From susan at chalmers.associates  Sun Aug  2 23:12:10 2015
From: susan at chalmers.associates (Susan Chalmers)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 15:12:10 +1200
Subject: [bestbits] Call for Proposals: Friends of the IGF website &
 database development
In-Reply-To: <CANS7ybHVZQOcoLYRvLz2fvOdMinR0TJFC1hvCD5XVXJ7QiqnEg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANS7ybHVZQOcoLYRvLz2fvOdMinR0TJFC1hvCD5XVXJ7QiqnEg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CANS7ybHT5gcu1tr23_hTTVDjv+L7=Lyfa6rz9JeTK=7siK42jg@mail.gmail.com>

Hello again, colleagues,

As a follow up - we've been asked to extend the proposal due date by one
week.

Thus, we warmly welcome proposals for website and database development for
the Friends of the IGF project by *August 17th*.

The revised RFP is attached.

Many thanks and have a great week.

Sincerely,
Susan



Susan Chalmers
susan at chalmers.associates

*CHALMERS* & ASSOCIATES
http://chalmers.associates

On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 4:59 AM, Susan Chalmers <susan at chalmers.associates>
wrote:

> Dear everyone,
>
> My small team is running a Request For Proposal process for a new website
> and database for http://friendsoftheigf.org - a searchable repository of
> IGF videos and transcripts since the first event in Athens.
>
> We have requested funding for this project through the new NETmundial
> platform and we are asking for proposals designed around the amount of
> 100,000USD.
>
> We're looking for expertise in content enrichment and semantic search
> especially. We would appreciate it if you could circulate the RFP liberally
> through your networks. The due date for proposals is *August 10th*.
>
> The RFP is attached. Please also see the below media release for further
> information.
>
> I am happy to answer any questions that you may have on or off list.
>
> Thanks much!
>
> Sincere regards,
> Susan
>
> *Call for proposals to renew website and database for the Friends of the
> IGF project.*
>
> On behalf of the Friends of the IGF project, Chalmers & Associates
> <http://chalmers.associates/> is welcoming proposals from web design and
> development teams for a new website and database for the Friends of the
> IGF project (FoIGF), athttp://friendsoftheigf.org
>
> The Request For Proposals is available here
> <http://www.chalmers.associates/s/FoIGF-RFP.pdf>.
>
> Launched during the IGF2013, the FolGF website is a searchable database of
> transcripts, video, agendas, and reports from the annual United Nations Internet
> Governance Forum <http://intgovforum.org/> (IGF), stretching back to the
> first IGF in 2006.
>
> The website allows the user to search across IGF sessions by speaker name,
> keyword, meeting, day, and other criteria.
>
> Project Lead Susan Chalmers says it is time to take the website to the
> next level.
>
> Friends of the IGF is about improving access to the important discussions
> at the annual Internet Governance Forum, Ms Chalmers says.
>
> “The present website represents our pilot effort at organizing the content
> of IGF discussions over the past ten years into a searchable database. But
> opportunities for improvement in several areas remain in order for the
> resource to reach its true potential."
>
> “Imagine the possibilities for awareness raising, education, and research
> in Internet Governance if one could easily search across the entire record
> of the IGF. We could build upon previous discussions much more effectively,
> which could help us on the way to build possible solutions to problems at a
> faster pace. The FoIGF website has the potential to be an incredible
> capacity-building tool.”
>
> “We are looking for a passionate and dedicated team to rebuild the website
> and database that hosts the living archive of IGF discussions. We are
> appealing in particular to those with backgrounds in semantic search,
> content enrichment, and in building archival databases.”
>
> A request for funding for this project of $100,000USD has been lodged with
> the NETmundial Initiative, which is developing a platform to facilitate the
> public funding of community-based proposals that help create solutions for
> Internet governance issues.
>
> The target delivery date for the website is November 2015, in time for the
> IGF2015 <http://www.igf2015.br/> in João Pessoa, Brazil.
> The proposal deadline is *August 10th.*
>
> *Contact: **Sasha Borissenko, *Corporate and Communications Manager
> *sasha [at] chalmers.associates*
>
> 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/20150803/3e424a6d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: FoIGF RFP.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 142922 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150803/3e424a6d/attachment.pdf>

From brett at accessnow.org  Wed Aug  5 07:57:30 2015
From: brett at accessnow.org (Brett Solomon)
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 05:57:30 -0600
Subject: [bestbits] Re Best Bits Steering Group
In-Reply-To: <55C1F8F4.2080207@bytesforall.pk>
References: <CAOi1r6br8dDESqgjLqe0x-EDQENi+y5F5F78PVcLAq9FUR5duA@mail.gmail.com> <55C1F8F4.2080207@bytesforall.pk>
Message-ID: <77FE9BCB-C9C8-460F-A538-FFF70C372CA9@accessnow.org>

Agreed and happy with this proposed arrangement. B

Sent from my phone 

> On Aug 5, 2015, at 5:52 AM, Shahzad Ahmad <shahzad at bytesforall.pk> wrote:
> 
> +1. Totally agreed. 
> 
> And we believe that BB continue to be an important forum for information sharing and should be strengthened further for joint strategy development on different IG issues. It may also focus more on how to facilitate result oriented, stronger interactions between North-South and South-South.  
> 
> best wishes
> Shahzad
> 
> 
>> On 8/5/15 3:00 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
>> Dear Colleagues
>> 
>> As you will know the current Steering Group (SG) is due to step down in
>> the next month.  Elections were called with Ian Peter as returning
>> officer.  However there were insufficient nominations to necessitate an
>> election and the SG discussed what to do in the light of this.  After
>> considerable discussion we agreed that we would communicate the following
>> to the BB list:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -       Following the elections in July, there were insufficient candidates
>> to fill all the places on the current steering group and ensure an election;
>> 
>> -       The SG wishes to understand more accurately what users feel about
>> BB, and what they would like from it, if anything (e.g. whether it has
>> value for information sharing and/or common messaging and joint actions,
>> and other purpose or is defunct);
>> 
>> -       Consequently the SG will conduct an anonymised stocktaking survey
>> of the current BB list to understand what value users ascribe to BB and
>> whether or how they would like it develop in order to shape a discussion at
>> a face-to-face meeting before the IGF on the future of BB;
>> 
>> -       The SG will also explore what users find to be incentives and
>> disincentives to participating in discussions and activity.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> We propose that the current Steering Group stays in place for the time
>> being, and focuses on conducting the survey and organising a session at a
>> BB meeting in Brazil during the IGF to consider the way forward including
>> what organisational arrangements best suit the needs of the users. This
>> will ensure that any decision about the future of Best Bits can be taken at
>> the meeting in Brazil, collectively by users, rather than by the interim SG
>> alone.
>> 
>> 
>> You will shortly be receiving a survey and we would encourage you to fill
>> it in and give us feedback.
>> 
>> 
>> Best wishes
>> 
>> *Andrew Puddephatt*
>> Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
>> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
>> gp-digital.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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150805/a81ab073/attachment.htm>

From genekimmelman at gmail.com  Wed Aug  5 08:19:53 2015
From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (genekimmelman at gmail.com)
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 08:19:53 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Re Best Bits Steering Group
In-Reply-To: <77FE9BCB-C9C8-460F-A538-FFF70C372CA9@accessnow.org>
References: <CAOi1r6br8dDESqgjLqe0x-EDQENi+y5F5F78PVcLAq9FUR5duA@mail.gmail.com> <55C1F8F4.2080207@bytesforall.pk> <77FE9BCB-C9C8-460F-A538-FFF70C372CA9@accessnow.org>
Message-ID: <37D34BB7-185F-4E5E-89B3-36A828C69F2E@gmail.com>

+1

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 5, 2015, at 7:57 AM, Brett Solomon <brett at accessnow.org> wrote:
> 
> Agreed and happy with this proposed arrangement. B
> 
> Sent from my phone 
> 
>> On Aug 5, 2015, at 5:52 AM, Shahzad Ahmad <shahzad at bytesforall.pk> wrote:
>> 
>> +1. Totally agreed. 
>> 
>> And we believe that BB continue to be an important forum for information sharing and should be strengthened further for joint strategy development on different IG issues. It may also focus more on how to facilitate result oriented, stronger interactions between North-South and South-South.  
>> 
>> best wishes
>> Shahzad
>> 
>> 
>>> On 8/5/15 3:00 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
>>> Dear Colleagues
>>> 
>>> As you will know the current Steering Group (SG) is due to step down in
>>> the next month.  Elections were called with Ian Peter as returning
>>> officer.  However there were insufficient nominations to necessitate an
>>> election and the SG discussed what to do in the light of this.  After
>>> considerable discussion we agreed that we would communicate the following
>>> to the BB list:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -       Following the elections in July, there were insufficient candidates
>>> to fill all the places on the current steering group and ensure an election;
>>> 
>>> -       The SG wishes to understand more accurately what users feel about
>>> BB, and what they would like from it, if anything (e.g. whether it has
>>> value for information sharing and/or common messaging and joint actions,
>>> and other purpose or is defunct);
>>> 
>>> -       Consequently the SG will conduct an anonymised stocktaking survey
>>> of the current BB list to understand what value users ascribe to BB and
>>> whether or how they would like it develop in order to shape a discussion at
>>> a face-to-face meeting before the IGF on the future of BB;
>>> 
>>> -       The SG will also explore what users find to be incentives and
>>> disincentives to participating in discussions and activity.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> We propose that the current Steering Group stays in place for the time
>>> being, and focuses on conducting the survey and organising a session at a
>>> BB meeting in Brazil during the IGF to consider the way forward including
>>> what organisational arrangements best suit the needs of the users. This
>>> will ensure that any decision about the future of Best Bits can be taken at
>>> the meeting in Brazil, collectively by users, rather than by the interim SG
>>> alone.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> You will shortly be receiving a survey and we would encourage you to fill
>>> it in and give us feedback.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Best wishes
>>> 
>>> *Andrew Puddephatt*
>>> Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
>>> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>>> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
>>> gp-digital.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
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as 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/20150805/ff758d24/attachment.htm>

From wisdom.dk at gmail.com  Wed Aug  5 08:45:53 2015
From: wisdom.dk at gmail.com (Wisdom Donkor)
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 12:45:53 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Re Best Bits Steering Group
In-Reply-To: <CAOi1r6br8dDESqgjLqe0x-EDQENi+y5F5F78PVcLAq9FUR5duA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOi1r6br8dDESqgjLqe0x-EDQENi+y5F5F78PVcLAq9FUR5duA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAU+vPEynPWHyGehKTAXhj-xw=L_Kn_vGmYetocHNu5FjFZXuQ@mail.gmail.com>

I perfectly agree.

