has the added problem of gaining
>>>> recourse over the corporate form in the transnational arena --
>>>> something we have also lost our moorings on.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Seth
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
>>>>> Dear Arzan,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I find some irony in the fact that you start out by calling out finger
>>>>> pointing and then immediately pointing fingers at more players ;)
>>>>> 
>>>>> I will top you - I think - on the depressing front, which is that the entire
>>>>> dialogue about privacy, surveillance, data protection, law enforcement,
>>>>> cybersecurity, human rights online is the language of "my corner is more
>>>>> important than your corner, you should change to let me do what I want."
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think the reality is that all of these are aspects of digital security.
>>>>> All of these have, at their heart, the objective of creating more safety and
>>>>> security for people - of course, we can disagree about whether some of them
>>>>> do, or whether they do it well.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The result of this is, I think, that we are then in the trap of "well, you
>>>>> give me a little of your privacy, and I'll give you a little more protection
>>>>> from criminals." This is as we know a false dichotomy but it is really
>>>>> harmful in public debate as it reinforces this terrible idea that there is
>>>>> only a limited amount of 'security' available and we have to parcel it out
>>>>> in little buckets to everyone who has a role in protecting people, a
>>>>> zero-sum.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We need a new debate that starts from the premise that digital security is
>>>>> not just any one of these things but all of them, and that the motivation at
>>>>> source of all aspects is the same. We could then have a reasonable
>>>>> conversation about how to leverage technology to actually product not a
>>>>> zero-sum but something that is more than the sum of its parts.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Of course, not all countries have the same motivations, not all stakeholders
>>>>> have the same motivations, but if we change the debate from zero-sum to
>>>>> win-win we at least have the chance to produce real reform and more safety.
>>>>> Isn't that what we all really want?
>>>>> 
>>>>> I look forward to thoughtful replies and constructive criticism. Other types
>>>>> of interventions I will leave without replying. I hope everyone understands.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 09:06, Arzak Khan <azrak_khan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>> 
>>>>> It was for the first time that I participated in such an event and my take
>>>>> on the overall conference which I also raised in one of the panel
>>>>> discussions i.e. Privacy was that while addressing the issue of privacy and
>>>>> security majority of the people were pointing fingers at the governments
>>>>> i.e. NSA, GCHQ etc. and hoping to fix the cancer by proposing or calling for
>>>>> new laws, frameworks and treaties. No one at the event questioned the role
>>>>> played by the private companies in the mass surveillance programs for the
>>>>> likes of Google sharing petabytes of data with NSA and claiming to be
>>>>> protector of internet freedom is hard to swallow. I was not entirely sure
>>>>> that passing new laws and regulations will fix the issue or stop these
>>>>> growing monopolies from mass surveillance as the very fabric of internet
>>>>> architecture is based on the concept of big data and reconnaissance.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The terms like “information freedom” and “multistakeholderism” all looks
>>>>> very good and shimmering at the surface but underneath it is the dark world
>>>>> where states are in battle for control of economic, political and social
>>>>> power. The new age communication technology allows the developed countries
>>>>> to leverage them for their own gains and political agenda far more strongly
>>>>> than the Global South and at times against them.  The growing drive to
>>>>> control the internet i.e. primarily by economic and geopolitical motivations
>>>>> rather than by the humanitarian and democratic standards should ring bells
>>>>> for people having interest internet governance as  this event highlighted
>>>>> the geopolitical contest between few major international actors while rest
>>>>> of us were the participants or subjects witnessing twenty-first-century
>>>>> statesmanship and international relations.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Arzak Khan
>>>>> Director |Internet Policy Observatory Pakistan (iPOP) | Tel +92 81 9211464 |
>>>>> Twitter: @internetpolicyp |Web: www.ipop.org.pk |
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>> From: gurstein at gmail.com
>>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:12:40 -0700
>>>>> Subject: [governance] More on the GCCS 2015
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://t.co/tzT7PkFgys
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/20/gccs_2015_roundup?mt=1429629533557
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Interesting perspective and more information …
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> So what precisely was “CS” doing at this meeting and having their
>>>>> participation presented as being in “general agreement” with the Chairman’s
>>>>> Report and (and thus legitimizing) the entire process and outcome of this
>>>>> unicorn?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Can we take silence as indicating consent from the participating “CS”
>>>>> organizations and individuals?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> M
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ You received
>>>>> this message as a subscriber on the list:governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be
>>>>> removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all
>>>>> other list information and functions,
>>>>> see:http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to
>>>>> find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this
>>>>> email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>   governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>   http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>> 
>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>   http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>   http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>> 
>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as 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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150422/0952791b/attachment.sig>

From matthias.kettemann at gmail.com  Wed Apr 22 13:56:51 2015
From: matthias.kettemann at gmail.com (Matthias C. Kettemann)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 19:56:51 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] More on the GCCS 2015
In-Reply-To: <86687F0D-E7E7-4828-A7A2-4FECD4FEE7C0@consensus.pro>
References: <02a601d07c56$600beb90$2023c2b0$@gmail.com> <BLU180-W5164976C74BAF3BC1077F5FFEE0@phx.gbl>
 <093E3B38-1B0F-4235-B187-44F337DD6FB3@consensus.pro> <CAJkfFBx3ix5xB+ZtCue1J5M63gi8=j-QzuWpWo1PvE+W+tFzOA@mail.gmail.com>
 <B462FBBF-B62A-4B07-BE14-B058570BA13F@consensus.pro> <CAJkfFBw2s-k1t6RdEh42bswTojvUN+279JG0O5GKSEBVFZXoug@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJkfFBz7GchxuQu4=s6X19epsTeTpVpLbLzzJehqnUo8ZDJwFw@mail.gmail.com> <86687F0D-E7E7-4828-A7A2-4FECD4FEE7C0@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <-7591330608739216868@unknownmsgid>

And IHR are adjudicated regularly by international courts and tribunals.

Kind regards
Matthias


> Am 22.04.2015 um 19:18 schrieb Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro>:
>
> I'm afraid I disagree here: IHRL is binding upon states and that's well accepted and understood. Of course they are given force in national law, which may be your point...
>
>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 19:04, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I should state though that fundamental rights don't have standing in
>> the international arena (and can't, no matter how many treaties you
>> pass . . . short of a global revolution).  We only have them
>> "locally," because that's the only place we've properly claimed them.
>> :-)
>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Exactly so.  :-)
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart
>>> <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
>>>> As you wish - but in the meantime whilst you claim your standing, life rolls on, and countries are making choices. Nothing will prevent whatever actions you have in mind related to the below taking place at the same time as others work in other areas, though.
>>>>
>>>>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 17:06, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it's not that "digital security" in general is all these things,
>>>>> supposedly as opposed to a zero-sum analysis regarding quantities of
>>>>> security.
>>>>>
>>>>> What we want is to talk about how to retain the standing of
>>>>> fundamental rights recourse over governments.  The role of private
>>>>> companies is just to "launder" surveillance -- if they do it for the
>>>>> governments (and especially if this scheme gets instituted
>>>>> internationally, where fundamental rights don't have the standing they
>>>>> do in domestic contexts), then supposedly it's okay.
>>>>>
>>>>> This isn't something that's really dealt with properly by
>>>>> "statutory"-like measures ("statutes" of a new, highly unhinged sort,
>>>>> the kinds you get from international treaties).  It's dealt with by
>>>>> claiming our standing as we the people over our governments --
>>>>> specifically, denying them the opportunity to supersede our
>>>>> locally-based recourse against our governments through international
>>>>> con games.
>>>>>
>>>>> Only after you set that principle, will you be able to try to address
>>>>> the role of private parties, who don't have the limits on them that we
>>>>> the people set on our governments.  *That's* more "statutory," but
>>>>> again when you take up that question and enter into the "statutory"
>>>>> approach there, you're not going to get it right until you first set
>>>>> the principle that you don't want to set it up as a liability
>>>>> protection scheme that lets private companies launder government
>>>>> surveillance.  The private arena has the added problem of gaining
>>>>> recourse over the corporate form in the transnational arena --
>>>>> something we have also lost our moorings on.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Seth
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
>>>>>> Dear Arzan,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I find some irony in the fact that you start out by calling out finger
>>>>>> pointing and then immediately pointing fingers at more players ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will top you - I think - on the depressing front, which is that the entire
>>>>>> dialogue about privacy, surveillance, data protection, law enforcement,
>>>>>> cybersecurity, human rights online is the language of "my corner is more
>>>>>> important than your corner, you should change to let me do what I want."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the reality is that all of these are aspects of digital security.
>>>>>> All of these have, at their heart, the objective of creating more safety and
>>>>>> security for people - of course, we can disagree about whether some of them
>>>>>> do, or whether they do it well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The result of this is, I think, that we are then in the trap of "well, you
>>>>>> give me a little of your privacy, and I'll give you a little more protection
>>>>>> from criminals." This is as we know a false dichotomy but it is really
>>>>>> harmful in public debate as it reinforces this terrible idea that there is
>>>>>> only a limited amount of 'security' available and we have to parcel it out
>>>>>> in little buckets to everyone who has a role in protecting people, a
>>>>>> zero-sum.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We need a new debate that starts from the premise that digital security is
>>>>>> not just any one of these things but all of them, and that the motivation at
>>>>>> source of all aspects is the same. We could then have a reasonable
>>>>>> conversation about how to leverage technology to actually product not a
>>>>>> zero-sum but something that is more than the sum of its parts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, not all countries have the same motivations, not all stakeholders
>>>>>> have the same motivations, but if we change the debate from zero-sum to
>>>>>> win-win we at least have the chance to produce real reform and more safety.
>>>>>> Isn't that what we all really want?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I look forward to thoughtful replies and constructive criticism. Other types
>>>>>> of interventions I will leave without replying. I hope everyone understands.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 09:06, Arzak Khan <azrak_khan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was for the first time that I participated in such an event and my take
>>>>>> on the overall conference which I also raised in one of the panel
>>>>>> discussions i.e. Privacy was that while addressing the issue of privacy and
>>>>>> security majority of the people were pointing fingers at the governments
>>>>>> i.e. NSA, GCHQ etc. and hoping to fix the cancer by proposing or calling for
>>>>>> new laws, frameworks and treaties. No one at the event questioned the role
>>>>>> played by the private companies in the mass surveillance programs for the
>>>>>> likes of Google sharing petabytes of data with NSA and claiming to be
>>>>>> protector of internet freedom is hard to swallow. I was not entirely sure
>>>>>> that passing new laws and regulations will fix the issue or stop these
>>>>>> growing monopolies from mass surveillance as the very fabric of internet
>>>>>> architecture is based on the concept of big data and reconnaissance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The terms like “information freedom” and “multistakeholderism” all looks
>>>>>> very good and shimmering at the surface but underneath it is the dark world
>>>>>> where states are in battle for control of economic, political and social
>>>>>> power. The new age communication technology allows the developed countries
>>>>>> to leverage them for their own gains and political agenda far more strongly
>>>>>> than the Global South and at times against them.  The growing drive to
>>>>>> control the internet i.e. primarily by economic and geopolitical motivations
>>>>>> rather than by the humanitarian and democratic standards should ring bells
>>>>>> for people having interest internet governance as  this event highlighted
>>>>>> the geopolitical contest between few major international actors while rest
>>>>>> of us were the participants or subjects witnessing twenty-first-century
>>>>>> statesmanship and international relations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Arzak Khan
>>>>>> Director |Internet Policy Observatory Pakistan (iPOP) | Tel +92 81 9211464 |
>>>>>> Twitter: @internetpolicyp |Web: www.ipop.org.pk |
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>> From: gurstein at gmail.com
>>>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:12:40 -0700
>>>>>> Subject: [governance] More on the GCCS 2015
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://t.co/tzT7PkFgys
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/20/gccs_2015_roundup?mt=1429629533557
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Interesting perspective and more information …
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So what precisely was “CS” doing at this meeting and having their
>>>>>> participation presented as being in “general agreement” with the Chairman’s
>>>>>> Report and (and thus legitimizing) the entire process and outcome of this
>>>>>> unicorn?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can we take silence as indicating consent from the participating “CS”
>>>>>> organizations and individuals?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> M
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ You received
>>>>>> this message as a subscriber on the list:governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be
>>>>>> removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all
>>>>>> other list information and functions,
>>>>>> see:http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to
>>>>>> find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this
>>>>>> email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>  governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>>  http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>  http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>>  http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>   bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>   http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as 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 seth.p.johnson at gmail.com  Wed Apr 22 14:10:52 2015
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 14:10:52 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] More on the GCCS 2015
In-Reply-To: <86687F0D-E7E7-4828-A7A2-4FECD4FEE7C0@consensus.pro>
References: <02a601d07c56$600beb90$2023c2b0$@gmail.com> <BLU180-W5164976C74BAF3BC1077F5FFEE0@phx.gbl>
 <093E3B38-1B0F-4235-B187-44F337DD6FB3@consensus.pro> <CAJkfFBx3ix5xB+ZtCue1J5M63gi8=j-QzuWpWo1PvE+W+tFzOA@mail.gmail.com>
 <B462FBBF-B62A-4B07-BE14-B058570BA13F@consensus.pro> <CAJkfFBw2s-k1t6RdEh42bswTojvUN+279JG0O5GKSEBVFZXoug@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJkfFBz7GchxuQu4=s6X19epsTeTpVpLbLzzJehqnUo8ZDJwFw@mail.gmail.com> <86687F0D-E7E7-4828-A7A2-4FECD4FEE7C0@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <CAJkfFBx4JFZdibjMBF3XRYRzqSSE6wfZZAqQHFPG-9KB=_=xKg@mail.gmail.com>

Binding doesn't make it fundamental.  The best standard of review
you'll ever get from an intergovernmental agreement is a "balancing"
standard.  That's because it's not an expression of the priority of
the people and their rights.  There's a huge difference between a
government set in limits by its people (which means your rights are
fundamental -- they are a trump card even on duly enacted acts of
elected legislatures), and intergovernmental acts.  When they say we
need to balance the war on terror and "human rights" they're really
simply stating a truism: national interests like "national security"
are weighed against rights (inevitably subjectively, by judges who
have no legal basis to do otherwise).  Rights don't win, they just
"are borne in mind."  Fundamental rights are a trump card.

The biggest problem with intergovernmental acts is that they are in
fact binding without the forms of recourse we the people claim in
relation to our governments at the domestic level.  We the people DO
NOT have those forms of recourse internationally, because we never
claimed them properly (by an exercise of constituent power, writing
and enacting the limits we the people set on our governments in
founding acts).  We only have words that look like it,
enacted by governments.  That creates at best "statutory" rights --
and not very good ones even as far as that goes.

FYI, there's a ridiculous section 8 in the present Fast Track bill:

8. SOVEREIGNTY
(a) UNITED STATES LAW TO PREVAIL IN EVENT OF CONFLICT.—No provision of
any trade agreement entered into under section 3(b), nor the
application of any such provision to any person or circumstance, that
is inconsistent with any law of the United States, any State of the
United States, or any locality of the United States shall have effect.
(b) AMENDMENTS OR MODIFICATIONS OF UNITED STATES LAW.—No provision of
any trade agreement entered into under section 3(b) shall prevent the
United States, any State of the United States, or any locality of the
United States from amending or modifying any law of the United States,
that State, or that locality (as the case may be).
(c) DISPUTE SETTLEMENT REPORTS.—Reports, including findings and
recommendations, issued by dispute settlement panels convened pursuant
to any trade agreement entered into under section 3(b) shall have no
binding effect on the law of the United States, the Government of the
United States, or the law or government of any State or locality of
the United States.


This means exactly nothing.  All it says is that nations could act to
the contrary of executive branch treaty acts -- a truism.  b and c are
new in these kinds of things, and also particularly deceptive.  c just
means you're subject to settlements under treaties regardless of
national law -- until you change the law.

This isn't about rights as such (unless in the broadest conception of
a right to self-determination by people(s)), but a perfect example of
how deceptive the game is.


Seth



On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
> I'm afraid I disagree here: IHRL is binding upon states and that's well accepted and understood. Of course they are given force in national law, which may be your point...
>
> On 22 Apr 2015, at 19:04, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I should state though that fundamental rights don't have standing in
>> the international arena (and can't, no matter how many treaties you
>> pass . . . short of a global revolution).  We only have them
>> "locally," because that's the only place we've properly claimed them.
>> :-)
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Exactly so.  :-)
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart
>>> <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
>>>> As you wish - but in the meantime whilst you claim your standing, life rolls on, and countries are making choices. Nothing will prevent whatever actions you have in mind related to the below taking place at the same time as others work in other areas, though.
>>>>
>>>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 17:06, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> No, it's not that "digital security" in general is all these things,
>>>>> supposedly as opposed to a zero-sum analysis regarding quantities of
>>>>> security.
>>>>>
>>>>> What we want is to talk about how to retain the standing of
>>>>> fundamental rights recourse over governments.  The role of private
>>>>> companies is just to "launder" surveillance -- if they do it for the
>>>>> governments (and especially if this scheme gets instituted
>>>>> internationally, where fundamental rights don't have the standing they
>>>>> do in domestic contexts), then supposedly it's okay.
>>>>>
>>>>> This isn't something that's really dealt with properly by
>>>>> "statutory"-like measures ("statutes" of a new, highly unhinged sort,
>>>>> the kinds you get from international treaties).  It's dealt with by
>>>>> claiming our standing as we the people over our governments --
>>>>> specifically, denying them the opportunity to supersede our
>>>>> locally-based recourse against our governments through international
>>>>> con games.
>>>>>
>>>>> Only after you set that principle, will you be able to try to address
>>>>> the role of private parties, who don't have the limits on them that we
>>>>> the people set on our governments.  *That's* more "statutory," but
>>>>> again when you take up that question and enter into the "statutory"
>>>>> approach there, you're not going to get it right until you first set
>>>>> the principle that you don't want to set it up as a liability
>>>>> protection scheme that lets private companies launder government
>>>>> surveillance.  The private arena has the added problem of gaining
>>>>> recourse over the corporate form in the transnational arena --
>>>>> something we have also lost our moorings on.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Seth
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
>>>>>> Dear Arzan,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I find some irony in the fact that you start out by calling out finger
>>>>>> pointing and then immediately pointing fingers at more players ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will top you - I think - on the depressing front, which is that the entire
>>>>>> dialogue about privacy, surveillance, data protection, law enforcement,
>>>>>> cybersecurity, human rights online is the language of "my corner is more
>>>>>> important than your corner, you should change to let me do what I want."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the reality is that all of these are aspects of digital security.
>>>>>> All of these have, at their heart, the objective of creating more safety and
>>>>>> security for people - of course, we can disagree about whether some of them
>>>>>> do, or whether they do it well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The result of this is, I think, that we are then in the trap of "well, you
>>>>>> give me a little of your privacy, and I'll give you a little more protection
>>>>>> from criminals." This is as we know a false dichotomy but it is really
>>>>>> harmful in public debate as it reinforces this terrible idea that there is
>>>>>> only a limited amount of 'security' available and we have to parcel it out
>>>>>> in little buckets to everyone who has a role in protecting people, a
>>>>>> zero-sum.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We need a new debate that starts from the premise that digital security is
>>>>>> not just any one of these things but all of them, and that the motivation at
>>>>>> source of all aspects is the same. We could then have a reasonable
>>>>>> conversation about how to leverage technology to actually product not a
>>>>>> zero-sum but something that is more than the sum of its parts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, not all countries have the same motivations, not all stakeholders
>>>>>> have the same motivations, but if we change the debate from zero-sum to
>>>>>> win-win we at least have the chance to produce real reform and more safety.
>>>>>> Isn't that what we all really want?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I look forward to thoughtful replies and constructive criticism. Other types
>>>>>> of interventions I will leave without replying. I hope everyone understands.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 09:06, Arzak Khan <azrak_khan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was for the first time that I participated in such an event and my take
>>>>>> on the overall conference which I also raised in one of the panel
>>>>>> discussions i.e. Privacy was that while addressing the issue of privacy and
>>>>>> security majority of the people were pointing fingers at the governments
>>>>>> i.e. NSA, GCHQ etc. and hoping to fix the cancer by proposing or calling for
>>>>>> new laws, frameworks and treaties. No one at the event questioned the role
>>>>>> played by the private companies in the mass surveillance programs for the
>>>>>> likes of Google sharing petabytes of data with NSA and claiming to be
>>>>>> protector of internet freedom is hard to swallow. I was not entirely sure
>>>>>> that passing new laws and regulations will fix the issue or stop these
>>>>>> growing monopolies from mass surveillance as the very fabric of internet
>>>>>> architecture is based on the concept of big data and reconnaissance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The terms like “information freedom” and “multistakeholderism” all looks
>>>>>> very good and shimmering at the surface but underneath it is the dark world
>>>>>> where states are in battle for control of economic, political and social
>>>>>> power. The new age communication technology allows the developed countries
>>>>>> to leverage them for their own gains and political agenda far more strongly
>>>>>> than the Global South and at times against them.  The growing drive to
>>>>>> control the internet i.e. primarily by economic and geopolitical motivations
>>>>>> rather than by the humanitarian and democratic standards should ring bells
>>>>>> for people having interest internet governance as  this event highlighted
>>>>>> the geopolitical contest between few major international actors while rest
>>>>>> of us were the participants or subjects witnessing twenty-first-century
>>>>>> statesmanship and international relations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Arzak Khan
>>>>>> Director |Internet Policy Observatory Pakistan (iPOP) | Tel +92 81 9211464 |
>>>>>> Twitter: @internetpolicyp |Web: www.ipop.org.pk |
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>> From: gurstein at gmail.com
>>>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:12:40 -0700
>>>>>> Subject: [governance] More on the GCCS 2015
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://t.co/tzT7PkFgys
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/20/gccs_2015_roundup?mt=1429629533557
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Interesting perspective and more information …
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So what precisely was “CS” doing at this meeting and having their
>>>>>> participation presented as being in “general agreement” with the Chairman’s
>>>>>> Report and (and thus legitimizing) the entire process and outcome of this
>>>>>> unicorn?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can we take silence as indicating consent from the participating “CS”
>>>>>> organizations and individuals?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> M
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ You received
>>>>>> this message as a subscriber on the list:governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be
>>>>>> removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all
>>>>>> other list information and functions,
>>>>>> see:http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to
>>>>>> find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this
>>>>>> email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>   governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>>   http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>   http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>>   http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as 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 seth.p.johnson at gmail.com  Wed Apr 22 14:11:50 2015
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 14:11:50 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] More on the GCCS 2015
In-Reply-To: <-7591330608739216868@unknownmsgid>
References: <02a601d07c56$600beb90$2023c2b0$@gmail.com> <BLU180-W5164976C74BAF3BC1077F5FFEE0@phx.gbl>
 <093E3B38-1B0F-4235-B187-44F337DD6FB3@consensus.pro> <CAJkfFBx3ix5xB+ZtCue1J5M63gi8=j-QzuWpWo1PvE+W+tFzOA@mail.gmail.com>
 <B462FBBF-B62A-4B07-BE14-B058570BA13F@consensus.pro> <CAJkfFBw2s-k1t6RdEh42bswTojvUN+279JG0O5GKSEBVFZXoug@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJkfFBz7GchxuQu4=s6X19epsTeTpVpLbLzzJehqnUo8ZDJwFw@mail.gmail.com>
 <86687F0D-E7E7-4828-A7A2-4FECD4FEE7C0@consensus.pro> <-7591330608739216868@unknownmsgid>
Message-ID: <CAJkfFBxJEihtbkwr=vmg_rN74-j_Wi=WV_g1shTF4bJNhPSHDw@mail.gmail.com>

Right.  See my note to Nick.  :-)