On 8/5/15, Andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org> wrote:
> Dear Colleagues
>
> As you will know the current Steering Group (SG) is due to step down in
> the next month.  Elections were called with Ian Peter as returning
> officer.  However there were insufficient nominations to necessitate an
> election and the SG discussed what to do in the light of this.  After
> considerable discussion we agreed that we would communicate the following
> to the BB list:
>
>
>
> -       Following the elections in July, there were insufficient candidates
> to fill all the places on the current steering group and ensure an
> election;
>
> -       The SG wishes to understand more accurately what users feel about
> BB, and what they would like from it, if anything (e.g. whether it has
> value for information sharing and/or common messaging and joint actions,
> and other purpose or is defunct);
>
> -       Consequently the SG will conduct an anonymised stocktaking survey
> of the current BB list to understand what value users ascribe to BB and
> whether or how they would like it develop in order to shape a discussion at
> a face-to-face meeting before the IGF on the future of BB;
>
> -       The SG will also explore what users find to be incentives and
> disincentives to participating in discussions and activity.
>
>
>
> We propose that the current Steering Group stays in place for the time
> being, and focuses on conducting the survey and organising a session at a
> BB meeting in Brazil during the IGF to consider the way forward including
> what organisational arrangements best suit the needs of the users. This
> will ensure that any decision about the future of Best Bits can be taken at
> the meeting in Brazil, collectively by users, rather than by the interim SG
> alone.
>
>
> You will shortly be receiving a survey and we would encourage you to fill
> it in and give us feedback.
>
>
> Best wishes
>
> *Andrew Puddephatt*
> Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
> gp-digital.org
>
>
>
>
>>
>


-- 
WISDOM DONKOR (S/N Eng.)
ICANN Fellow / ISOC Member
Web/OGPL Portal Specialist
National Information Technology Agency (NITA)
Ghana Open Data Initiative (GODI)
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

From pileleji at ymca.gm  Wed Aug  5 08:47:44 2015
From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji)
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 12:47:44 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Re Best Bits Steering Group
In-Reply-To: <CAAU+vPEynPWHyGehKTAXhj-xw=L_Kn_vGmYetocHNu5FjFZXuQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOi1r6br8dDESqgjLqe0x-EDQENi+y5F5F78PVcLAq9FUR5duA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAU+vPEynPWHyGehKTAXhj-xw=L_Kn_vGmYetocHNu5FjFZXuQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEux40u-L8yPEYG1BQFvpa1v_=3LDVETWxuBZwQrT+iSwYGWnQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hello all,

I totally concur +1

On 5 August 2015 at 12:45, Wisdom Donkor <wisdom.dk at gmail.com> wrote:

> I perfectly agree.
>
> On 8/5/15, Andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org> wrote:
> > Dear Colleagues
> >
> > As you will know the current Steering Group (SG) is due to step down in
> > the next month.  Elections were called with Ian Peter as returning
> > officer.  However there were insufficient nominations to necessitate an
> > election and the SG discussed what to do in the light of this.  After
> > considerable discussion we agreed that we would communicate the following
> > to the BB list:
> >
> >
> >
> > -       Following the elections in July, there were insufficient
> candidates
> > to fill all the places on the current steering group and ensure an
> > election;
> >
> > -       The SG wishes to understand more accurately what users feel about
> > BB, and what they would like from it, if anything (e.g. whether it has
> > value for information sharing and/or common messaging and joint actions,
> > and other purpose or is defunct);
> >
> > -       Consequently the SG will conduct an anonymised stocktaking survey
> > of the current BB list to understand what value users ascribe to BB and
> > whether or how they would like it develop in order to shape a discussion
> at
> > a face-to-face meeting before the IGF on the future of BB;
> >
> > -       The SG will also explore what users find to be incentives and
> > disincentives to participating in discussions and activity.
> >
> >
> >
> > We propose that the current Steering Group stays in place for the time
> > being, and focuses on conducting the survey and organising a session at a
> > BB meeting in Brazil during the IGF to consider the way forward including
> > what organisational arrangements best suit the needs of the users. This
> > will ensure that any decision about the future of Best Bits can be taken
> at
> > the meeting in Brazil, collectively by users, rather than by the interim
> SG
> > alone.
> >
> >
> > You will shortly be receiving a survey and we would encourage you to fill
> > it in and give us feedback.
> >
> >
> > Best wishes
> >
> > *Andrew Puddephatt*
> > Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
> > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
> > T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
> > gp-digital.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
> WISDOM DONKOR (S/N Eng.)
> ICANN Fellow / ISOC Member
> Web/OGPL Portal Specialist
> National Information Technology Agency (NITA)
> Ghana Open Data Initiative (GODI)
> 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
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as 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>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
<http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.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/20150805/c925a9ac/attachment.htm>

From chinmayiarun at gmail.com  Wed Aug  5 09:17:22 2015
From: chinmayiarun at gmail.com (Chinmayi Arun)
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 18:47:22 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re Best Bits Steering Group
In-Reply-To: <55C1F6E5.408@apc.org>
References: <CAOi1r6br8dDESqgjLqe0x-EDQENi+y5F5F78PVcLAq9FUR5duA@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C1EC45.8000302@acm.org>
	<55C1F6E5.408@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CACu5V_v7B4y4WFeEfx+YjVDbE9wOe8pch-FdK_prcD45Hu2T1w@mail.gmail.com>

+1

On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>
wrote:

> Agree. A good way forward.
>
> Anriette
>
>
> On 05/08/2015 12:58, Avri Doria wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Seems like a good way forward to me.
> >
> > avri
> >
> > On 05-Aug-15 06:00, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
> >> Dear Colleagues
> >>
> >> As you will know the current Steering Group (SG) is due to step down
> >> in the next month.  Elections were called with Ian Peter as returning
> >> officer.  However there were insufficient nominations to necessitate
> >> an election and the SG discussed what to do in the light of this.
> >> After considerable discussion we agreed that we would communicate the
> >> following to the BB list:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -       Following the elections in July, there were insufficient
> >> candidates to fill all the places on the current steering group and
> >> ensure an election;
> >>
> >> -       The SG wishes to understand more accurately what users feel
> >> about BB, and what they would like from it, if anything (e.g. whether
> >> it has value for information sharing and/or common messaging and joint
> >> actions, and other purpose or is defunct);
> >>
> >> -       Consequently the SG will conduct an anonymised stocktaking
> >> survey of the current BB list to understand what value users ascribe
> >> to BB and whether or how they would like it develop in order to shape
> >> a discussion at a face-to-face meeting before the IGF on the future of
> BB;
> >>
> >> -       The SG will also explore what users find to be incentives and
> >> disincentives to participating in discussions and activity.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> We propose that the current Steering Group stays in place for the time
> >> being, and focuses on conducting the survey and organising a session
> >> at a BB meeting in Brazil during the IGF to consider the way forward
> >> including what organisational arrangements best suit the needs of the
> >> users. This will ensure that any decision about the future of Best
> >> Bits can be taken at the meeting in Brazil, collectively by users,
> >> rather than by the interim SG alone.
> >>
> >>
> >> You will shortly be receiving a survey and we would encourage you to
> >> fill it in and give us feedback.
> >>
> >>
> >> Best wishes
> >>
> >>
> >> *Andrew Puddephatt*
> >> Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
> >> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
> >> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
> >> gp-digital.org <http://gp-digital.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
> >
> >
> > ---
> > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> > https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> >
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------
> Anriette Esterhuysen
> Executive Director
> Association for Progressive Communications
> anriette at apc.org
> www.apc.org
> IM: ae_apc
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as 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/20150805/50938046/attachment.htm>

From mshears at cdt.org  Wed Aug  5 12:33:53 2015
From: mshears at cdt.org (Matthew Shears)
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 17:33:53 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Re Best Bits Steering Group
In-Reply-To: <37D34BB7-185F-4E5E-89B3-36A828C69F2E@gmail.com>
References: <CAOi1r6br8dDESqgjLqe0x-EDQENi+y5F5F78PVcLAq9FUR5duA@mail.gmail.com>
 <55C1F8F4.2080207@bytesforall.pk>
 <77FE9BCB-C9C8-460F-A538-FFF70C372CA9@accessnow.org>
 <37D34BB7-185F-4E5E-89B3-36A828C69F2E@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55C23AF1.6070202@cdt.org>

Completely agree with this proposal.