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Matthias C. Kettemann
<matthias.kettemann at gmail.com> wrote:
> And IHR are adjudicated regularly by international courts and tribunals.
>
> Kind regards
> Matthias
>
>
>> Am 22.04.2015 um 19:18 schrieb Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro>:
>>
>> I'm afraid I disagree here: IHRL is binding upon states and that's well accepted and understood. Of course they are given force in national law, which may be your point...
>>
>>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 19:04, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I should state though that fundamental rights don't have standing in
>>> the international arena (and can't, no matter how many treaties you
>>> pass . . . short of a global revolution).  We only have them
>>> "locally," because that's the only place we've properly claimed them.
>>> :-)
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Exactly so.  :-)
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart
>>>> <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
>>>>> As you wish - but in the meantime whilst you claim your standing, life rolls on, and countries are making choices. Nothing will prevent whatever actions you have in mind related to the below taking place at the same time as others work in other areas, though.
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 17:06, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it's not that "digital security" in general is all these things,
>>>>>> supposedly as opposed to a zero-sum analysis regarding quantities of
>>>>>> security.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What we want is to talk about how to retain the standing of
>>>>>> fundamental rights recourse over governments.  The role of private
>>>>>> companies is just to "launder" surveillance -- if they do it for the
>>>>>> governments (and especially if this scheme gets instituted
>>>>>> internationally, where fundamental rights don't have the standing they
>>>>>> do in domestic contexts), then supposedly it's okay.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This isn't something that's really dealt with properly by
>>>>>> "statutory"-like measures ("statutes" of a new, highly unhinged sort,
>>>>>> the kinds you get from international treaties).  It's dealt with by
>>>>>> claiming our standing as we the people over our governments --
>>>>>> specifically, denying them the opportunity to supersede our
>>>>>> locally-based recourse against our governments through international
>>>>>> con games.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only after you set that principle, will you be able to try to address
>>>>>> the role of private parties, who don't have the limits on them that we
>>>>>> the people set on our governments.  *That's* more "statutory," but
>>>>>> again when you take up that question and enter into the "statutory"
>>>>>> approach there, you're not going to get it right until you first set
>>>>>> the principle that you don't want to set it up as a liability
>>>>>> protection scheme that lets private companies launder government
>>>>>> surveillance.  The private arena has the added problem of gaining
>>>>>> recourse over the corporate form in the transnational arena --
>>>>>> something we have also lost our moorings on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seth
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
>>>>>>> Dear Arzan,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I find some irony in the fact that you start out by calling out finger
>>>>>>> pointing and then immediately pointing fingers at more players ;)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I will top you - I think - on the depressing front, which is that the entire
>>>>>>> dialogue about privacy, surveillance, data protection, law enforcement,
>>>>>>> cybersecurity, human rights online is the language of "my corner is more
>>>>>>> important than your corner, you should change to let me do what I want."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think the reality is that all of these are aspects of digital security.
>>>>>>> All of these have, at their heart, the objective of creating more safety and
>>>>>>> security for people - of course, we can disagree about whether some of them
>>>>>>> do, or whether they do it well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The result of this is, I think, that we are then in the trap of "well, you
>>>>>>> give me a little of your privacy, and I'll give you a little more protection
>>>>>>> from criminals." This is as we know a false dichotomy but it is really
>>>>>>> harmful in public debate as it reinforces this terrible idea that there is
>>>>>>> only a limited amount of 'security' available and we have to parcel it out
>>>>>>> in little buckets to everyone who has a role in protecting people, a
>>>>>>> zero-sum.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We need a new debate that starts from the premise that digital security is
>>>>>>> not just any one of these things but all of them, and that the motivation at
>>>>>>> source of all aspects is the same. We could then have a reasonable
>>>>>>> conversation about how to leverage technology to actually product not a
>>>>>>> zero-sum but something that is more than the sum of its parts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course, not all countries have the same motivations, not all stakeholders
>>>>>>> have the same motivations, but if we change the debate from zero-sum to
>>>>>>> win-win we at least have the chance to produce real reform and more safety.
>>>>>>> Isn't that what we all really want?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I look forward to thoughtful replies and constructive criticism. Other types
>>>>>>> of interventions I will leave without replying. I hope everyone understands.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 09:06, Arzak Khan <azrak_khan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It was for the first time that I participated in such an event and my take
>>>>>>> on the overall conference which I also raised in one of the panel
>>>>>>> discussions i.e. Privacy was that while addressing the issue of privacy and
>>>>>>> security majority of the people were pointing fingers at the governments
>>>>>>> i.e. NSA, GCHQ etc. and hoping to fix the cancer by proposing or calling for
>>>>>>> new laws, frameworks and treaties. No one at the event questioned the role
>>>>>>> played by the private companies in the mass surveillance programs for the
>>>>>>> likes of Google sharing petabytes of data with NSA and claiming to be
>>>>>>> protector of internet freedom is hard to swallow. I was not entirely sure
>>>>>>> that passing new laws and regulations will fix the issue or stop these
>>>>>>> growing monopolies from mass surveillance as the very fabric of internet
>>>>>>> architecture is based on the concept of big data and reconnaissance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The terms like “information freedom” and “multistakeholderism” all looks
>>>>>>> very good and shimmering at the surface but underneath it is the dark world
>>>>>>> where states are in battle for control of economic, political and social
>>>>>>> power. The new age communication technology allows the developed countries
>>>>>>> to leverage them for their own gains and political agenda far more strongly
>>>>>>> than the Global South and at times against them.  The growing drive to
>>>>>>> control the internet i.e. primarily by economic and geopolitical motivations
>>>>>>> rather than by the humanitarian and democratic standards should ring bells
>>>>>>> for people having interest internet governance as  this event highlighted
>>>>>>> the geopolitical contest between few major international actors while rest
>>>>>>> of us were the participants or subjects witnessing twenty-first-century
>>>>>>> statesmanship and international relations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Arzak Khan
>>>>>>> Director |Internet Policy Observatory Pakistan (iPOP) | Tel +92 81 9211464 |
>>>>>>> Twitter: @internetpolicyp |Web: www.ipop.org.pk |
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>> From: gurstein at gmail.com
>>>>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>>> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:12:40 -0700
>>>>>>> Subject: [governance] More on the GCCS 2015
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://t.co/tzT7PkFgys
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/20/gccs_2015_roundup?mt=1429629533557
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Interesting perspective and more information …
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So what precisely was “CS” doing at this meeting and having their
>>>>>>> participation presented as being in “general agreement” with the Chairman’s
>>>>>>> Report and (and thus legitimizing) the entire process and outcome of this
>>>>>>> unicorn?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can we take silence as indicating consent from the participating “CS”
>>>>>>> organizations and individuals?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> M
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ You received
>>>>>>> this message as a subscriber on the list:governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be
>>>>>>> removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all
>>>>>>> other list information and functions,
>>>>>>> see:http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to
>>>>>>> find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this
>>>>>>> email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>  governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>>>  http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>>  http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>>>  http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>   bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>>   http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as 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 seth.p.johnson at gmail.com  Wed Apr 22 15:35:47 2015
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 15:35:47 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] More on the GCCS 2015
In-Reply-To: <CAJkfFBx4JFZdibjMBF3XRYRzqSSE6wfZZAqQHFPG-9KB=_=xKg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <02a601d07c56$600beb90$2023c2b0$@gmail.com> <BLU180-W5164976C74BAF3BC1077F5FFEE0@phx.gbl>
 <093E3B38-1B0F-4235-B187-44F337DD6FB3@consensus.pro> <CAJkfFBx3ix5xB+ZtCue1J5M63gi8=j-QzuWpWo1PvE+W+tFzOA@mail.gmail.com>
 <B462FBBF-B62A-4B07-BE14-B058570BA13F@consensus.pro> <CAJkfFBw2s-k1t6RdEh42bswTojvUN+279JG0O5GKSEBVFZXoug@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJkfFBz7GchxuQu4=s6X19epsTeTpVpLbLzzJehqnUo8ZDJwFw@mail.gmail.com>
 <86687F0D-E7E7-4828-A7A2-4FECD4FEE7C0@consensus.pro> <CAJkfFBx4JFZdibjMBF3XRYRzqSSE6wfZZAqQHFPG-9KB=_=xKg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJkfFBwR7aa6GaUuw8oMKzQF0m7qFkQiqwYi1XHv2h=WD02g8A@mail.gmail.com>

(small insert at bottom)

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
> Binding doesn't make it fundamental.  The best standard of review
> you'll ever get from an intergovernmental agreement is a "balancing"
> standard.  That's because it's not an expression of the priority of
> the people and their rights.  There's a huge difference between a
> government set in limits by its people (which means your rights are
> fundamental -- they are a trump card even on duly enacted acts of
> elected legislatures), and intergovernmental acts.  When they say we
> need to balance the war on terror and "human rights" they're really
> simply stating a truism: national interests like "national security"
> are weighed against rights (inevitably subjectively, by judges who
> have no legal basis to do otherwise).  Rights don't win, they just
> "are borne in mind."  Fundamental rights are a trump card.
>
> The biggest problem with intergovernmental acts is that they are in
> fact binding without the forms of recourse we the people claim in
> relation to our governments at the domestic level.  We the people DO
> NOT have those forms of recourse internationally, because we never
> claimed them properly (by an exercise of constituent power, writing
> and enacting the limits we the people set on our governments in
> founding acts).  We only have words that look like it,
> enacted by governments.  That creates at best "statutory" rights --
> and not very good ones even as far as that goes.
>
> FYI, there's a ridiculous section 8 in the present Fast Track bill:
>
> 8. SOVEREIGNTY
> (a) UNITED STATES LAW TO PREVAIL IN EVENT OF CONFLICT.—No provision of
> any trade agreement entered into under section 3(b), nor the
> application of any such provision to any person or circumstance, that
> is inconsistent with any law of the United States, any State of the
> United States, or any locality of the United States shall have effect.
> (b) AMENDMENTS OR MODIFICATIONS OF UNITED STATES LAW.—No provision of
> any trade agreement entered into under section 3(b) shall prevent the
> United States, any State of the United States, or any locality of the
> United States from amending or modifying any law of the United States,
> that State, or that locality (as the case may be).
> (c) DISPUTE SETTLEMENT REPORTS.—Reports, including findings and
> recommendations, issued by dispute settlement panels convened pursuant
> to any trade agreement entered into under section 3(b) shall have no
> binding effect on the law of the United States, the Government of the
> United States, or the law or government of any State or locality of
> the United States.
>
>
> This means exactly nothing.  All it says is that nations could act to
> the contrary of executive branch treaty acts -- a truism.


All it says is that *The United States* could act to the contrary on
its executive branch's treaty acts.

(eom)


> b and c are
> new in these kinds of things, and also particularly deceptive.  c just
> means you're subject to settlements under treaties regardless of
> national law -- until you change the law.
>
> This isn't about rights as such (unless in the broadest conception of
> a right to self-determination by people(s)), but a perfect example of
> how deceptive the game is.
>
>
> Seth
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
>> I'm afraid I disagree here: IHRL is binding upon states and that's well accepted and understood. Of course they are given force in national law, which may be your point...
>>
>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 19:04, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I should state though that fundamental rights don't have standing in
>>> the international arena (and can't, no matter how many treaties you
>>> pass . . . short of a global revolution).  We only have them
>>> "locally," because that's the only place we've properly claimed them.
>>> :-)
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Exactly so.  :-)
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart
>>>> <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
>>>>> As you wish - but in the meantime whilst you claim your standing, life rolls on, and countries are making choices. Nothing will prevent whatever actions you have in mind related to the below taking place at the same time as others work in other areas, though.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 17:06, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it's not that "digital security" in general is all these things,
>>>>>> supposedly as opposed to a zero-sum analysis regarding quantities of
>>>>>> security.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What we want is to talk about how to retain the standing of
>>>>>> fundamental rights recourse over governments.  The role of private
>>>>>> companies is just to "launder" surveillance -- if they do it for the
>>>>>> governments (and especially if this scheme gets instituted
>>>>>> internationally, where fundamental rights don't have the standing they
>>>>>> do in domestic contexts), then supposedly it's okay.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This isn't something that's really dealt with properly by
>>>>>> "statutory"-like measures ("statutes" of a new, highly unhinged sort,
>>>>>> the kinds you get from international treaties).  It's dealt with by
>>>>>> claiming our standing as we the people over our governments --
>>>>>> specifically, denying them the opportunity to supersede our
>>>>>> locally-based recourse against our governments through international
>>>>>> con games.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only after you set that principle, will you be able to try to address
>>>>>> the role of private parties, who don't have the limits on them that we
>>>>>> the people set on our governments.  *That's* more "statutory," but
>>>>>> again when you take up that question and enter into the "statutory"
>>>>>> approach there, you're not going to get it right until you first set
>>>>>> the principle that you don't want to set it up as a liability
>>>>>> protection scheme that lets private companies launder government
>>>>>> surveillance.  The private arena has the added problem of gaining
>>>>>> recourse over the corporate form in the transnational arena --
>>>>>> something we have also lost our moorings on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seth
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
>>>>>>> Dear Arzan,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I find some irony in the fact that you start out by calling out finger
>>>>>>> pointing and then immediately pointing fingers at more players ;)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I will top you - I think - on the depressing front, which is that the entire
>>>>>>> dialogue about privacy, surveillance, data protection, law enforcement,
>>>>>>> cybersecurity, human rights online is the language of "my corner is more
>>>>>>> important than your corner, you should change to let me do what I want."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think the reality is that all of these are aspects of digital security.
>>>>>>> All of these have, at their heart, the objective of creating more safety and
>>>>>>> security for people - of course, we can disagree about whether some of them
>>>>>>> do, or whether they do it well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The result of this is, I think, that we are then in the trap of "well, you
>>>>>>> give me a little of your privacy, and I'll give you a little more protection
>>>>>>> from criminals." This is as we know a false dichotomy but it is really
>>>>>>> harmful in public debate as it reinforces this terrible idea that there is
>>>>>>> only a limited amount of 'security' available and we have to parcel it out
>>>>>>> in little buckets to everyone who has a role in protecting people, a
>>>>>>> zero-sum.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We need a new debate that starts from the premise that digital security is
>>>>>>> not just any one of these things but all of them, and that the motivation at
>>>>>>> source of all aspects is the same. We could then have a reasonable
>>>>>>> conversation about how to leverage technology to actually product not a
>>>>>>> zero-sum but something that is more than the sum of its parts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course, not all countries have the same motivations, not all stakeholders
>>>>>>> have the same motivations, but if we change the debate from zero-sum to
>>>>>>> win-win we at least have the chance to produce real reform and more safety.
>>>>>>> Isn't that what we all really want?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I look forward to thoughtful replies and constructive criticism. Other types
>>>>>>> of interventions I will leave without replying. I hope everyone understands.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 09:06, Arzak Khan <azrak_khan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It was for the first time that I participated in such an event and my take
>>>>>>> on the overall conference which I also raised in one of the panel
>>>>>>> discussions i.e. Privacy was that while addressing the issue of privacy and
>>>>>>> security majority of the people were pointing fingers at the governments
>>>>>>> i.e. NSA, GCHQ etc. and hoping to fix the cancer by proposing or calling for
>>>>>>> new laws, frameworks and treaties. No one at the event questioned the role
>>>>>>> played by the private companies in the mass surveillance programs for the
>>>>>>> likes of Google sharing petabytes of data with NSA and claiming to be
>>>>>>> protector of internet freedom is hard to swallow. I was not entirely sure
>>>>>>> that passing new laws and regulations will fix the issue or stop these
>>>>>>> growing monopolies from mass surveillance as the very fabric of internet
>>>>>>> architecture is based on the concept of big data and reconnaissance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The terms like “information freedom” and “multistakeholderism” all looks
>>>>>>> very good and shimmering at the surface but underneath it is the dark world
>>>>>>> where states are in battle for control of economic, political and social
>>>>>>> power. The new age communication technology allows the developed countries
>>>>>>> to leverage them for their own gains and political agenda far more strongly
>>>>>>> than the Global South and at times against them.  The growing drive to
>>>>>>> control the internet i.e. primarily by economic and geopolitical motivations
>>>>>>> rather than by the humanitarian and democratic standards should ring bells
>>>>>>> for people having interest internet governance as  this event highlighted
>>>>>>> the geopolitical contest between few major international actors while rest
>>>>>>> of us were the participants or subjects witnessing twenty-first-century
>>>>>>> statesmanship and international relations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Arzak Khan
>>>>>>> Director |Internet Policy Observatory Pakistan (iPOP) | Tel +92 81 9211464 |
>>>>>>> Twitter: @internetpolicyp |Web: www.ipop.org.pk |
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>> From: gurstein at gmail.com
>>>>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>>>>>> Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:12:40 -0700
>>>>>>> Subject: [governance] More on the GCCS 2015
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://t.co/tzT7PkFgys
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/20/gccs_2015_roundup?mt=1429629533557
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Interesting perspective and more information …
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So what precisely was “CS” doing at this meeting and having their
>>>>>>> participation presented as being in “general agreement” with the Chairman’s
>>>>>>> Report and (and thus legitimizing) the entire process and outcome of this
>>>>>>> unicorn?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can we take silence as indicating consent from the participating “CS”
>>>>>>> organizations and individuals?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> M
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ You received
>>>>>>> this message as a subscriber on the list:governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be
>>>>>>> removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all
>>>>>>> other list information and functions,
>>>>>>> see:http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to
>>>>>>> find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this
>>>>>>> email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>   governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>>>   http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>>   http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>>>   http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>>>>    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as 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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Thu Apr 23 06:22:24 2015
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 07:22:24 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Giponet.org now live
Message-ID: <CACpVkK1WcFUOibCXY2eMeh19CfurgovL-tBLPrPX0vnrGgmGwA@mail.gmail.com>

Information has been sent today about the official launch of the Global
Internet Policy Observatory (GIPO) website. May be of interest.
Best wishes,
Marília

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <Cristina.MONTI at ec.europa.eu>
Date: Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 7:06 AM
Subject: Giponet.org now live
To:
Cc: Maciej.TOMASZEWSKI at ec.europa.eu


 Dear colleagues,

I am glad to announce that the website giponet.org <http://giponet.org/en>
is now live! This website will allow interested stakeholders to get
involved in the creation of the Global Internet Policy Observatory (GIPO).

Through this website, users will be able to:

   - tell the GIPO team what kind of information they wish to get through
   the Observatory;

 ·         follow online webinars on the project, to directly discuss with
the team how to make the tool work for them. The first webinar
<http://giponet.org/en/content/webinar-introduction-global-internet-policy-observatory-online-platform>
is planned for 30 April;

·         find upcoming workshops <http://giponet.org/en/events> that they
can attend in person to ask questions and contribute their thoughts. The
first such workshop
<http://eurodigwiki.org/wiki/Co-designing_the_Global_Internet_Policy_Observatory_%28GIPO%29>
will take place during EuroDIG <http://www.eurodig.org/> on 4 June in Sofia;

·         find information on how the project advances

·         subscribe to the GIPO Newsletter
<http://giponet.org/en/newsletter> and social media channels (Twitter
<https://twitter.com/gipo_net>, Google+
<https://plus.google.com/u/0/115001429269158222435/posts>, Linkedin
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/giponet> and YouTube
<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUoP8ZuxRpp0yYtWxI7v0rQ>) to find out
more on the state of play of activities and share ideas and proposals.

A digibyte has also been published on the Digital Agenda website:
http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/how-can-we-help-you-get-more-involved-internet-governance



Feel free to spread this information to relevant organisations and
individuals who might be interested in this project.

Thanks and kind regards,

Cristina





*CRISTINA MONTI*
International Relations Officer


*European Commission*
Directorate-General for Communication Networks, Content and Technology
International Unit

BU25 04/95
B-1049 Brussels/Belgium
Office: +32 229 69467 Mobile: +32 460 769467
cristina.monti at ec.europa.eu

Think before you print!





-- 
*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
PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/
Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" -
http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150423/f553cc09/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 3898 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150423/f553cc09/attachment.gif>

From renata.avila at webfoundation.org  Thu Apr 23 07:26:36 2015
From: renata.avila at webfoundation.org (Renata Avila)
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 13:26:36 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] [discuss] Internet Governance in Latin America
 research project
In-Reply-To: <CAFC=nJwA5oTqngv34gTCsd8yK=SZzqxg3iGy799Dvnn8X8TiFw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMokdMxZhWu1LQ_J4Q-4=ufxQRxYbCh2N1pdQUxAYmfru5n9-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <5537C529.2000405@gmail.com> <1934529599.12787236.1429718968295.JavaMail.zimbra@article19.org>
 <1354636193.12787280.1429718996652.JavaMail.zimbra@article19.org> <CAFC=nJwA5oTqngv34gTCsd8yK=SZzqxg3iGy799Dvnn8X8TiFw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOa=Yc0BDBd=OSZWnNe=zD-by5n4-W=jM8_U--9ft8iu5gQeFA@mail.gmail.com>

​Dear Renata,

​I am happy to share with you that actually the Latin American community is
one of the most robust and developed in different areas of digital rights,
key to actually take part and meaningfully participate in the new "Internet
Governance" field. Most of the organizations are young but some of them
have been around for over a decade.

Derechos Digitales did a fantastic job in creating redlatam.org a directory
where you will find mapped most  of  the organizations in the field and
there you can find an interesting catalogue of the leadership. You could
also see the good work of many in the Latin American newsletter
http://www.digitalrightslac.net

There are some disconnects but there are lots of different and sometimes
diverging people doing high quality job in the field.

​Best Regards,

​

​
On 22 Apr 2015 19:02, "Adebunmi AKINBO" <akinbo at nira.org.ng> wrote:

> Dear Reneta,
> Should you have an question with Africa in perspective, you can ask me.
> You may also visit the NiGF <http://www.nigf.org.ng>Website for Nigeria.
>
> Regards.
> -Akinbo
> President, Young Internet Professionals.
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 5:09 PM, <laura at article19.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi, Renata
>> You also have a lot of info at https://redlatam.org/es.
>> Best,
>> Laura.
>>
>> ----- Mensagem original -----
>> De: "willi uebelherr" <willi.uebelherr at gmail.com>
>> Para: "Renata Aquino" <raquino at gmail.com>
>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, bestbits at lists.bestbits.net, "1net.org
>> discuss" <discuss at 1net.org>
>> Enviadas: Quarta-feira, 22 de abril de 2015 12:58:33
>> Assunto: Re: [bestbits] Internet Governance in Latin America research
>> project
>>
>> Dear Renata,
>>
>> it can be a good initiative. But my experience in Latin America show me,
>> that there are no people to understand, what is "Internet Governance"
>> and what we have to do to create a InterNet. Maybe, also the most people
>> on this lists don't understand, what we have to do.
>>
>> Connect to the different Ministerios in the different countries. Then
>> ypu can see and hear, that they don't understand the themes "tele
>> communication". But they create decisions. And this always based on the
>> external definitions.
>>
>> In my last 4 years in Latin America never i found people with
>> connections to the international discussions about Internet. Never i
>> found people with a critical thinking to that, what we give the name
>> Internet.
>>
>> In Latin America we have the organized consumerism. They use only the
>> technical systems from the external regions. But never they start to
>> understand the technical bases. And this we find also in NetMundial in
>> Brazil.
>>
>> many greetings, willi
>> Cordoba, Argentina
>>
>>
>> Am 4/22/2015 um 11:18 AM schrieb Renata Aquino:
>> > Hello
>> >
>> > I’m working on a research Project on Internet Governance in Latin
>> America
>> > currently building a list of organizations in this area. The goal of
>> this
>> > Project is to identify paths for novices to participate in these
>> > discussions as well as hearing out experts who could point out the way
>> to
>> > main issues in the region.
>> >
>> > I’d be grateful if this group could help me pointing out resources,
>> > organizations or professionals I may have missed.
>> >
>> > The list I’ve gathered so far is below and please send comments to
>> > raquino at gmail.com
>> >
>> > The next phase of this Project will be to contact key professionals in
>> the
>> > area of Internet Governance to do a series of interviews. If you’d like
>> to
>> > participate or nominate someone for an interview please send me an
>> email.
>> >
>> > This is an ongoing Project with plans to present in the future in
>> intenet
>> > governance events in Latin America.
>> >
>> > Thanks for any help
>> >
>> > Renata Aquino Ribeiro
>> >
>> > Professor and researcher
>> >
>> > IT Campus – Quixadá City
>> >
>> > Federal University of Ceará – Brazil
>> >
>> > -----
>> >
>> > Main organizations involved in internet governance in Latin America
>> >
>> > (Please sendo info about speakers for these to raquino at gmail.com)
>> >
>> > * CITEL
>> >
>> > URL: http://www.citel.oas.org
>> >
>> > * eLAC
>> >
>> > http://www.cepal.org/elac2015/default.asp
>> >
>> > * LACIGF
>> >
>> > http://www.lacigf.org
>> >
>> > * LACNIC
>> >
>> > http://www.lacnic.net
>> >
>> > * LACTLD - Latin American and Caribbean ccTLDs Organization
>> >
>> > http://www.lactld.org
>> >
>> > * LatinoamerICANN
>> >
>> > http://latinoamericann.org <http://latinoamericann.org/?q=node/1725>
>> >
>> > * LACRALO
>> >
>> > http://www.atlarge.icann.org/lacralo
>> >
>> > * LAC IPv6 Task Force e FLIP
>> >
>> > http://portalipv6.lacnic.net/en/flip6-and-lac-ipv6-tf/
>> >
>> > * Internet Society - Mexico, El Salvador, Porto Rico, Costa Rica,
>> Trinidad
>> > e Tobago, Venezuela, Colombia, Equador, Peru, Brasil, Bolivia, Paraguai,
>> > Uruguai, Argentina
>> >
>> > http://www.internetsociety.org
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>> >       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>> >
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150423/8e367af9/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Thu Apr 23 08:32:21 2015
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 08:32:21 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Giponet.org now live
In-Reply-To: <1CE9542B07571149A7CD4AB01871A95F36200982@S-DC-ESTF04-B.net1.cec.eu.int>
References: <1CE9542B07571149A7CD4AB01871A95F362005FE@S-DC-ESTF04-B.net1.cec.eu.int>
	<1CE9542B07571149A7CD4AB01871A95F36200982@S-DC-ESTF04-B.net1.cec.eu.int>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAdPV2OdHZKgeC8tZO08ZWRT=GOTutCDupyiYikFuXvuig@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:  <Cristina.MONTI at ec.europa.eu>
Date: Thursday, April 23, 2015
Subject: Giponet.org now live
To:
Cc: Maciej.TOMASZEWSKI at ec.europa.eu


 Dear colleagues,

I am glad to announce that the website giponet.org <http://giponet.org/en>
is now live! This website will allow interested stakeholders to get
involved in the creation of the Global Internet Policy Observatory (GIPO).