On 8/5/2015 1:19 PM, genekimmelman at gmail.com wrote:
> +1
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 5, 2015, at 7:57 AM, Brett Solomon <brett at accessnow.org 
> <mailto:brett at accessnow.org>> wrote:
>
>> Agreed and happy with this proposed arrangement. B
>>
>> Sent from my phone
>>
>> On Aug 5, 2015, at 5:52 AM, Shahzad Ahmad <shahzad at bytesforall.pk 
>> <mailto:shahzad at bytesforall.pk>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1. Totally agreed.
>>>
>>> And we believe that BB continue to be an important forum for 
>>> information sharing and should be strengthened further for joint 
>>> strategy development on different IG issues. It may also focus more 
>>> on how to facilitate result oriented, stronger interactions between 
>>> North-South and South-South.
>>>
>>> best wishes
>>> Shahzad
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/5/15 3:00 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
>>>> Dear Colleagues
>>>>
>>>> As you will know the current Steering Group (SG) is due to step down in
>>>> the next month.  Elections were called with Ian Peter as returning
>>>> officer.  However there were insufficient nominations to necessitate an
>>>> election and the SG discussed what to do in the light of this.  After
>>>> considerable discussion we agreed that we would communicate the following
>>>> to the BB list:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -       Following the elections in July, there were insufficient candidates
>>>> to fill all the places on the current steering group and ensure an election;
>>>>
>>>> -       The SG wishes to understand more accurately what users feel about
>>>> BB, and what they would like from it, if anything (e.g. whether it has
>>>> value for information sharing and/or common messaging and joint actions,
>>>> and other purpose or is defunct);
>>>>
>>>> -       Consequently the SG will conduct an anonymised stocktaking survey
>>>> of the current BB list to understand what value users ascribe to BB and
>>>> whether or how they would like it develop in order to shape a discussion at
>>>> a face-to-face meeting before the IGF on the future of BB;
>>>>
>>>> -       The SG will also explore what users find to be incentives and
>>>> disincentives to participating in discussions and activity.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We propose that the current Steering Group stays in place for the time
>>>> being, and focuses on conducting the survey and organising a session at a
>>>> BB meeting in Brazil during the IGF to consider the way forward including
>>>> what organisational arrangements best suit the needs of the users. This
>>>> will ensure that any decision about the future of Best Bits can be taken at
>>>> the meeting in Brazil, collectively by users, rather than by the interim SG
>>>> alone.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You will shortly be receiving a survey and we would encourage you to fill
>>>> it in and give us feedback.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes
>>>>
>>>> *Andrew Puddephatt*
>>>> Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
>>>> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>>>> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
>>>> gp-digital.org <http://gp-digital.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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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

-- 
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 (0)771 247 2987

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150805/4e29b497/attachment.htm>

From willi.uebelherr at riseup.net  Wed Aug  5 17:51:47 2015
From: willi.uebelherr at riseup.net (willi uebelherr)
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 18:51:47 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: JNC Forum removal + ban
In-Reply-To: <20150805145717.22b17f7f@quill>
References: <20150805145717.22b17f7f@quill>
Message-ID: <55C28573.1040300@riseup.net>


The last information to this topic.

-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: JNC Forum removal + ban
Datum: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 14:57:17 +0200
Von: Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>
Organisation: GoalTree Consulting N. Bollow
An: willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at riseup.net>
Kopie (CC): JNC Steering Comittee <Steeringcommittee at justnetcoalition.org>

Hi Willi

It is my unpleasant duty to hereby inform you of the following
moderator action for the JNC Forum list:

* you have been unsubscribed from the list
* you are also banned, i.e. you will not be allowed to re-subscribe and
   all postings from you will be rejected

Reason: Unwillingness to cooperate with the list admin, as clearly
expressed in the email quoted below.

If you wish to appeal this decision, you can write to the
JNC Steering Comittee <Steeringcommittee at justnetcoalition.org> .

Note: Your assertion "I can no longer write to the list" was not true
at the time when you made that statement. You were at the time a
"moderated" subscriber; postings which would have been appropriate to
the list would have been accepted. However the assertion is true now.

Greetings,
Norbert


---
Este email foi escaneado pelo Avast antivírus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


From mishi at softwarefreedom.org  Wed Aug  5 23:27:11 2015
From: mishi at softwarefreedom.org (Mishi Choudhary)
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2015 23:27:11 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Re Best Bits Steering Group
In-Reply-To: <CAOi1r6br8dDESqgjLqe0x-EDQENi+y5F5F78PVcLAq9FUR5duA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOi1r6br8dDESqgjLqe0x-EDQENi+y5F5F78PVcLAq9FUR5duA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55C2D40F.5080702@softwarefreedom.org>

Great !

On 08/05/2015 06:00 AM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
> Dear Colleagues
> 
> As you will know the current Steering Group (SG) is due to step down in
> the next month.  Elections were called with Ian Peter as returning
> officer.  However there were insufficient nominations to necessitate an
> election and the SG discussed what to do in the light of this.  After
> considerable discussion we agreed that we would communicate the following
> to the BB list:
> 
> 
> 
> -       Following the elections in July, there were insufficient candidates
> to fill all the places on the current steering group and ensure an election;
> 
> -       The SG wishes to understand more accurately what users feel about
> BB, and what they would like from it, if anything (e.g. whether it has
> value for information sharing and/or common messaging and joint actions,
> and other purpose or is defunct);
> 
> -       Consequently the SG will conduct an anonymised stocktaking survey
> of the current BB list to understand what value users ascribe to BB and
> whether or how they would like it develop in order to shape a discussion at
> a face-to-face meeting before the IGF on the future of BB;
> 
> -       The SG will also explore what users find to be incentives and
> disincentives to participating in discussions and activity.
> 
> 
> 
> We propose that the current Steering Group stays in place for the time
> being, and focuses on conducting the survey and organising a session at a
> BB meeting in Brazil during the IGF to consider the way forward including
> what organisational arrangements best suit the needs of the users. This
> will ensure that any decision about the future of Best Bits can be taken at
> the meeting in Brazil, collectively by users, rather than by the interim SG
> alone.
> 
> 
> You will shortly be receiving a survey and we would encourage you to fill
> it in and give us feedback.
> 
> 
> Best wishes
> 
> *Andrew Puddephatt*
> Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
> gp-digital.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
> 

-- 
Warm Regards
Mishi Choudhary, Esq.
Legal Director
Software Freedom Law Center
1995 Broadway Floor 17
New York, NY-10023
(tel) 212-461-1912
(fax) 212-580-0898
www.softwarefreedom.org


Executive Director
SFLC.IN
K-9, Second Floor
Jangpura Extn.
New Delhi-110014
(tel) +91-11-43587126
(fax) +91-11-24323530
www.sflc.in


From pranesh at cis-india.org  Fri Aug  7 04:23:45 2015
From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 13:53:45 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Re Best Bits Steering Group
In-Reply-To: <CAOi1r6br8dDESqgjLqe0x-EDQENi+y5F5F78PVcLAq9FUR5duA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOi1r6br8dDESqgjLqe0x-EDQENi+y5F5F78PVcLAq9FUR5duA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55C46B11.2030506@cis-india.org>

I support the below course of action.  Though, I'm not sure if "users" 
is the best term to use to describe ourselves. :)

On 2015-08-05 15:30, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
> Dear Colleagues
>
> As you will know the current Steering Group (SG) is due to step down in
> the next month.  Elections were called with Ian Peter as returning
> officer.  However there were insufficient nominations to necessitate an
> election and the SG discussed what to do in the light of this.  After
> considerable discussion we agreed that we would communicate the following
> to the BB list:
>
>
>
> -       Following the elections in July, there were insufficient candidates
> to fill all the places on the current steering group and ensure an election;
>
> -       The SG wishes to understand more accurately what users feel about
> BB, and what they would like from it, if anything (e.g. whether it has
> value for information sharing and/or common messaging and joint actions,
> and other purpose or is defunct);
>
> -       Consequently the SG will conduct an anonymised stocktaking survey
> of the current BB list to understand what value users ascribe to BB and
> whether or how they would like it develop in order to shape a discussion at
> a face-to-face meeting before the IGF on the future of BB;
>
> -       The SG will also explore what users find to be incentives and
> disincentives to participating in discussions and activity.
>
>
>
> We propose that the current Steering Group stays in place for the time
> being, and focuses on conducting the survey and organising a session at a
> BB meeting in Brazil during the IGF to consider the way forward including
> what organisational arrangements best suit the needs of the users. This
> will ensure that any decision about the future of Best Bits can be taken at
> the meeting in Brazil, collectively by users, rather than by the interim SG
> alone.
>
>
> You will shortly be receiving a survey and we would encourage you to fill
> it in and give us feedback.
>
>
> Best wishes
>
> *Andrew Puddephatt*
> Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
> gp-digital.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
>

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283
sip:pranesh at ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org
https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150807/28ccfa74/attachment.sig>

From LB at lucabelli.net  Fri Aug  7 11:41:46 2015
From: LB at lucabelli.net (LB at lucabelli.net)
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 08:41:46 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] Net Neutrality Policy Statement on the IGF Website
Message-ID: <20150807084146.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.2731c01aa1.wbe@email07.europe.secureserver.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150807/0e71bad4/attachment.htm>

From lea at gp-digital.org  Mon Aug  3 09:56:00 2015
From: lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 14:56:00 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Open Consultation of the ITU CWG-Internet on IXPs
Message-ID: <CAJTVAjzD_tMcgPfhV1A4DpBWSxgFKNEV0-FbMDEk3f+ZYD_mig@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

In case of interest, please find below information about *public
consultations *held by the ITU's Council Working Group on Internet-related
public policy issues (CWG-Internet). The consultations are held on "the
challenges faced and [...] accepted best practices for the design,
installation and operation of IXPs."

Deadline for submissions: *August 28*.

Opening the CWG-Internet discussions to the public was one of the 'wins'
from the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference, so if groups here have the
capacity to engage, this would be logical follow-up.

Warm wishes,
Lea

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sareidaki, Despoina <despoina.sareidaki at itu.int>
Date: Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 2:40 PM
Subject: Open Consultation of the ITU CWG-Internet on IXPs
To: "Sareidaki, Despoina" <despoina.sareidaki at itu.int>
Cc: "CWG-Internet, ITU" <cwg-internet at itu.int>, "InternetPublicViews, ITU" <
internetpublicviews at itu.int>


Dear Sir/Madam,

We would like to bring to your attention that, following the instruction of
the 2014 ITU Plenipotentiary conference, it was resolved that the ITU Council
Working Group on international Internet-related public policy issues
(CWG-Internet)
<http://www.itu.int/en/council/cwg-internet/Pages/default.aspx> would
hold *regular
online and physical consultations, open to all stakeholders*. The goal of
the open consultations is to bring unique perspectives on topics related to
international Internet-related public policy issues. Relevant inputs from
the online open consultation will form the basis of discussion at the
physical open consultation meetings.