Through this website, users will be able to:

   - tell the GIPO team what kind of information they wish to get through
   the Observatory;

 ·         follow online webinars on the project, to directly discuss with
the team how to make the tool work for them. The first webinar
<http://giponet.org/en/content/webinar-introduction-global-internet-policy-observatory-online-platform>
is planned for 30 April;

·         find upcoming workshops <http://giponet.org/en/events> that they
can attend in person to ask questions and contribute their thoughts. The
first such workshop
<http://eurodigwiki.org/wiki/Co-designing_the_Global_Internet_Policy_Observatory_%28GIPO%29>
will take place during EuroDIG <http://www.eurodig.org/> on 4 June in Sofia;

·         find information on how the project advances

·         subscribe to the GIPO Newsletter
<http://giponet.org/en/newsletter> and social media channels (Twitter
<https://twitter.com/gipo_net>, Google+
<https://plus.google.com/u/0/115001429269158222435/posts>, Linkedin
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/giponet> and YouTube
<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUoP8ZuxRpp0yYtWxI7v0rQ>) to find out
more on the state of play of activities and share ideas and proposals.

A digibyte has also been published on the Digital Agenda website:
http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/how-can-we-help-you-get-more-involved-internet-governance



Feel free to spread this information to relevant organisations and
individuals who might be interested in this project.

Thanks and kind regards,

Cristina





*CRISTINA MONTI*
International Relations Officer


*European Commission*
Directorate-General for Communication Networks, Content and Technology
International Unit

BU25 04/95
B-1049 Brussels/Belgium
Office: +32 229 69467 Mobile: +32 460 769467
cristina.monti at ec.europa.eu
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cristina.monti at ec.europa.eu');>

Think before you print!





-- 

*Carolina Rossini *
*Vice President, International Policy*
*Public Knowledge*
*http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
+ 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150423/bf72a0f6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 3898 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150423/bf72a0f6/attachment.gif>

From nnenna75 at gmail.com  Thu Apr  2 04:29:25 2015
From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma)
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 08:29:25 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Opening Session @ the Global Conference on Cyberspace -
 thoughts welcome
Message-ID: <CADFgh117w=fAZ48vvDcz-9qHDeLKNE1_r1yYxz=zW_whGr0jhA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

If all goes as planned, I will be at the opening panel on the morning of
April 16th.  If you have any thoughts you would like me "not to forget",
please feel free to share.  I have pasted the blurb, including the
questions below.  Kindly note the following:

   1. Because I only arrive on the 15th, I will be missing the Civil
   Society pre-event. So apologies upfront.
   2. I will try, to the measure possible to represent Civil Society views,
   but I do not and will not pretend to be representing anybody.
   3. I neither have the energy, time, nor bandwidth to engage in any
   debates, especially the type that seeks to lead nowhere, that has become
   the signature of some CS spaces.
   4. Feel free to mail nnenna at webfoundation directly if that is the best
   option for you.

==

Opening session

Mark Rutte, Prime Minister of the Netherlands, will open the conference,
followed by an introduction by Bert Koenders, Minister of Foreign Affairs
of the Netherlands, host of the GCCS. The conference will start with a
strategic discussion among representatives of all stakeholders on the most
important current developments in cyberspace. A panel consisting of
high-level government officials and private sector and civil society
leaders will sketch the main opportunities, dilemmas and challenges facing
the further evolution of the internet. All main issues of the conference
will be touched upon: internet governance and multistakeholder cooperation,
freedom and privacy online, the digital divide, the internet as enabler for
social and economic development, cyber security and cybercrime. The panel
will address questions such as:

   - How should we balance freedom, security and economic development and
   innovation in cyberspace?
   - How do we guarantee an open, free and secure internet?
   - What are the responsibilities of the various stakeholders in
   cyberspace, e.g.: what  role should governments vis a vis the private
   sector play in protecting privacy online?
   - How can we improve cooperation between governments, private sector and
   civil society in cyber-related matters?
   - How can we maintain and improve trust by consumers in the internet?
   - How can we stimulate research and development, and interdisciplinary
   academic cooperation in order to strengthen cyberspace?

The panel will be followed by ministerial statements.

*Panelists:*

   - Mireille Ballestrazzi
   <https://www.gccs2015.com/sites/default/files/documents/Mireille%20Ballestrazzi.pdf>,
   President of Interpol
   - Vint Cerf
   <https://www.gccs2015.com/sites/default/files/documents/Vint%20Cerf.pdf>,
   Vice-President of Google
   - Nnenna Nwakanma
   <https://www.gccs2015.com/sites/default/files/documents/Nenna%20Nwakanma.pdf>,
   World Wide Web Foundation
   - Fadi Chehadé
   <https://www.gccs2015.com/sites/default/files/documents/Fadi%20Chehad%C3%A9%20opening%20session.pdf>,
   CEO ICANN
   - Yurie Ito
   <https://www.gccs2015.com/sites/default/files/documents/Yurie%20Ito%20Opening.pdf>,
Director
   of Global Coordination Division for the JPCERT/CC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150402/3fd6c8c0/attachment.htm>

From isolatedn at gmail.com  Thu Apr 23 09:21:53 2015
From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M)
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 18:51:53 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] Please Circulate: Announcement
 and Public Comment page for the 2nd Draft!
In-Reply-To: <D15E63EF.18458%grace.abuhamad@icann.org>
References: <D15E63EF.18458%grace.abuhamad@icann.org>
Message-ID: <CAHyAo0HkvvRZm6OJhXZvUWc8r6-gNomAk8t0bqRJqs=jqwp60g@mail.gmail.com>

The ICANN Cross Community Working Group on IANA Transition has called for
comments on its second draft proposal:

Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org>
Date: Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 6:25 PM
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Please Circulate: Announcement and Public
Comment page for the 2nd Draft!
To: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Cc: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer at icann.org>


Dear CWG-Stewardship Ambassadors,

Here are two important links to circulate as widely as the multistakeholder
model can reach:

   - Announcement: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-22-en
   - Public Comment page:
   https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04-22-en

Also, we have about 30 people registered for each of the webinars tomorrow,
but it would be great to recirculate the webinar announcement again as
well:
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-16-en

Thank you!
Grace

2nd Draft Proposal of the Cross Community Working Group to Develop an
IANA Stewardship
Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions
<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-22-en#>
<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-22-en#>
<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-22-en#>
<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-22-en#>
<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-22-en#>
<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-22-en#>
*Forum Announcement:*Comment Period Opens on*Date:*22 April 2015
*Categories/Tags:*IANA Stewardship Transition*Purpose (Brief):*

The ICANN Cross Community Working Group responsible for the naming related
portion of the IANA Stewardship Transition (CWG-Stewardship)1
<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-22-en#foot1> seeks public
comment on its 2nd draft proposal for the transition of the stewardship of
the IANA Functions Contract from the U. S. Department of Commerce's NTIA to
the global multistakeholder community. The draft proposal has been prepared
in order to pave the way for a response (the Final Proposal) to the
IANAStewardship
Coordination Group (ICG) request for proposals.

Though less than the required 40-day minimum, this Public Comment period
has been approved by two ICANN Global Leaders.
*Public Comment Box Link:*
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04-22-en
------------------------------

1 <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-04-22-en#note1> In March
2014, the U.S. Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to transition its
stewardship role of the IANA Functions and related Root Zone Management.
ICANN was called upon to facilitate this process, and in June 2014, after a
series of community consultations, ICANN announced the creation of the
IANA Stewardship
Transition Coordination Group (ICG), responsible for preparing a transition
proposal reflecting the differing needs of the various affected parties of
the IANA Functions. The ICG announced its Request for Proposals in
September 2014, available here:
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2014-09-03-en.

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150423/cf0dbd75/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5108 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150423/cf0dbd75/attachment.bin>

From valeriab at apc.org  Thu Apr 23 09:44:10 2015
From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt)
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 08:44:10 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] [discuss] Internet Governance in Latin America
 research project
In-Reply-To: <CAOa=Yc0BDBd=OSZWnNe=zD-by5n4-W=jM8_U--9ft8iu5gQeFA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMokdMxZhWu1LQ_J4Q-4=ufxQRxYbCh2N1pdQUxAYmfru5n9-w@mail.gmail.com> <5537C529.2000405@gmail.com> <1934529599.12787236.1429718968295.JavaMail.zimbra@article19.org> <1354636193.12787280.1429718996652.JavaMail.zimbra@article19.org> <CAFC=nJwA5oTqngv34gTCsd8yK=SZzqxg3iGy799Dvnn8X8TiFw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOa=Yc0BDBd=OSZWnNe=zD-by5n4-W=jM8_U--9ft8iu5gQeFA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5538F72A.9050808@apc.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Dear Renata,

Just to add to what Renata Avila mentions, I would be also happy to
share with you an overview of the evolution of the LAC IGF process
which started in 2008 as an attempt to offer a platform for political
dialogue among the various stakeholders on internet governance from a
Latin American perspective.
http://www.lacigf.org/en/index.html

It has been a consistent multistakeholder effort around IG since then.
Civil society organisations including NUPEF and APC have been actively
involved since its inception and the space is currently enriched by
the increased participation of governments. Let us know if you want to
have more details about this and other work in the region on IG matters.

Valeria

On 23/04/15 6:26, Renata Avila wrote:
> ​Dear Renata,
> 
> ​I am happy to share with you that actually the Latin American
> community is one of the most robust and developed in different
> areas of digital rights, key to actually take part and meaningfully
> participate in the new "Internet Governance" field. Most of the
> organizations are young but some of them have been around for over
> a decade.
> 
> Derechos Digitales did a fantastic job in creating redlatam.org a
> directory where you will find mapped most  of  the organizations in
> the field and there you can find an interesting catalogue of the
> leadership. You could also see the good work of many in the Latin
> American newsletter http://www.digitalrightslac.net
> 
> There are some disconnects but there are lots of different and
> sometimes diverging people doing high quality job in the field.
> 
> ​Best Regards,
> 
> ​
> 
> ​ On 22 Apr 2015 19:02, "Adebunmi AKINBO" <akinbo at nira.org.ng>
> wrote:
> 
>> Dear Reneta, Should you have an question with Africa in
>> perspective, you can ask me. You may also visit the NiGF
>> <http://www.nigf.org.ng>Website for Nigeria.
>> 
>> Regards. -Akinbo President, Young Internet Professionals.
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 5:09 PM, <laura at article19.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi, Renata You also have a lot of info at
>>> https://redlatam.org/es. Best, Laura.
>>> 
>>> ----- Mensagem original ----- De: "willi uebelherr"
>>> <willi.uebelherr at gmail.com> Para: "Renata Aquino"
>>> <raquino at gmail.com> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,
>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net, "1net.org discuss"
>>> <discuss at 1net.org> Enviadas: Quarta-feira, 22 de abril de 2015
>>> 12:58:33 Assunto: Re: [bestbits] Internet Governance in Latin
>>> America research project
>>> 
>>> Dear Renata,
>>> 
>>> it can be a good initiative. But my experience in Latin America
>>> show me, that there are no people to understand, what is
>>> "Internet Governance" and what we have to do to create a
>>> InterNet. Maybe, also the most people on this lists don't
>>> understand, what we have to do.
>>> 
>>> Connect to the different Ministerios in the different
>>> countries. Then ypu can see and hear, that they don't
>>> understand the themes "tele communication". But they create
>>> decisions. And this always based on the external definitions.
>>> 
>>> In my last 4 years in Latin America never i found people with 
>>> connections to the international discussions about Internet.
>>> Never i found people with a critical thinking to that, what we
>>> give the name Internet.
>>> 
>>> In Latin America we have the organized consumerism. They use
>>> only the technical systems from the external regions. But never
>>> they start to understand the technical bases. And this we find
>>> also in NetMundial in Brazil.
>>> 
>>> many greetings, willi Cordoba, Argentina
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Am 4/22/2015 um 11:18 AM schrieb Renata Aquino:
>>>> Hello
>>>> 
>>>> I’m working on a research Project on Internet Governance in
>>>> Latin
>>> America
>>>> currently building a list of organizations in this area. The
>>>> goal of
>>> this
>>>> Project is to identify paths for novices to participate in
>>>> these discussions as well as hearing out experts who could
>>>> point out the way
>>> to
>>>> main issues in the region.
>>>> 
>>>> I’d be grateful if this group could help me pointing out
>>>> resources, organizations or professionals I may have missed.
>>>> 
>>>> The list I’ve gathered so far is below and please send
>>>> comments to raquino at gmail.com
>>>> 
>>>> The next phase of this Project will be to contact key
>>>> professionals in
>>> the
>>>> area of Internet Governance to do a series of interviews. If
>>>> you’d like
>>> to
>>>> participate or nominate someone for an interview please send
>>>> me an
>>> email.
>>>> 
>>>> This is an ongoing Project with plans to present in the
>>>> future in
>>> intenet
>>>> governance events in Latin America.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for any help
>>>> 
>>>> Renata Aquino Ribeiro
>>>> 
>>>> Professor and researcher
>>>> 
>>>> IT Campus – Quixadá City
>>>> 
>>>> Federal University of Ceará – Brazil
>>>> 
>>>> -----
>>>> 
>>>> Main organizations involved in internet governance in Latin
>>>> America
>>>> 
>>>> (Please sendo info about speakers for these to
>>>> raquino at gmail.com)
>>>> 
>>>> * CITEL
>>>> 
>>>> URL: http://www.citel.oas.org
>>>> 
>>>> * eLAC
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.cepal.org/elac2015/default.asp
>>>> 
>>>> * LACIGF
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.lacigf.org
>>>> 
>>>> * LACNIC
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.lacnic.net
>>>> 
>>>> * LACTLD - Latin American and Caribbean ccTLDs Organization
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.lactld.org
>>>> 
>>>> * LatinoamerICANN
>>>> 
>>>> http://latinoamericann.org
>>>> <http://latinoamericann.org/?q=node/1725>
>>>> 
>>>> * LACRALO
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.atlarge.icann.org/lacralo
>>>> 
>>>> * LAC IPv6 Task Force e FLIP
>>>> 
>>>> http://portalipv6.lacnic.net/en/flip6-and-lac-ipv6-tf/
>>>> 
>>>> * Internet Society - Mexico, El Salvador, Porto Rico, Costa
>>>> Rica,
>>> Trinidad
>>>> e Tobago, Venezuela, Colombia, Equador, Peru, Brasil,
>>>> Bolivia, Paraguai, Uruguai, Argentina
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.internetsociety.org
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ____________________________________________________________ 
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: 
>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your
>>>> settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________ 
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: 
>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your
>>> settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________ discuss mailing
>>> list discuss at 1net.org 
>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ discuss mailing
>> list discuss at 1net.org 
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________ You
> received this message as a subscriber on the list: 
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your
> settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 

- -- 

Valeria Betancourt
Directora / Manager
Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication
and Information Policy Programme
Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for
Progressive Communications, APC
http://www.apc.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJVOPcqAAoJEIWfoWrECEd1sWUH/jNCUdRq9gnyghlTAtvRVC5X
KB266U7lkAsuURJWKFFC6pCPiOTua9CMtmn7R1GuBBy3NpZaRIcZQBT50YUap7O2
4fu0nuFweghFJTSKt3mudQvgnW5h+B4YZhE2vvqc1fRNOkrwLovNnu06sOkWYRNF
BdKLPpCVGDdbyPXYo2BNRZxOUicG1frMkcZDIld6TD5eq8RUmOzyOCOtBaJurey/
A/ZyikM1rLja17bd8K2FRVt0QkW8h3fZu85ONn8k87MQTW7+AXgenZ9pTGuZLdpg
9ONMzFZcy8/s8rLReXZxleh1Fy3zGMcsA58eDT+R6/YY0gtZ42fJt+96CgSgyjM=
=24Xl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From anriette at apc.org  Thu Apr 23 10:07:27 2015
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 16:07:27 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] [discuss] Internet Governance in Latin America
 research project
In-Reply-To: <CAOa=Yc0BDBd=OSZWnNe=zD-by5n4-W=jM8_U--9ft8iu5gQeFA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMokdMxZhWu1LQ_J4Q-4=ufxQRxYbCh2N1pdQUxAYmfru5n9-w@mail.gmail.com> <5537C529.2000405@gmail.com> <1934529599.12787236.1429718968295.JavaMail.zimbra@article19.org> <1354636193.12787280.1429718996652.JavaMail.zimbra@article19.org> <CAFC=nJwA5oTqngv34gTCsd8yK=SZzqxg3iGy799Dvnn8X8TiFw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOa=Yc0BDBd=OSZWnNe=zD-by5n4-W=jM8_U--9ft8iu5gQeFA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5538FC9F.2000407@apc.org>

Dear all

I want to strongly support Renata Avila's comments.

While I am not based in LAC my organisation, Association for Progressive
Communications has several members there and are part of a very active
community. They include Derechos Digitales, Colnodo, Nupef, Nodo Tau,
Radio Viva, Instituto Demos, EslaRed and Sula Batsu.

Also going back in history, LAC civil society provided leadership in
raising issues on media ownership and control, free and open source
software and social justice and communications and human rights - during
the WSIS and before and after.

But of course these movements are never as inclusive as they should be,
and people change (in governments and in civil society) so the process
of creating and debate and awareness can never stop.

Anriette



On 23/04/2015 13:26, Renata Avila wrote:
> ​Dear Renata,
> 
> ​I am happy to share with you that actually the Latin American community is
> one of the most robust and developed in different areas of digital rights,
> key to actually take part and meaningfully participate in the new "Internet
> Governance" field. Most of the organizations are young but some of them
> have been around for over a decade.
> 
> Derechos Digitales did a fantastic job in creating redlatam.org a directory
> where you will find mapped most  of  the organizations in the field and
> there you can find an interesting catalogue of the leadership. You could
> also see the good work of many in the Latin American newsletter
> http://www.digitalrightslac.net
> 
> There are some disconnects but there are lots of different and sometimes
> diverging people doing high quality job in the field.
> 
> ​Best Regards,
> 
> ​
> 
> ​
> On 22 Apr 2015 19:02, "Adebunmi AKINBO" <akinbo at nira.org.ng> wrote:
> 
>> Dear Reneta,
>> Should you have an question with Africa in perspective, you can ask me.
>> You may also visit the NiGF <http://www.nigf.org.ng>Website for Nigeria.
>>
>> Regards.
>> -Akinbo
>> President, Young Internet Professionals.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 5:09 PM, <laura at article19.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, Renata
>>> You also have a lot of info at https://redlatam.org/es.
>>> Best,
>>> Laura.
>>>
>>> ----- Mensagem original -----
>>> De: "willi uebelherr" <willi.uebelherr at gmail.com>
>>> Para: "Renata Aquino" <raquino at gmail.com>
>>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, bestbits at lists.bestbits.net, "1net.org
>>> discuss" <discuss at 1net.org>
>>> Enviadas: Quarta-feira, 22 de abril de 2015 12:58:33
>>> Assunto: Re: [bestbits] Internet Governance in Latin America research
>>> project
>>>
>>> Dear Renata,
>>>
>>> it can be a good initiative. But my experience in Latin America show me,
>>> that there are no people to understand, what is "Internet Governance"
>>> and what we have to do to create a InterNet. Maybe, also the most people
>>> on this lists don't understand, what we have to do.
>>>
>>> Connect to the different Ministerios in the different countries. Then
>>> ypu can see and hear, that they don't understand the themes "tele
>>> communication". But they create decisions. And this always based on the
>>> external definitions.
>>>
>>> In my last 4 years in Latin America never i found people with
>>> connections to the international discussions about Internet. Never i
>>> found people with a critical thinking to that, what we give the name
>>> Internet.
>>>
>>> In Latin America we have the organized consumerism. They use only the
>>> technical systems from the external regions. But never they start to
>>> understand the technical bases. And this we find also in NetMundial in
>>> Brazil.
>>>
>>> many greetings, willi
>>> Cordoba, Argentina
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 4/22/2015 um 11:18 AM schrieb Renata Aquino:
>>>> Hello
>>>>
>>>> I’m working on a research Project on Internet Governance in Latin
>>> America
>>>> currently building a list of organizations in this area. The goal of
>>> this
>>>> Project is to identify paths for novices to participate in these
>>>> discussions as well as hearing out experts who could point out the way
>>> to
>>>> main issues in the region.
>>>>
>>>> I’d be grateful if this group could help me pointing out resources,
>>>> organizations or professionals I may have missed.
>>>>
>>>> The list I’ve gathered so far is below and please send comments to
>>>> raquino at gmail.com
>>>>
>>>> The next phase of this Project will be to contact key professionals in
>>> the
>>>> area of Internet Governance to do a series of interviews. If you’d like
>>> to
>>>> participate or nominate someone for an interview please send me an
>>> email.
>>>>
>>>> This is an ongoing Project with plans to present in the future in
>>> intenet
>>>> governance events in Latin America.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for any help
>>>>
>>>> Renata Aquino Ribeiro
>>>>
>>>> Professor and researcher
>>>>
>>>> IT Campus – Quixadá City
>>>>
>>>> Federal University of Ceará – Brazil
>>>>
>>>> -----
>>>>
>>>> Main organizations involved in internet governance in Latin America
>>>>
>>>> (Please sendo info about speakers for these to raquino at gmail.com)
>>>>
>>>> * CITEL
>>>>
>>>> URL: http://www.citel.oas.org
>>>>
>>>> * eLAC
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cepal.org/elac2015/default.asp
>>>>
>>>> * LACIGF
>>>>
>>>> http://www.lacigf.org
>>>>
>>>> * LACNIC
>>>>
>>>> http://www.lacnic.net
>>>>
>>>> * LACTLD - Latin American and Caribbean ccTLDs Organization
>>>>
>>>> http://www.lactld.org
>>>>
>>>> * LatinoamerICANN
>>>>
>>>> http://latinoamericann.org <http://latinoamericann.org/?q=node/1725>
>>>>
>>>> * LACRALO
>>>>
>>>> http://www.atlarge.icann.org/lacralo
>>>>
>>>> * LAC IPv6 Task Force e FLIP
>>>>
>>>> http://portalipv6.lacnic.net/en/flip6-and-lac-ipv6-tf/
>>>>
>>>> * Internet Society - Mexico, El Salvador, Porto Rico, Costa Rica,
>>> Trinidad
>>>> e Tobago, Venezuela, Colombia, Equador, Peru, Brasil, Bolivia, Paraguai,
>>>> Uruguai, Argentina
>>>>
>>>> http://www.internetsociety.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as 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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com  Thu Apr 23 10:30:35 2015
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 10:30:35 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] [discuss] Internet Governance in Latin America
 research project
In-Reply-To: <5538FC9F.2000407@apc.org>
References: <CAMokdMxZhWu1LQ_J4Q-4=ufxQRxYbCh2N1pdQUxAYmfru5n9-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <5537C529.2000405@gmail.com> <1934529599.12787236.1429718968295.JavaMail.zimbra@article19.org>
 <1354636193.12787280.1429718996652.JavaMail.zimbra@article19.org>
 <CAFC=nJwA5oTqngv34gTCsd8yK=SZzqxg3iGy799Dvnn8X8TiFw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOa=Yc0BDBd=OSZWnNe=zD-by5n4-W=jM8_U--9ft8iu5gQeFA@mail.gmail.com> <5538FC9F.2000407@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CAMz5XN4ONjLyNP42fEkO3aP4WuOSJA_2gJZqB1JiTy6K9KgmVA@mail.gmail.com>