On 3 February 2015 the Council Working Group decided that Open
Consultations would be convened on the following issue:

“With a view to discussing the establishment of Internet Exchange Points
(IXPs) to advance connectivity, improve service quality and increase
network stability and resilience, fostering competition and reducing
interconnection costs, as proposed by Opinion 1 of WTPF-13 and consistent
with PP-14 Resolutions 101 and 102, *stakeholders are invited to elaborate
and exemplify on the challenges faced and identify widely accepted best
practices for the design, installation and operation of IXPs.*”

We kindly invite you to participate in this consultation by sending us your
inputs by *28 August 2015*, and we also look forward to seeing you at the
physical consultation meeting which will be held on *28 September 2015* at
the ITU HQ. Please also feel free to share this information with other
interested parties.

*To participate in the online open consultations, please click here:
http://www.itu.int/en/council/cwg-internet/Pages/consultation-june2015.aspx
<http://www.itu.int/en/council/cwg-internet/Pages/consultation-june2015.aspx>*


*For updates on the upcoming physical consultations and future work of the
CWG-Internet, please click here:
http://www.itu.int/en/council/cwg-internet/Pages/default.aspx
<http://www.itu.int/en/council/cwg-internet/Pages/default.aspx>*

We remain available to provide any additional clarifications.



Kind regards,





[image: cid:image002.jpg at 01D02904.F1C2FC40]

*Despoina Sareidaki*

ITU, Place des Nations
CH-1211 Geneva , Switzerland

Tel :+41 22 730 6818

*despoina.sareidaki at itu.int <despoina.sareidaki at itu.int>*

www.itu.int

www.itu150.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150803/e90d171f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3688 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150803/e90d171f/attachment.jpg>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Mon Aug 10 11:01:16 2015
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 11:01:16 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] new article - Consumer Welfare and Freedom of Expression
 in the Digital Age,
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAem5GBZHGPgqnp2NuCETzw1ThnwB2gjWHH+fugEjYSEVg@mail.gmail.com>

Gene Kimmelman & Mark Cooper, *Antitrust and Economic Regulation: Essential
and Complementary Tools to Maximize Consumer Welfare and Freedom of
Expression in the Digital Age*, 9 Harv. L. & Pol'y Rev. 403 (2015).

http://harvardlpr.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/9.2_5_KimmelmanCooper.pdf

note - focused in US law, but interesting competition discussions

-- 
*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/20150810/1906f233/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Tue Aug 11 09:23:48 2015
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 09:23:48 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] ITU announces Telecom World Entrepreneurship Awards
In-Reply-To: <20150811120530.6647893.88892.3940@state.gov>
References: <1193387.Sebgarsh.AS-106917.2015.8.11.37990.06.pressoffice@itu.int>
	<20150811120530.6647893.88892.3940@state.gov>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAd7T7wTiBKED_YrutaM5sKO-zZcnkC8eEKiPkT-2s_qxw@mail.gmail.com>

ORIGINAL: English

ITU announces Telecom World Entrepreneurship Awards  -
Award to recognize small businesses and entrepreneurs using innovative ICT
solutions for social good

Geneva, 11 August 2015 -  ITU has launched the ITU Telecom World
Entrepreneurship Awards 2015, a new awards programme for the most
innovative start-ups, micro-, small and medium-sized businesses
participating at ITU Telecom World 2015 and using ICTs to provide solutions
with real and sustainable social and economic impact.

The Awards programme recognizes the crucial role played by ICT
entrepreneurs, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and supporting
technology hubs, incubators and government initiatives, in driving industry
growth, creating employment and contributing meaningfully to social
development and the achievement of sustainability goals across emerging and
developed markets.

All SMEs and entrepreneurs exhibiting at ITU Telecom World 2015 in
Budapest, Hungary, 12 - 15 October, are eligible to enter the award,
whether taking part with an independent stand or pod, or as part of a
National

http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2015/32.aspx
<http://redirect.state.sbu/?url=http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2015/32.aspx>





-- 

*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/20150811/00afc5bf/attachment.htm>

From deji at accessnow.org  Tue Aug 11 14:41:20 2015
From: deji at accessnow.org (Deji Olukotun)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:41:20 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] revamped and interactive Global Net Neutrality site
Message-ID: <CAN9cB4EXTyuRomNxSHS49b65w0kSfW+_Q2j4G8Jy=r1Gr4_NdQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi to All,

Apologies for cross-posting.

The Global Net Neutrality Coalition (now with 70+ members) just launched a
revamped site at https://thisisnetneutrality.org.

It now features an interactive map that shows the status of Net Neutrality
around the globe; a model policy framework developed by the Dynamic
Coalition on Network Neutrality <http://www.networkneutrality.info/> for
crafting legislation and regulations; and other resources for global
advocates fighting for a free and open internet.

The map has research from many organizations all over the world -- with
more to come. Have a look.

Please share widely. I've attached a shareable image.
-- 
Deji Olukotun
Senior Global Advocacy Manager
Access | accessnow.org

tel: +1 415-935-4572 | @dejiridoo
PGP: 0x6012CDA8
Fingerprint: 3AEE 4194 F70E C806 A810 857A 6AD5 8F48 6012 CDA8

*Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter on digital rights, the Access
Express: accessnow.org/express <https://accessnow.org/express>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150811/8bd4b45e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: thisisnetneutrality_image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 276008 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150811/8bd4b45e/attachment.png>

From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Wed Aug 12 14:41:03 2015
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 18:41:03 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] FW: [IP] Ofcom scientific report on "Net Neutrality"
 debunks myths
In-Reply-To: <CAKx4trge-aWTG1WDdXKvueYN9r_CAagQ8cQSuyHAk-nFn5KadA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <201508121553.JAA08912@mail.lariat.net>,<CAKx4trge-aWTG1WDdXKvueYN9r_CAagQ8cQSuyHAk-nFn5KadA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <d1b319c5137e47c2be2486eba808fe07@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu>

Maybe of interest.



________________________________
From: Dave Farber <dave at farber.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 11:57 AM
To: ip
Subject: [IP] Ofcom scientific report on "Net Neutrality" debunks myths

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Brett Glass" <brett at lariat.net<mailto:brett at lariat.net>>
Date: Aug 12, 2015 11:54 AM
Subject: Ofcom scientific report on "Net Neutrality" debunks myths
To: "dave at farber.net<mailto:dave at farber.net>" <dave at farber.net<mailto:dave at farber.net>>, "Ip ip" <ip at v2.listbox.com<mailto:ip at v2.listbox.com>>
Cc:

Ofcom publishes scientific report on net neutrality

August 9, 2015 By Martin Geddes

Imagine for a moment that a regulator, prior to issuing potentially controversial rules about "network neutrality", got its technical house fully in order. Imagine that regulator hired the leading experts in the field for scientific advice, so that its rulings were grounded in technical reality. If you can, imagine an open process that was open and subject to scrutiny by the whole technical community. Could this ever happen, or are these hopes just the ravings of a deranged fantasist?

I am pleased to reveal that the UK telecoms regulator, Ofcom, has just published such a landmark scientific report. It is written by my colleagues at Predictable Network Solutions Ltd.

The download link is

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/other/technology-research/2015-reports/traffic-management<http://postlink.www.listbox.com/1933860/0c217c9e2e2ed7f6f8be139f052c5bb4/8923115/167cf754?uri=aHR0cDovL3N0YWtlaG9sZGVycy5vZmNvbS5vcmcudWsvbWFya2V0LWRhdGEtcmVzZWFyY2gvb3RoZXIvdGVjaG5vbG9neS1yZXNlYXJjaC8yMDE1LXJlcG9ydHMvdHJhZmZpYy1tYW5hZ2VtZW50>

The title of the report is "A Study of Traffic Management Detection Methods & Tools". Whilst that sounds rather dry and academic, its contents are transformative for the "network neutrality" debate. Why so? The report identifies the many false technical assumptions being made about detecting "discrimination" or "throttling".

Summary of key report findings
------------------------------

Here are some top findings and highlights from my interpretation and summary of the report:

* Not a single one of the players offering traffic management (TM) detection tools is fit for regulatory use in the UK (where localisation of issues in the supply chain is especially important). They all have limited utility, relevance, accuracy and/or scalability. ("…we must conclude that there is no tool or combination of tools currently available that is suitable for Ofcom's use"). There is a long explanation of their (often embarrassingly common and severe) individual and collective failures to deliver on their promise.

* You cannot conflate 'equality of [packet] treatment' with delivering equality of [user application] outcomes. Only the latter matters, as ordinary users don't care what happened to the packets in transit. Yet the relevant academic literature fixates on the local operation of the mechanisms (including TM), not their global aggregate effect.

* You cannot legitimately assume that good or bad performance was due to the absence or presence of TM. ("The absence of
differential traffic management does not, by itself, guarantee fairness, nor does fairness guarantee fitness-for-purpose.") The typical chain of reasoning about how TM relates to QoE is broken, confusing intentional and unintentional effects.

* Networks cannot choose whether to have traffic management or not. ("…since quality impairment is always present and always distributed somehow or other, traffic management is always present.") This ends the idea of a "neutral" network being one free from TM.

* There is a fundamental false assumption that any current observed performance outcome is intentional TM. ("…even if an outcome is definitely caused by e.g. some specific configuration, this does not prove a deliberate intention, as the result might be accidental.") This instantly blows apart most current discussions of "discrimination", which imply an intentional semantics to broadband that does not exist. It also eliminates the possibility of an oath of "do no harm", since there was not intentionality to the emergent outcome anyway.

More at

http://www.martingeddes.com/ofcom-publishes-pnsol-scientific-report-on-net-neutrality/<http://postlink.www.listbox.com/1933861/73c41f060f058b49ad43040e1898752a/8923115/167cf754?uri=aHR0cDovL3d3dy5tYXJ0aW5nZWRkZXMuY29tL29mY29tLXB1Ymxpc2hlcy1wbnNvbC1zY2llbnRpZmljLXJlcG9ydC1vbi1uZXQtbmV1dHJhbGl0eS8>

Archives<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now> [http://postlink.www.listbox.com/1933863/833487e62783d55fe81f119fb93ef644/8923115/167cf754.jpg?uri=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubGlzdGJveC5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2ZlZWQtaWNvbi0xMHgxMC5qcGc] <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/8923115-8446eb07>  | Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-86ed04cc> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now<https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-e899f1f0&post_id=20150812115741:DA6541F6-410A-11E5-A01D-ECC1DCC1B9CC>  [http://postlink.www.listbox.com/1933864/3379085af0f1cf7fc3708f04b4471ae2/8923115/167cf754.png?uri=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubGlzdGJveC5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2xpc3Rib3gtbG9nby1zbWFsbC5wbmc] <http://postlink.www.listbox.com/1933862/ceaef0abaafb826b7a7a90ddf36178e1/8923115/167cf754?uri=aHR0cDovL3d3dy5saXN0Ym94LmNvbQ>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150812/ddf14567/attachment.htm>

From deji at accessnow.org  Mon Aug 17 12:42:49 2015
From: deji at accessnow.org (Deji Olukotun)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 12:42:49 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Our new report on tracking headers worldwide
Message-ID: <CAN9cB4HXN4-crPQru4WJosbe0+W2yOJt9Zm3xaHrSopMKZK_0A@mail.gmail.com>

Hi to All,

Apologies for cross-posting.

Many of you will remember last year's story
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/verizon-atandt-tracking-their-users-with-super-cookies/2014/11/03/7bbbf382-6395-11e4-bb14-4cfea1e742d5_story.html>
on Verizon's use of "supercookies" to track users. In the wake, Access
launched AmIBeingTracked.com to allow users to see if the supercookie was
being used on their network.

Today, we have released a report on our findings. The report was covered by
the Wall Street Journal:
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/08/17/study-finds-supercookies-used-outside-u-s/
.

Our report found alarming results, among them:

   - Evidence of widespread deployment. Carriers in 10 countries around the
   world, including Canada, China, India, Mexico, Morocco, Peru, the
   Netherlands, Spain, the United States, and Venezuela, are using tracking
   headers
   - Tracking headers have been around for nearly 15 years;
   - Users cannot block tracking headers because they are injected by
   carriers beyond their control, and they can attach to users even when
   roaming across international borders;
   - Tracking headers leak private information about users and make them
   vulnerable to criminal attacks or even government surveillance;
   - Tracking headers depend upon an HTTP, or unencrypted connection, to
   function, and may lead to fewer websites offering HTTPS.

The full report is available here
<https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2015/08/17/read-our-new-report-on-the-troubling-rise-of-tracking-headers-worldwide2>.


Best,
-- 
Deji Olukotun
Senior Global Advocacy Manager
Access | accessnow.org

tel: +1 415-935-4572 | @dejiridoo
PGP: 0x6012CDA8
Fingerprint: 3AEE 4194 F70E C806 A810 857A 6AD5 8F48 6012 CDA8

*Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter on digital rights, the Access
Express: accessnow.org/express <https://accessnow.org/express>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150817/29f7f660/attachment.htm>

From nashton at consensus.pro  Mon Aug 17 12:46:44 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 18:46:44 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Our new report on tracking headers worldwide
In-Reply-To: <CAN9cB4HXN4-crPQru4WJosbe0+W2yOJt9Zm3xaHrSopMKZK_0A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN9cB4HXN4-crPQru4WJosbe0+W2yOJt9Zm3xaHrSopMKZK_0A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <873BE91A-F937-4AC8-9668-A26872E43F54@consensus.pro>

Dear Deji,

I just read it - and the WSG coverage. First-rate stuff, as always from Access.

> On 17 Aug 2015, at 18:42, Deji Olukotun <deji at accessnow.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi to All,
> 
> Apologies for cross-posting.
> 
> Many of you will remember last year's story <http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/verizon-atandt-tracking-their-users-with-super-cookies/2014/11/03/7bbbf382-6395-11e4-bb14-4cfea1e742d5_story.html> on Verizon's use of "supercookies" to track users. In the wake, Access launched AmIBeingTracked.com to allow users to see if the supercookie was being used on their network.
> 
> Today, we have released a report on our findings. The report was covered by the Wall Street Journal: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/08/17/study-finds-supercookies-used-outside-u-s/ <http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/08/17/study-finds-supercookies-used-outside-u-s/>.
> 
> Our report found alarming results, among them:
> Evidence of widespread deployment. Carriers in 10 countries around the world, including Canada, China, India, Mexico, Morocco, Peru, the Netherlands, Spain, the United States, and Venezuela, are using tracking headers
> Tracking headers have been around for nearly 15 years;
> Users cannot block tracking headers because they are injected by carriers beyond their control, and they can attach to users even when roaming across international borders;
> Tracking headers leak private information about users and make them vulnerable to criminal attacks or even government surveillance;
> Tracking headers depend upon an HTTP, or unencrypted connection, to function, and may lead to fewer websites offering HTTPS.
> The full report is available here <https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2015/08/17/read-our-new-report-on-the-troubling-rise-of-tracking-headers-worldwide2>.
> 
> Best,
> --
> Deji Olukotun
> Senior Global Advocacy Manager
> Access | accessnow.org <http://accessnow.org/>
> 
> tel: +1 415-935-4572 | @dejiridoo
> PGP: 0x6012CDA8
> Fingerprint: 3AEE 4194 F70E C806 A810 857A 6AD5 8F48 6012 CDA8
> 
> Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter on digital rights, the Access Express: accessnow.org/express <https://accessnow.org/express>
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as 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/20150817/d2e76be3/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/20150817/d2e76be3/attachment.sig>

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Tue Aug 18 06:34:32 2015
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 16:04:32 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: WSIS Flash Special Issue - WSIS+10 UNGA Overall
 Review - Registration for the Second WSIS+10 Informal Interactive
 Stakeholder Consultations
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHCy6=rx9ViFjam1xdRar=4mfo-+HARF0nBnTb2RCCcONQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

For those of you who hadn't seen this message yet: registration for the
second informal interactive stakeholder consultation on the WSIS+10 has now
begun, and will close on 11 September. More info can be found below.

Best regards,
Anja

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: WSIS Team <wsis-info at itu.int>
Date: 18 August 2015 at 04:35
Subject: WSIS Flash Special Issue - WSIS+10 UNGA Overall Review -
Registration for the Second WSIS+10 Informal Interactive Stakeholder
Consultations
To: Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in>


You are subscribed as anja at internetdemocracy.in | View this email online
<https://www.itu.int/ITU-D/hcb/newsletter/display.php?M=39366&C=83676d9170446a22fe3a7b90e983cd18&S=251&L=26&N=142>
[image: WSIS Flash]
<https://www.itu.int/ITU-D/hcb/newsletter/link.php?M=39366&N=251&L=394&F=H>
[image: WSIS Forum]
<https://www.itu.int/ITU-D/hcb/newsletter/link.php?M=39366&N=251&L=95&F=H>
[image:
WSIS Stocktaking]
<https://www.itu.int/ITU-D/hcb/newsletter/link.php?M=39366&N=251&L=93&F=H>
[image:
Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development]
<https://www.itu.int/ITU-D/hcb/newsletter/link.php?M=39366&N=251&L=244&F=H>
[image:
UNGIS: United Nations Group on the Information Society]
<https://www.itu.int/ITU-D/hcb/newsletter/link.php?M=39366&N=251&L=99&F=H>

Special Issue: August 2015
Overall Review of the Implementation of WSIS Outcomes by UNGA
[image: WSIS+10 UNGA High-Level Meeting]
<https://www.itu.int/ITU-D/hcb/newsletter/link.php?M=39366&N=251&L=782&F=H>

Registration for the Second WSIS+10 Informal Interactive Stakeholder
Consultations

The President of the General Assembly will convene a second informal
interactive WSIS stakeholder consultations with all relevant stakeholders
on *19 October 2015*.

*Registration is now open* for all relevant stakeholders, including civil
society, private sector and academia, from the following five categories:

• Non-governmental organizations in consultative status with the Economic
and Social Council
• Organizations accredited to the World Summit on the Information Society
held in Geneva (2003) and Tunis (2005)
• Organizations accredited to the WSIS Forum held from 2011 to 2015
• Organizations with observer status with the United Nations Conference on
Trade and Development
• Attendees of the UNESCO WSIS+10 - ICT4D Conference or the UNESCO WSIS -
Connecting the Dots Conference

For further information and registration, please click here
<https://www.itu.int/ITU-D/hcb/newsletter/link.php?M=39366&N=251&L=829&F=H>.

*Registration will close at 5:00 p.m. New York time on 11 September 2015.*

Background

The General Assembly, in its resolution 68/302 on the modalities for the
overall review by the Assembly of the implementation of the outcomes of the
World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), decided that that the
overall review will be concluded by a two-day high-level meeting of the
Assembly, to be preceded by an intergovernmental preparatory process that
also takes into account inputs from all relevant stakeholders of the World
Summit on the Information Society.

The General Assembly also decided that during the preparatory process for
the high-level meeting, the President of the Assembly will organize
informal interactive consultations with all relevant stakeholders of the
World Summit on the Information Society, in order to collect their inputs
for the intergovernmental negotiation process.

For more information about the United Nations General Assembly's overall
review of the implementation of WSIS outcomes, please visit:
unpan3.un.org/wsis10/
<https://www.itu.int/ITU-D/hcb/newsletter/link.php?M=39366&N=251&L=782&F=H>

The WSIS Flash provides monthly updates on the WSIS Implementation Process.
You have received this newsletter as part of your engagement with the WSIS
Process, to stop receiving these emails please unsubscribe.
<https://www.itu.int/ITU-D/hcb/newsletter/unsubscribe.php?M=39366&C=83676d9170446a22fe3a7b90e983cd18&L=26&N=251>
www.wsis.org
<https://www.itu.int/ITU-D/hcb/newsletter/link.php?M=39366&N=251&L=97&F=H>
| wsis-info at itu.int [image: ITU - WSIS Flash]



-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150818/0fa75d9e/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Aug 18 09:08:31 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 18:38:31 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] JNC's comments on ICANN oversight (non) transition
Message-ID: <55D32E4F.7030400@itforchange.net>

Just Net Coalition has submitted its comments to the process that is
coming up with proposals for what was supposed to be the transition of
ICANN's oversight from the US to a globally legitimate structure, but
the - now more or less final - proposals on the table do nothing of the
sort, and merely serve to cement the status quo.

We have submitted our comments in two parts

A overall political commentary can be found at

https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission19.pdf

A more technical response to finer issues and processes of the process
is at

https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission18.pdf

In sum, we have firmly rejected both, the legitimacy of the process and
the arbitrary manner in which it was conducted, and its result in the
form of the final proposals on the table.

parminder
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150818/b911c7ea/attachment.htm>

From willi.uebelherr at riseup.net  Tue Aug 18 12:02:25 2015
From: willi.uebelherr at riseup.net (willi uebelherr)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 13:02:25 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Re: [WSF-Discuss] to my person ( - IUF 2015)
In-Reply-To: <55D34FA1.4080908@riseup.net>
References: <55D34FA1.4080908@riseup.net>
Message-ID: <55D35711.2020709@riseup.net>


Dear friends,

i will give you the possibility to know about our discussion for the 
Internet Ungovernance Forum (IUF) 2015 in Joao Pessoa in Brasil. 
Parallel to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF).

In this time, we do not have a maillist for the IUF. I hope, our friends 
in Brasil and Istanbul create it. Then we have the open space for an 
open and free discussion about Ungovernance or Governance for the 
Internet. And the people in the IGF-environment can be very important 
and helpful in this discussion process to find the truth.

many greetings, willi
Salvador, Brasil


-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: Re: [WSF-Discuss] to my person
Datum: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 12:30:41 -0300
Von: willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at riseup.net>
An: iuf iuf partido pirata <iuf at partidopirata.org>
Kopie (CC): Iuri Guilherme <iuri at openmailbox.org>, Julia Reda 
<julia.reda at piratenpartei.de>, Brigitta Jonsdottir 
<birgittaj at althingi.is>, Amelia Andersdotter 
<amelia.andersdotter at piratpartiet.se>, Fabiane Bogdanovicz 
<fabianebolan at yahoo.com.br>, Alexandre Oliva <lxoliva at fsfla.org>, ASL 
<asl at asl.org.br>, Uzoma Madukanya <cocoa-sunrise at web.de>, Quiliro 
Ordóñez Baca <quiliro at riseup.net>, Fernando de Sá Moreira 
<urbanoia at gmail.com>, Piratas Norio Salvador <piratasnorio at riseup.net>, 
IUF Alternatif Bilisim <bilgi at alternatifbilisim.org>, Diego Saravia 
<dsa at unsa.edu.ar>, Galleguindio Ramirez 
<galleguindio at partidopirata.com.ar>, IUF Ali Rıza Keleş 
<arkeles at alternatifbilisim.org>, IUF Etkinlik Kayıt 
<kayit at alternatifbilisim.org>, IUF Ahmet Sabancı 
<ahmet at ahmetasabanci.com>, Wolf Gauer <wgauer at gmail.com>, Umit Sahin 
<umitsahin at sabanciuniv.edu>


Dear KaNNoN,

many thanks for your answer and explanation.

My thema in general and for the IUF: Internet, the interconnection of
local networks. A transportsystem for digital data in packet form.

In the core stay the design principles, the principles of the
architecture. This, because the centralized system, what we have, is a
question of design principles: private star networks, connected in
private IXP (Internet Exchange Points) and this connected with private
backbones. Transfered as a private service from private ISP (Internet
Service provider), traders for private transport capacity, to the people.

We know from the beginning, that there was a principle condition: This
system have to be private controlled. Independent of all questions
about, what the people need and what the technology make possible.
Therefore, this transportsystem was not designed like the streets
between the communities.

To visualize the difference, i will create a map of the different
telecommunication transport systems in Brasil, i will use the existed
maps from other people in our world and i will create a map as a
proposal, what we need. We look for all forms of different electronic
transport system, because we need only one. For "Internet", telephone,
TV and radio and all forms of transport of digital data.

The basic is my proposal to NetMundial. It is always the core with all
principles. I have sent this text also to this list. In the NetMundial
maillist 1net.org you can follow the discussion last year. We see, this
people never want to discuss this proposal in an open way, because they
need the Governance as a base for her material existence. For her jobs.

The other question in a more private connection, particularly with
Quiliro in Ecuador and his friends, was the anonymity. Never the Net
Neutrality. And it is clear: For the routing we need the geographical
information. And some people do not like, that other people know, in
what community they live. But we should be clear. Only very few people
need this anonymity. The whistleblower and the real journalists and all
people, they act against repression and the clandestino groups. Against
any form of private ownership of common ressources, for local self
organisation and self determination.

But the problem for me is not a technical question. Because on the ways, 
what are based on the technology, we can do it nearly all, what we need. 
We can go through anonymisation networks, we can encrypt all our data 
and we have have 2 parts of our IP address. The global and the local 
part. The global part is open, because the router need the geographical 
information. The local part is a local decision. Nobody need to know it 
outside of the local network. And if you create a link to a local 
network anywhere on our planet, you can do it.

We have to seperate the transport demands in the global space and our
specific using of our data. Like on the street. The people use dark
windows and closed boxes.

Much more important is, that today all the security system of the state
and state cooperations know, where you are. Only the people do not know. 
This, because also for Cisco they need the geographical information. And 
if you look in the different open and closed protocols you see it. And 
this you see also in all OpenWrt routing protocols. All this algotithms 
comes from military projects. They want to work with dynamical hidden 
servers and nobody should know, where they are in this time. But this is 
a illusion.

Maybe the most difficult part of my proposal is, that we have to
organize our independence in the technology. That we are able, local and 
regional, to create the technical components self. This is a break of 
the capitalistic production and distribution system and logic relations. 
In this part, we have the biggest confrondation with the antagonism of 
interests and with the lack of self-confidence of the local people. And 
this part is for me the most important part.

The thema "Ungovernance" implies the own activity. Without that,
Ungovernance is impossible. And this is valid in all areas of our life.
And it is not important, in what space we start. This, because the
Internet for a free access to the free knowledge and free communication
is always a part. Therefore, i concentrate my doing and thinking to this 
genaral instrument for our local independent economy.

many greetings, willi
Salvador, Brasil



Am 18/08/2015 um 09:01 schrieb iuf iuf partido pirata:
> Hello mates!
> We are finishing the preparations for a crowdfunding. (The main focus is to
> pay the passages of our guests , as Birgitta.)We will be launching at the
> most this week. (We will update the site http://iuf.partidopirata.org) At
> João Pessoa, for the Internet UNGOVERNANCE forum, we already have an
> auditorium for 300 people and certain infrastructure (Wi-Fi for live
> streaming, projections, etc)
>
> About:
>
> The recent "Hacking Team Leaks" shows that government forces of Brazil
> bought surveillance devices that go far beyond what is acceptable in
> combating and investigation of crimes. This week our Senate plans to
> increase custody of massive logs and data from one to three years, to all
> the population - with the classic excuse of fighting pedophilia, even
> though there are experiences in this sense that this type of action does
> not help avoiding or fighting these crimes as in the infamous case of
> Section 215 in the US and the EU Data Directive Retention.
>
> As political persecution , we could cite cases in Brazil during 2013 and at
> the World Cup , in which activists had their homes raided by police in
> warrant for " pirated software " and then processed by the most absurd
> accusations in media actions between government and corporate interests.
>
> Now we have a "anti-terrorism" law project. Very, very disturbing. There
> are numerous other problems in our country. Brazil is one of the countries
> in which it kills more journalists in the world. But it is not just in
> Brazil : the example of NetMundial , the hypocrisy of Governments who talk
> about multi-stakeholderism but don't actually practise it. We believe that
> the format of the IGF does not address the given issues. This is one of the
> reasons to propose a parallel forum in the first place. Our challenge is to
> provide a counterpoint, thus the need for supporters.
>
> Remember NETmundial: under the influence by governments and corporations,
> the final outcome document of the NETmundial forum became a weak, toothless
> and disappointing text. Why expect for something different now? Also, quite
> recently Marco Civil law has been discussed and approved in Brasil. At
> first, it came as a draft to protect citizens from authority abuse and
> garantee net neutrality - in which we had participated. But the final doc
> suffered many interferences and ended up as another viable force against
> citizens and leaving a blank space providing several hypothesis for
> breaking neutrality. To keep the long story short: what came from popular
> demands was quickly absorved by bigger companies and government for their
> own interests.
>
> The Marco Civil will be a big part of the discussion at IGF this year,
> along with clear net neutrality breaking iniciatives such as Internet.org.
> While waiting for final regulaments, there's been a call to society to send
> their thoughts and approval on this matter - which never meant they were
> actually heard. Government is not obligated to attend to our demands, as
> long as it shows we were 'heard'. It could be as well completelly deaf to
> people's call after all. (For your appreciation about Marco Civil, this is
> my article. Notice that this is not representing the view of IUF about this
> law, http://piratetimes.net/new-brazilian-law-strips-citizens-rights/ )
>
> At last, many of IUF supporters will also attend to IGF. The whole point is
> creating space for those not heard by the IGF, thus opening for true
> discussion. IUF must serve as a wake up call to citizens who truly wish to
> end mass surveillance and foster our freedoms online. We look forward to
> your help in building the IUF in 2015
>
> I hope to hear from you soon: ideas, suggestions , themes, lectures, etc.
>
>
> KaNNoN
> (My personnal contact: Phone (21) 31269898 (21) 98227-9981 Telegram
> @KaNNoNN)
>
>
> 2015-08-16 15:02 GMT-03:00 willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at riseup.net>:
>
>>
>> Dear Iuri and friends,
>>
>> this is my first mail to the World Social Forum (WSF) discussion list. For
>> our Internet Ungovernance Forum (IUF) we need all spaces to spread the
>> information to the IUF meeting.
>>
>> many greetings, willi
>> Salvador, Brasil
>>
>>
>> -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
>> Betreff: [WSF-Discuss] to my person
>> Datum: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 14:31:46 -0300
>> Von: willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at riseup.net>
>> An: WSF discuss <WorldSocialForum-Discuss at openspaceforum.net>
>>
>> Dear friends,
>>
>> because I'm new to this list, I want to introduce myself. Few names of
>> the members in this list are known to me. About a CC address in a mail
>> from Orsan Senalp I became aware of this list. And because I am very
>> interested in the project Internet Social Forum (ISF), they relate to
>> the principles of the WSF, I will also act in this environment.
>>
>> Willi Uebelherr, german, 66 years, master electrician and engineer for
>> technical informatics. Since 4.5 years I live in Latin America. The
>> goal: The decentralization of the economy, so the local independent
>> economy, the basis for political independence. Independence in the
>> economy always rests on the local technical infrastructure and the
>> independence in the technology.
>>
>> If we understand technology as the materialization of the laws of the
>> nature, then we understand what we have to do. According to my general
>> development principles, massively decentralized, massively parallel,
>> massively redundant, the development of local capacities for the
>> production of our material base of our existence stay always in the
>> foreground. So the local economy.
>>
>> However, we also need to understand that economics has nothing to do
>> with money. We find money only in the distribution system and that is
>> something else entirely. The problems in our world are primarily a
>> result of centralization and monopolization. And this since the Roman
>> Empire.
>>
>> We have to understand the decentralization, local autonomy and local
>> self-organization as the essential break to a new world. Then it will be
>> easy. The tool for this: global cooperation. Thus we come to 2
>> principles: "Think globally, act locally" and "Knowledge is always world
>> heritage".
>>
>> On this basis, we can let the global network of free technology arise.
>> Free for all to participate in it. Free for all to use and apply the
>> results. "The free association of free members."
>>
>> The focus of my activities is the Internet. The connection of all people
>> of our planet. Free and gratis, without restrictions. We need an
>> Internet, but it does not exist. So we have to let it occur. I would
>> like to bring my proposal for this purpose in this list. But still I do
>> not know if this is also the theme on this list. And in the Internet
>> Social Forum I can not be active in this time.
>>
>> Maybe we need the World Internet Forum (WIF)? And the World Free
>> Technology Forum (WFTF)? With the World Social Forum (WSF) as the base?
>>
>> It is clear that I run on the basis of my principles on massive
>> backlash. As in P2P Foundation, FLOK Ecuador, NetworkedLabour, Community
>> Intelligence, Just Net Coalition. The result has always been my
>> exclusion from these lists. And this I know already from Germany.
>>
>> I am not willing to reassign me muzzled. Not even to practice "political
>> correctness". I speak and write the way I think and I respect that right
>> always for others. Therefore: "unity in diversity". We need the
>> diversity. It is the life. The monotony is the death.
>>
>> with many greetings, willi
>> Salvador, Brasil
>>
>> ---
>> Este email foi escaneado pelo Avast antivírus.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ** WSFDiscuss is an open and unmoderated forum for the exchange of
>> information and views on the experience, practise, and theory of the World
>> Social Forum at any level (local, national, regional, and global) and on
>> related social and political movements and issues.  Join in !**
>> _______________________________________________
>> WSFDiscuss mailing list
>> POST to LIST : Send email to WorldSocialForum-Discuss at openspaceforum.net
>> SUBSCRIBE: Send empty email to
>> worldsocialforum-discuss-subscribe at openspaceforum.net
>> UNSUBSCRIBE: Send empty email to
>> worldsocialforum-discuss-unsubscribe at openspaceforum.net
>> LIST ARCHIVES:
>> http://openspaceforum.net/pipermail/worldsocialforum-discuss_openspaceforum.net/
>> LIST INFORMATION:
>> http://openspaceforum.net/mailman/listinfo/worldsocialforum-discuss_openspaceforum.net
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Este email foi escaneado pelo Avast antivírus.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>>
>



---
Este email foi escaneado pelo Avast antivírus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


From roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca  Tue Aug 18 14:38:12 2015
From: roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca (Becky Lentz)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 14:38:12 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] New Article on NGOs and Policymaking in the Global
 Context
In-Reply-To: <LYRIS-1406864-145724-2015.08.18-11.35.58--roberta.lentz#mcgill.ca@lists.carleton.ca>
References: <LYRIS-1406864-145724-2015.08.18-11.35.58--roberta.lentz#mcgill.ca@lists.carleton.ca>
Message-ID: <D1F8F3A9.3B996%roberta.lentz@mcgill.ca>

This may be of interest to some on this list.

----------------------
Becky Lentz, PhD
Associate Professor of Communication Studies
Department of Art History/Communication Studies
McGill University
853 Sherbrooke Street West, Arts Building, W-265
Montreal, QC, Canada H3A 0G5
Phone 514.398.4995
Fax 514.398.8557
Email: becky.lentz at mcgill.ca
http://www.mcgill.ca/ahcs

From:  Cristina Balboa <Cristina.Balboa at baruch.cuny.edu>
Reply-To:  GITA <gita at lists.carleton.ca>
Date:  Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 11:35 AM
To:  Becky Lentz <roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca>
Subject:  [gita] New Article on NGOs and Policymaking in the Global Context

> Dear GITA Colleagues,
>  
> I hope your summers are ending well.
>  
> This past month Maryam Zarnegar Deloffre and I published in the Journal of
> Public Affairs Education.  It¹s entitled ³Policymaking in the Global Context:
> Training Students to Build Effective Strategic Partnerships with
> Nongovernmental Organizations² and you can access it here:
> http://www.naspaa.org/JPAEMessenger/Article/VOL21-3/10_Balboa%20Deloffe.pdf.
>  
> The article uses the Ebola case to demonstrate why it is important for MPA/MPP
> programs to teach about NGOs ­ either as actors in building a global policy or
> as partners with traditional policy-making agencies.  It also uses NASPAA data
> to illustrate how few MPA/MPP programs actually do focus on NGOs into their
> core or elective courses, despite the growing number of faculty with research
> focus on private actors.  The discussion draws heavily from the spheres of
> influence capacity framework I proposed in World Development last year, and
> Maryam¹s detailed understanding of the actors responding to the Ebola
> outbreak.
>  
> Maryam also wrote about the article in the prestigious International Relations
> Blog Duck of Minerva:
> http://duckofminerva.com/2015/08/policymaking-gone-global-learning-to-work-wit
> h-ngos.html
>  
> For those of you who teach in traditional MPP/MPA programs, this article might
> be helpful in creating lesson plans on teaching about strategic partnerships
> in global policymaking.
>  
> Best,
> Cristina




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150818/d2fa6760/attachment.htm>

From charles at gp-digital.org  Mon Aug  3 10:14:53 2015
From: charles at gp-digital.org (Charles Bradley)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 15:14:53 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Freedom Online Coalition Working Group 3 -- Open
 Call for Members
In-Reply-To: <CACm4Mc3y3Gb2JLUsdb8Ro3s69=76AwH2bE2qJTNrrdoh0zrGZg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACm4Mc3y3Gb2JLUsdb8Ro3s69=76AwH2bE2qJTNrrdoh0zrGZg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACm4Mc0ELRGa4P5ZPY15bCyffo4aA1vg3++Nvv3RrtzNRqmKiQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear friends,

A quick reminder that the deadline for applications to join the Freedom
Online Coalition Working Group 3 - "Privacy and Transparency Online" - is *COB
5th August 2015.*

More details on the call, and how to apply, can be found here
<https://www.freedomonlinecoalition.com/news/call-for-members-working-group-privacy-and-transparency-online/>
.

With best wishes
Charles

*Charles Bradley*
Head of Strategy and Operations | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
T: +44 (0)20 7549 0337 | M: +44 (0)7852 535222 | Skype:
charles.globalpartners
gp-digital.org

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Charles Bradley <charles at gp-digital.org>
Date: 15 July 2015 at 09:56
Subject: Freedom Online Coalition Working Group 3 -- Open Call for Members
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net


Dear friends,

The Freedom Online Coalition Working Group 3 (WG3)
<https://www.freedomonlinecoalition.com/how-we-work/working-groups/working-group-3/>
– “Privacy and Transparency Online” – is looking for members to join its
efforts promoting respect for human rights online.

WG3 focuses on the relationship between governments and information &
communications technology (ICT) companies, with a particular emphasis on
respecting human rights, including freedom of expression and privacy.

In the past year, WG3 conducted research on how to increase transparency
about government requests to ICT companies for user information or content
restriction, specifically in national security and law enforcement
contexts. (A draft executive summary of that research can be found here
<https://www.freedomonlinecoalition.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/FOC-WG3-Draft-Executive-Summary-May-2015.pdf>
.)

WG3 will build on this work under its new mandate from fall 2015-spring
2016. The group will focus on 1) the development of models and best
practices for government transparency reporting in this context, and on 2)
company and government transparency about the laws, policies and processes
in which these requests are made and received.

The Group will consist of up to 15 selected individuals who will join the
Working Group Co-chairs alongside FOC country members. Members participate
in their individual capacity and will be expected to participate regularly
in conference calls, online collaboration on projects, and in-person
meetings when possible.

*Deadline for applications: COB 5th August 2015.*

For more information about the call, including details on how to apply,
please visit the FOC website
<https://www.freedomonlinecoalition.com/news/call-for-members-working-group-privacy-and-transparency-online/>
.

With best wishes
Charles

*Charles Bradley*
Head of Strategy and Operations | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
T: +44 (0)20 7549 0337 | M: +44 (0)7852 535222 | Skype:
charles.globalpartners
gp-digital.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150803/67d2a7d4/attachment.htm>

From javier at accessnow.org  Wed Aug 19 15:04:44 2015
From: javier at accessnow.org (Javier Pallero)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 16:04:44 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] Civil Society letter against Data Retention in Peru
Message-ID: <CAOKjkF8ga8foqNPdm0_jggZjZFZZRA9hgi8e31qWMP+0W86Hiw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear friends,

In the last week of July, the Peruvian Presidency issued a legislative
decree establishing a 3 year data retention mandate upon all
telecommunications carriers in Peru (including ISPs) The decree also
mandates telecommunications service providers to share real-time location
information about suspects of flagrant crimes by police request only
(without a previous warrant)

These two authorities raise serious concerns regarding user privacy and
freedom of expression. Access, with the collaboration of the EFF has put
together a letter condemning these policies and asking for their rejection
in an upcoming legislative review.

We kindly invite you to support us with your signature. Please do it before
Sunday the 23rd by 10 PM UTC.

You can find the letter *attached*. Signatories so far include:

Access - Global

Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) - Global

DATA - Uruguay

TEDIC - Paraguay

Asociación por los Derechos Civiles - ADC - Argentina

Derechos Digitales - Latin America

Thanks in advance,



*---Javier Pallero*

Policy Analyst / Analista de Politicas
Access | accessnow.org

PGP 0xEBFD028A
Fingerprint 0503 FBA1 10B2 B83C 61FC FE3B 4E7E EBDD EBFD 028A

*Suscríbase a nuestro newsletter sobre derechos digitales, el Access
Express: accessnow.org/express <http://accessnow.org/express>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150819/dda753ff/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DataRetentioninPeruLetterofSupport.-2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 108869 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150819/dda753ff/attachment.pdf>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Wed Aug 26 10:15:04 2015
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 10:15:04 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] REMINDER: ICTs and Constitution Building Tech Fair
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAe2iZA6CGTyyb7F03b8GspQQ_xaN1C8Z3K4VPhK+Xnh=Q@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------



*REMINDER: ICTs and Constitution Building Tech Fair*
Is this email not displaying correctly?
View it in your browser
<http://us2.campaign-archive2.com/?u=e58ea7be12fb998fa30bac7ac&id=798e0688cd&e=6781635321>
.
[image: ICT4Peace Foundation]
<http://ict4peace.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=e58ea7be12fb998fa30bac7ac&id=ac51883acf&e=6781635321>
REMINDER

ICTs and Constitution Building Tech Fair

International IDEA, in partnership with the Google Docs and Google Ideas,
is organizing a one-day “Constitution Building Tech Fair
<http://ict4peace.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=e58ea7be12fb998fa30bac7ac&id=df4affe322&e=6781635321>”
for technology entrepreneurs to present services, platforms and products
that could help in a constitution making process, and have an exchange with
leading constitutional experts and practitioners regarding currently unmet
needs and challenges for which existing technologies could be adapted.

*This event will be hosted by the National Constitutional Center, and
curated by ICT4Peace.*

The Constitution Building Tech Fair will feature TED-talk-like keynote
speeches on the challenges of constitution making today and how public
domain information can be leveraged for participatory processes around
governance. It will furthermore feature “ignite talks” where tech
entrepreneurs present their tools as they may relate to three interrelated
issues in any given constitution building process: Access to information,
transparency in the process, and encouraging public debate.

Deadline: 10 September 2015, 3pm Central European Time.

More details and application form here
<http://ict4peace.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=e58ea7be12fb998fa30bac7ac&id=adbaa9daa9&e=6781635321>
.

<http://ict4peace.us2.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=e58ea7be12fb998fa30bac7ac&id=2f9594649c&e=6781635321>


Follow ICT4Peace on *Twitter* here - http://www.twitter.com/ict4peace
<http://ict4peace.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=e58ea7be12fb998fa30bac7ac&id=9d49bdd198&e=6781635321>

Follow ICT4Peace on *Facebook* here - http://facebook.com/ict4peace
<http://ict4peace.us2.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=e58ea7be12fb998fa30bac7ac&id=ba42364938&e=6781635321>

Download the *ICT4Peace Foundation report of 2005 on the use of Information
and Communications Technologies for peacebuilding (ICT4Peace)*, with a
Preface by Kofi A. Annan, former Secretary General of the United Nations
here
<http://ict4peace.us2.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=e58ea7be12fb998fa30bac7ac&id=48eea4c595&e=6781635321>
.

An updated version of this report, with critical analysis on current
policies and practices of ICTs in peacebuilding and crises was published in
early 2011. Published in collaboration with the Berkman Center for Internet
and Society at Harvard University and GeorgiaTech, *Peacebuilding in the
Information Age: Sifting Hype from Reality* can be read here
<http://ict4peace.us2.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=e58ea7be12fb998fa30bac7ac&id=ebf75d7a9f&e=6781635321>
.
[image: ICT4Peace Foundation]
<http://ict4peace.us2.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=e58ea7be12fb998fa30bac7ac&id=8d7aa733fa&e=6781635321>
ICT4Peace took root with pioneering research on the role of ICTs in
preventing, responding to and recovering from conflict in 2003 and lead to
the adoption of Paragraph 36 by the World Summit on the Information Society
(WSIS) in Tunis in 2005 which recognises *“...the potential of ICTs to
promote peace and to prevent conflict which, inter alia, negatively affects
achieving development goals. ICTs can be used for identifying conflict
situations through early-warning systems preventing conflicts, promoting
their peaceful resolution, supporting humanitarian action, including
protection of civilians in armed conflicts, facilitating peacekeeping
missions, and assisting post conflict peace-building and reconstruction".*

The *ICT4Peace Foundation* works to promote the practical realisation of
Paragraph 36 and looks at the role of ICT in crisis management, covering
aspects of early warning and conflict prevention, peace mediation,
peacekeeping, peace-building as well as natural disaster management and
humanitarian operations.
 follow on Twitter
<http://ict4peace.us2.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=e58ea7be12fb998fa30bac7ac&id=abb5daec32&e=6781635321>
 | friend on Facebook
<http://ict4peace.us2.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=e58ea7be12fb998fa30bac7ac&id=8ff2f2e73d&e=6781635321>
 | forward to a friend
<http://us2.forward-to-friend.com/forward?u=e58ea7be12fb998fa30bac7ac&id=798e0688cd&e=6781635321>

*Copyright © 2015 ICT4Peace Foundation, All rights reserved.*

You are receiving this email because you've shown an interest in getting
news, update and information around the ICT4Peace Foundation's work.

*Our mailing address is:*
ICT4Peace Foundation
Michel Chevallier
chemin de Sous-Bois 14 1202
Geneva
Switzerland
 unsubscribe from this list
<http://ict4peace.us2.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=e58ea7be12fb998fa30bac7ac&id=51c140ac15&e=6781635321&c=798e0688cd>
 | update subscription preferences
<http://ict4peace.us2.list-manage2.com/profile?u=e58ea7be12fb998fa30bac7ac&id=51c140ac15&e=6781635321>





-- 

-- 
*Carolina Rossini *

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


*Save the Date! The IP3 Awards are September 24th!*
*RSVP
at https://www.eventbrite.com/e/12th-annual-ip3-awards-tickets-16522289613
<https://www.eventbrite.com/e/12th-annual-ip3-awards-tickets-16522289613>*

-- 

*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/20150826/26693e5d/attachment.htm>

From anja at internetdemocracy.in  Wed Aug 26 10:51:54 2015
From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 20:21:54 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Taking place next week: Asian Regional Consultation on
 the WSIS+10 Review - remote participation available
Message-ID: <CAJqNAHDhvs10QJS2Sj_Cy+o394DCq0ba7DT=e6KChqviXmvb7Q@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

The Internet Democracy Project, Bytes for All, APNIC, the Association for
Progressive Communications, ISOC, Global Partners Digital and ICT Watch are
together organising an *Asian Regional Consultation on the WIS+10 Review*
from 3 to 5 September in Pattaya, Thailand.


The Asian Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review will bring together
experts from different backgrounds and from around the Asian region who are
concerned about issues concerning ICTs, sustainable development, human
rights and Internet governance, to ask:
*what are the issues that our governments need to squarely address in the
process of the review? *


The meeting is timed so as to be able for the group to comment on the
non-paper that will have been released by the co-facilitators of the review
process in late August (inputs into that paper can be made by all
stakeholders and are due on 31 July). The group will take stock of the
extent to which priorities for the Asian region have been reflected in the
non-paper, and will work together on formulating a joint comment on the
non-paper (comments on the non-paper will be due in mid-September, and will
be drawn on by the co-facilitators to formulate a zero-draft). The group
will also look forward to consider which further inputs could be made or
actions could be taken strategically to ensure that priorities from the
Asian region are fully taken onto board in the final WSIS+10 Review outcome
documents. If there are other processes the group believes this work could
usefully feed into, these might be taken into consideration as well.


*The meeting is conceived as a highly interactive working meeting that is
geared towards producing a joint submission to the next input round on the
Review outcome document. *Participants will be drawn from all
non-government stakeholder groups, and will have a wide and rich variety of
backgrounds, both in terms of professional expertise and geographical
location. What unites all, however, is a shared commitment to a free and
open Internet and to the use of technology to benefit the development and
human rights of all in our region.


*We're very happy to let you know that remote participation will be
available. *For more information on remote participation and the event in
general, please see the event website <http://www.wsis10.asia/>. Or follow
us on Twitter @WSISAsia #wsis10.


We look forward to your inputs into this event. Do please let me know if
you have any comments or questions.


Warm regards,

Anja


-- 
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150826/38b41d8c/attachment.htm>

From willi.uebelherr at riseup.net  Wed Aug 26 15:08:00 2015
From: willi.uebelherr at riseup.net (willi uebelherr)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 16:08:00 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] [WSF-Discuss] The decentralization of the DNS system
Message-ID: <55DE0E90.8070201@riseup.net>


Dear friends,

this is the answer from Orsan Senalp on the WSF discuss list. I support 
this initiative. Orsan is very strong connected to different forums and 
lists. And we also. So, we can bring togehter all people, that are 
interested in this working space.

many greetings, willi
Salvador


-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: Re: [WSF-Discuss] The decentralization of the DNS system
Datum: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 16:25:18 +0200
Von: Örsan Şenalp <orsan1234 at gmail.com>
An: Discussion list about the WSF 
<worldsocialforum-discuss at openspaceforum.net>, 
networkedlabour at lists.contrast.org <networkedlabour at lists.contrast.org>, 