Perhaps its worth adding that, having established off list that C (the
Caribbean) was included, I have circulated the request here as well. And
that there are appropriate places to circulate it to. :-)
Deirdre

On 23 April 2015 at 10:07, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:

> Dear all
>
> I want to strongly support Renata Avila's comments.
>
> While I am not based in LAC my organisation, Association for Progressive
> Communications has several members there and are part of a very active
> community. They include Derechos Digitales, Colnodo, Nupef, Nodo Tau,
> Radio Viva, Instituto Demos, EslaRed and Sula Batsu.
>
> Also going back in history, LAC civil society provided leadership in
> raising issues on media ownership and control, free and open source
> software and social justice and communications and human rights - during
> the WSIS and before and after.
>
> But of course these movements are never as inclusive as they should be,
> and people change (in governments and in civil society) so the process
> of creating and debate and awareness can never stop.
>
> Anriette
>
>
>
> On 23/04/2015 13:26, Renata Avila wrote:
> > ​Dear Renata,
> >
> > ​I am happy to share with you that actually the Latin American community
> is
> > one of the most robust and developed in different areas of digital
> rights,
> > key to actually take part and meaningfully participate in the new
> "Internet
> > Governance" field. Most of the organizations are young but some of them
> > have been around for over a decade.
> >
> > Derechos Digitales did a fantastic job in creating redlatam.org a
> directory
> > where you will find mapped most  of  the organizations in the field and
> > there you can find an interesting catalogue of the leadership. You could
> > also see the good work of many in the Latin American newsletter
> > http://www.digitalrightslac.net
> >
> > There are some disconnects but there are lots of different and sometimes
> > diverging people doing high quality job in the field.
> >
> > ​Best Regards,
> >
> > ​
> >
> > ​
> > On 22 Apr 2015 19:02, "Adebunmi AKINBO" <akinbo at nira.org.ng> wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Reneta,
> >> Should you have an question with Africa in perspective, you can ask me.
> >> You may also visit the NiGF <http://www.nigf.org.ng>Website for
> Nigeria.
> >>
> >> Regards.
> >> -Akinbo
> >> President, Young Internet Professionals.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 5:09 PM, <laura at article19.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi, Renata
> >>> You also have a lot of info at https://redlatam.org/es.
> >>> Best,
> >>> Laura.
> >>>
> >>> ----- Mensagem original -----
> >>> De: "willi uebelherr" <willi.uebelherr at gmail.com>
> >>> Para: "Renata Aquino" <raquino at gmail.com>
> >>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, bestbits at lists.bestbits.net, "
> 1net.org
> >>> discuss" <discuss at 1net.org>
> >>> Enviadas: Quarta-feira, 22 de abril de 2015 12:58:33
> >>> Assunto: Re: [bestbits] Internet Governance in Latin America research
> >>> project
> >>>
> >>> Dear Renata,
> >>>
> >>> it can be a good initiative. But my experience in Latin America show
> me,
> >>> that there are no people to understand, what is "Internet Governance"
> >>> and what we have to do to create a InterNet. Maybe, also the most
> people
> >>> on this lists don't understand, what we have to do.
> >>>
> >>> Connect to the different Ministerios in the different countries. Then
> >>> ypu can see and hear, that they don't understand the themes "tele
> >>> communication". But they create decisions. And this always based on the
> >>> external definitions.
> >>>
> >>> In my last 4 years in Latin America never i found people with
> >>> connections to the international discussions about Internet. Never i
> >>> found people with a critical thinking to that, what we give the name
> >>> Internet.
> >>>
> >>> In Latin America we have the organized consumerism. They use only the
> >>> technical systems from the external regions. But never they start to
> >>> understand the technical bases. And this we find also in NetMundial in
> >>> Brazil.
> >>>
> >>> many greetings, willi
> >>> Cordoba, Argentina
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Am 4/22/2015 um 11:18 AM schrieb Renata Aquino:
> >>>> Hello
> >>>>
> >>>> I’m working on a research Project on Internet Governance in Latin
> >>> America
> >>>> currently building a list of organizations in this area. The goal of
> >>> this
> >>>> Project is to identify paths for novices to participate in these
> >>>> discussions as well as hearing out experts who could point out the way
> >>> to
> >>>> main issues in the region.
> >>>>
> >>>> I’d be grateful if this group could help me pointing out resources,
> >>>> organizations or professionals I may have missed.
> >>>>
> >>>> The list I’ve gathered so far is below and please send comments to
> >>>> raquino at gmail.com
> >>>>
> >>>> The next phase of this Project will be to contact key professionals in
> >>> the
> >>>> area of Internet Governance to do a series of interviews. If you’d
> like
> >>> to
> >>>> participate or nominate someone for an interview please send me an
> >>> email.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is an ongoing Project with plans to present in the future in
> >>> intenet
> >>>> governance events in Latin America.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for any help
> >>>>
> >>>> Renata Aquino Ribeiro
> >>>>
> >>>> Professor and researcher
> >>>>
> >>>> IT Campus – Quixadá City
> >>>>
> >>>> Federal University of Ceará – Brazil
> >>>>
> >>>> -----
> >>>>
> >>>> Main organizations involved in internet governance in Latin America
> >>>>
> >>>> (Please sendo info about speakers for these to raquino at gmail.com)
> >>>>
> >>>> * CITEL
> >>>>
> >>>> URL: http://www.citel.oas.org
> >>>>
> >>>> * eLAC
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.cepal.org/elac2015/default.asp
> >>>>
> >>>> * LACIGF
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.lacigf.org
> >>>>
> >>>> * LACNIC
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.lacnic.net
> >>>>
> >>>> * LACTLD - Latin American and Caribbean ccTLDs Organization
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.lactld.org
> >>>>
> >>>> * LatinoamerICANN
> >>>>
> >>>> http://latinoamericann.org <http://latinoamericann.org/?q=node/1725>
> >>>>
> >>>> * LACRALO
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.atlarge.icann.org/lacralo
> >>>>
> >>>> * LAC IPv6 Task Force e FLIP
> >>>>
> >>>> http://portalipv6.lacnic.net/en/flip6-and-lac-ipv6-tf/
> >>>>
> >>>> * Internet Society - Mexico, El Salvador, Porto Rico, Costa Rica,
> >>> Trinidad
> >>>> e Tobago, Venezuela, Colombia, Equador, Peru, Brasil, Bolivia,
> Paraguai,
> >>>> Uruguai, Argentina
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.internetsociety.org
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >>>>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> discuss mailing list
> >>> discuss at 1net.org
> >>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> discuss mailing list
> >> discuss at 1net.org
> >> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as 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
>



-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150423/9949a693/attachment.htm>

From roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca  Thu Apr 23 12:01:03 2015
From: roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca (Becky Lentz)
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 12:01:03 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Capacity building assistance offer to digital rights
 advocates
In-Reply-To: <D15E6F63.3135E%roberta.lentz@mcgill.ca>
References: <D15E6F63.3135E%roberta.lentz@mcgill.ca>
Message-ID: <D15E8EEF.314F0%roberta.lentz@mcgill.ca>




(Please forward/post as appropriate, and excuse any unavoidable
cross-postings)

Dear colleagues,

Greetings from Montreal. As part of an ongoing experiment in cultivating
collaborative (vs. extractive) models for university-civil society
partnerships, I¹m writing to invite expressions of interest from potential
civil society partners for Fall 2015 (preferably from the Americas only,
excluding Canada and the US) seeking research that supports their
Internet-related policy advocacy work. Of particular interest are proposals
from groups involved in the IGF (or considering becoming involved in it).
Other proposals for research assistance are also invited, but discussion
would be needed to ensure the appropriate history/context can be
accommodated for research purposes.

As background, previous civil society partners have included Derechos
Digitales (DD) in Santiago and the Women of Uganda Network (WOUGNET) in
Kampala. Outcomes for two semester-long projects with DD include the
following research brief, which was developed by students and then
edited/translated/formatted by DD:
https://www.derechosdigitales.org/wp-content/uploads/PP05.pdf; we are now
completing a second project featuring a review of the literature (scholarly,
news, government, and civil society sources) about the benefits of the IGF
for civil society organizations, a report that anticipates the 2015 IGF in
Latin America. Testimonials and references from DD are available about how
DD has benefited from both of these collaborations.

The third semester-long project resulted in establishing 3
university-supported internships to help WOUGNET with a variety of capacity
building needs: an Information/ Communications Intern
(http://wougnet.org/2014/02/internship-opportunity-informationcommunications
-deadline-28th-february/), a Technical Support Intern
(https://www.mcgill.ca/arts-internships/files/arts-internships/wougnet_tech_
support_intern.pdf), and Gender and ICT Policy Advocacy
(https://www.mcgill.ca/arts-internships/files/arts-internships/wougnet_gende
r_and_ict_policy_advocacy_0.pdf).  Testimonials and references from WOUGNET
are also available.

The process for identifying a civil society partner for the Fall semester
2015 is now underway; it consists of the following steps: 1) an expression
of interest by a potential civil society partner; 2) based on a possible
match, an invitation for a short proposal (template will be provided); and
3) if selected, a jointly-crafted memorandum of understanding (MOU) between
the selected civil society partner and my class. There are no costs to the
partner organization other than a modest commitment of time during the
semester-long project.

If you have advocacy-related research needs and you think a
September-December timeframe for working together with a report available to
you in late December 2015 meets your needs, please feel free to contact me
off-list.

Best,
Becky Lentz
McGill University



       


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150423/4ee6c0fe/attachment.htm>

From raquino at gmail.com  Thu Apr 23 14:32:21 2015
From: raquino at gmail.com (Renata Aquino)
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 15:32:21 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] [discuss] Internet Governance in Latin America
 research project
In-Reply-To: <CAMz5XN4ONjLyNP42fEkO3aP4WuOSJA_2gJZqB1JiTy6K9KgmVA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMokdMxZhWu1LQ_J4Q-4=ufxQRxYbCh2N1pdQUxAYmfru5n9-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <5537C529.2000405@gmail.com> <1934529599.12787236.1429718968295.JavaMail.zimbra@article19.org>
 <1354636193.12787280.1429718996652.JavaMail.zimbra@article19.org>
 <CAFC=nJwA5oTqngv34gTCsd8yK=SZzqxg3iGy799Dvnn8X8TiFw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOa=Yc0BDBd=OSZWnNe=zD-by5n4-W=jM8_U--9ft8iu5gQeFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5538FC9F.2000407@apc.org> <CAMz5XN4ONjLyNP42fEkO3aP4WuOSJA_2gJZqB1JiTy6K9KgmVA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMokdMwTSFU7JK8zynoLbTbTCdmevH48H84vTyXOQUJpsWuKPw@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Deirdre and all

Indeed, thanks for noticing that, in my message do please consider Latin
America and the Caribbean Region
And although the short list sent included only the main organizations
acting on the continent which I could find, I am trying to gather
references too of national, local and NGO organizations.
Please do forward the request and bear with me as I reply to each one of
you :)

And many thanks

[]s



------
Renata Aquino Ribeiro
Prof. Dr.
IT Campus - Quixadá City
Federal University of Ceará - Brazil
www.quixada.ufc.br
Av. José de Freitas Queiroz, 5003
Cedro - Quixadá - Ceará - Brazil
CEP 63902-580


On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Deirdre Williams <
williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:

> Perhaps its worth adding that, having established off list that C (the
> Caribbean) was included, I have circulated the request here as well. And
> that there are appropriate places to circulate it to. :-)
> Deirdre
>
> On 23 April 2015 at 10:07, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:
>
>> Dear all
>>
>> I want to strongly support Renata Avila's comments.
>>
>> While I am not based in LAC my organisation, Association for Progressive
>> Communications has several members there and are part of a very active
>> community. They include Derechos Digitales, Colnodo, Nupef, Nodo Tau,
>> Radio Viva, Instituto Demos, EslaRed and Sula Batsu.
>>
>> Also going back in history, LAC civil society provided leadership in
>> raising issues on media ownership and control, free and open source
>> software and social justice and communications and human rights - during
>> the WSIS and before and after.
>>
>> But of course these movements are never as inclusive as they should be,
>> and people change (in governments and in civil society) so the process
>> of creating and debate and awareness can never stop.
>>
>> Anriette
>>
>>
>>
>> On 23/04/2015 13:26, Renata Avila wrote:
>> > ​Dear Renata,
>> >
>> > ​I am happy to share with you that actually the Latin American
>> community is
>> > one of the most robust and developed in different areas of digital
>> rights,
>> > key to actually take part and meaningfully participate in the new
>> "Internet
>> > Governance" field. Most of the organizations are young but some of them
>> > have been around for over a decade.
>> >
>> > Derechos Digitales did a fantastic job in creating redlatam.org a
>> directory
>> > where you will find mapped most  of  the organizations in the field and
>> > there you can find an interesting catalogue of the leadership. You could
>> > also see the good work of many in the Latin American newsletter
>> > http://www.digitalrightslac.net
>> >
>> > There are some disconnects but there are lots of different and sometimes
>> > diverging people doing high quality job in the field.
>> >
>> > ​Best Regards,
>> >
>> > ​
>> >
>> > ​
>> > On 22 Apr 2015 19:02, "Adebunmi AKINBO" <akinbo at nira.org.ng> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Dear Reneta,
>> >> Should you have an question with Africa in perspective, you can ask me.
>> >> You may also visit the NiGF <http://www.nigf.org.ng>Website for
>> Nigeria.
>> >>
>> >> Regards.
>> >> -Akinbo
>> >> President, Young Internet Professionals.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 5:09 PM, <laura at article19.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Hi, Renata
>> >>> You also have a lot of info at https://redlatam.org/es.
>> >>> Best,
>> >>> Laura.
>> >>>
>> >>> ----- Mensagem original -----
>> >>> De: "willi uebelherr" <willi.uebelherr at gmail.com>
>> >>> Para: "Renata Aquino" <raquino at gmail.com>
>> >>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, bestbits at lists.bestbits.net, "
>> 1net.org
>> >>> discuss" <discuss at 1net.org>
>> >>> Enviadas: Quarta-feira, 22 de abril de 2015 12:58:33
>> >>> Assunto: Re: [bestbits] Internet Governance in Latin America research
>> >>> project
>> >>>
>> >>> Dear Renata,
>> >>>
>> >>> it can be a good initiative. But my experience in Latin America show
>> me,
>> >>> that there are no people to understand, what is "Internet Governance"
>> >>> and what we have to do to create a InterNet. Maybe, also the most
>> people
>> >>> on this lists don't understand, what we have to do.
>> >>>
>> >>> Connect to the different Ministerios in the different countries. Then
>> >>> ypu can see and hear, that they don't understand the themes "tele
>> >>> communication". But they create decisions. And this always based on
>> the
>> >>> external definitions.
>> >>>
>> >>> In my last 4 years in Latin America never i found people with
>> >>> connections to the international discussions about Internet. Never i
>> >>> found people with a critical thinking to that, what we give the name
>> >>> Internet.
>> >>>
>> >>> In Latin America we have the organized consumerism. They use only the
>> >>> technical systems from the external regions. But never they start to
>> >>> understand the technical bases. And this we find also in NetMundial in
>> >>> Brazil.
>> >>>
>> >>> many greetings, willi
>> >>> Cordoba, Argentina
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Am 4/22/2015 um 11:18 AM schrieb Renata Aquino:
>> >>>> Hello
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I’m working on a research Project on Internet Governance in Latin
>> >>> America
>> >>>> currently building a list of organizations in this area. The goal of
>> >>> this
>> >>>> Project is to identify paths for novices to participate in these
>> >>>> discussions as well as hearing out experts who could point out the
>> way
>> >>> to
>> >>>> main issues in the region.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I’d be grateful if this group could help me pointing out resources,
>> >>>> organizations or professionals I may have missed.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The list I’ve gathered so far is below and please send comments to
>> >>>> raquino at gmail.com
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The next phase of this Project will be to contact key professionals
>> in
>> >>> the
>> >>>> area of Internet Governance to do a series of interviews. If you’d
>> like
>> >>> to
>> >>>> participate or nominate someone for an interview please send me an
>> >>> email.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> This is an ongoing Project with plans to present in the future in
>> >>> intenet
>> >>>> governance events in Latin America.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Thanks for any help
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Renata Aquino Ribeiro
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Professor and researcher
>> >>>>
>> >>>> IT Campus – Quixadá City
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Federal University of Ceará – Brazil
>> >>>>
>> >>>> -----
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Main organizations involved in internet governance in Latin America
>> >>>>
>> >>>> (Please sendo info about speakers for these to raquino at gmail.com)
>> >>>>
>> >>>> * CITEL
>> >>>>
>> >>>> URL: http://www.citel.oas.org
>> >>>>
>> >>>> * eLAC
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://www.cepal.org/elac2015/default.asp
>> >>>>
>> >>>> * LACIGF
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://www.lacigf.org
>> >>>>
>> >>>> * LACNIC
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://www.lacnic.net
>> >>>>
>> >>>> * LACTLD - Latin American and Caribbean ccTLDs Organization
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://www.lactld.org
>> >>>>
>> >>>> * LatinoamerICANN
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://latinoamericann.org <http://latinoamericann.org/?q=node/1725>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> * LACRALO
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://www.atlarge.icann.org/lacralo
>> >>>>
>> >>>> * LAC IPv6 Task Force e FLIP
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://portalipv6.lacnic.net/en/flip6-and-lac-ipv6-tf/
>> >>>>
>> >>>> * Internet Society - Mexico, El Salvador, Porto Rico, Costa Rica,
>> >>> Trinidad
>> >>>> e Tobago, Venezuela, Colombia, Equador, Peru, Brasil, Bolivia,
>> Paraguai,
>> >>>> Uruguai, Argentina
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://www.internetsociety.org
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________
>> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >>>>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>> >>>>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> ____________________________________________________________
>> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>> >>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> discuss mailing list
>> >>> discuss at 1net.org
>> >>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> discuss mailing list
>> >> discuss at 1net.org
>> >> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> > You received this message as 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> “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:
>      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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150423/90745e93/attachment.htm>

From jmalcolm at eff.org  Fri Apr 24 18:45:36 2015
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 15:45:36 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] Debunking eight myths about multi-stakeholderism
Message-ID: <65933FA0-45F0-46DC-A6E8-28E2DF03BAA0@eff.org>

http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/debunking-eight-myths-about-multi-stakeholderism

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt

PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD

Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150424/2dcf9dc6/attachment.htm>

From ebertoni65 at gmail.com  Fri Apr 24 10:41:44 2015
From: ebertoni65 at gmail.com (Eduardo Bertoni)
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 11:41:44 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] New book on Internet & jurisdiction
Message-ID: <CAApcLcKb-a5wiR9fJKAxqP1RWOoKwMRhG-19hioouPLDw1n+cw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear friends and colleagues,

Please find below a brief note that I just posted in my blog
<http://ebertoni.blogspot.com.ar/2015/04/jurisdiction-and-choice-of-law-when.html>
regarding the publication of my new book. The main topic of the book
-jurisdiction and choice of law when online content could damage privacy or
reputation- it has been also discussed in a recent paper
<https://www.cigionline.org/publications/primer-globally-harmonizing-internet-jurisdiction-and-regulations>
that it is also cited in the note.

Best

e

Eduardo Bertoni



*Jurisdiction and choice of law when online content could damage privacy or
honor*



Michael Chertoff and Paul Rosenzweig are the authors of the recently
published document A PRIMER ON GLOBALLY HARMONIZING INTERNET JURISDICTION
AND REGULATIONS
<https://www.cigionline.org/publications/primer-globally-harmonizing-internet-jurisdiction-and-regulations>.
In the document, they address a problem that has not yet been resolved and
that the cited title sufficiently describes. As a consequence of reading
this work, I am interested in highlighting the coincidences with a few of
the considerations outlined in my book, “Defamation on the Internet,
problems of jurisdiction and applicable law,” which was just published in
Argentina by the editor Ad-Hoc <www.editorialadhoc.com>.



Thanks to the Internet, the possibility of content distribution has a
never-before-seen reach. In addition, the places this content ends up are
increasingly unknown by the author. All of this has an enormous impact in
the legal world. The general problem that I address in my book is related
to the problem of determining jurisdiction and the applicable law in cases
of possible damages to honor – and to privacy – through content produced
and received by subjects located in different countries.



To respond to this problem, as I demonstrate in my book, distinct solutions
may be adopted, which I refer to as models: the model that follows the
server – the applicable law on jurisdiction follows the place where the
data is hosted -, that which follows the author – it follows the place
where the author is or his/her citizenship-, and that which follows the
victim – the same as the last model, except now with regard to the victim.
These are models that I construct from judicial decisions from the United
States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and various countries in Latin
America.



Chertoff and Rosenzweig offer similar alternatives: "We propose a
choice-of-law rule based on either: the citizenship of the data creator;
the citizenship of the data subject; one based on the location where the
harm being investigated has taken place; or one based on the citizenship of
the data holder or custodian."



The coincidences we have are evident. But perhaps the most significant is
that it will be difficult to resolve this problem without an agreement
between the States that choose one of the proposed models. The coming years
will tell us if this agreement is possible.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150424/ec0d57d6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Tapa Bertoni.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 80296 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150424/ec0d57d6/attachment.jpg>

From bzs at world.std.com  Fri Apr 24 20:56:47 2015
From: bzs at world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 20:56:47 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Debunking eight myths about multi-stakeholderism
In-Reply-To: <65933FA0-45F0-46DC-A6E8-28E2DF03BAA0@eff.org>
References: <65933FA0-45F0-46DC-A6E8-28E2DF03BAA0@eff.org>
Message-ID: <21818.58959.476349.342220@world.std.com>


On April 24, 2015 at 15:45 jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) wrote:
 > http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/debunking-eight-myths-about-multi-stakeholderism

That's all well and good and a nice easy read.

However it doesn't address what I think are the biggest concerns with
multistakeholderism which are:

o How are stakeholders defined and selected? And by whom? How do we
  ascertain that a stakeholder is legitimate?

o How are they enfranchised? For example, one stakeholder one vote? Or
  some sort of proportional representation? By what metric?

o How does enfranchisement work other than a hand-wave to simple
  majority of whoever happens to be in the room? How does workflow and
  agenda work? Consensus? Majority assent? Committee? etc.

o What is the dispute resolution process? Is there a judiciary aspect?

At some point one has to get beyond simplistic claims that it's good
because it's not bad and instead begin laying out structural details.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

The World              | bzs at TheWorld.com           | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD        | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
Software Tool & Die    | Public Access Internet     | SINCE 1989     *oo*

From nathaliecoupet at yahoo.com  Sat Apr 25 08:52:49 2015
From: nathaliecoupet at yahoo.com (Nathalie Coupet)
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 08:52:49 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Debunking eight myths about multi-stakeholderism
In-Reply-To: <21818.58959.476349.342220@world.std.com>
References: <65933FA0-45F0-46DC-A6E8-28E2DF03BAA0@eff.org> <21818.58959.476349.342220@world.std.com>
Message-ID: <889202F9-D576-40A2-A827-A5E333D38414@yahoo.com>

Also, Barry, you forgot to mention that the people who are 'able and willing' to participate in decision-making processes might not always have the skills or competence to do so. 
Quality of decisions and work is also an issue.


Nathalie

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 24, 2015, at 8:56 PM, Barry Shein <bzs at world.std.com> wrote:

> 
> On April 24, 2015 at 15:45 jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) wrote:
>> http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/debunking-eight-myths-about-multi-stakeholderism
> 
> That's all well and good and a nice easy read.
> 
> However it doesn't address what I think are the biggest concerns with
> multistakeholderism which are:
> 
> o How are stakeholders defined and selected? And by whom? How do we
>  ascertain that a stakeholder is legitimate?
> 
> o How are they enfranchised? For example, one stakeholder one vote? Or
>  some sort of proportional representation? By what metric?
> 
> o How does enfranchisement work other than a hand-wave to simple
>  majority of whoever happens to be in the room? How does workflow and
>  agenda work? Consensus? Majority assent? Committee? etc.
> 
> o What is the dispute resolution process? Is there a judiciary aspect?
> 
> At some point one has to get beyond simplistic claims that it's good
> because it's not bad and instead begin laying out structural details.
> 
> -- 
>        -Barry Shein
> 
> The World              | bzs at TheWorld.com           | http://www.TheWorld.com
> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD        | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
> Software Tool & Die    | Public Access Internet     | SINCE 1989     *oo*
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits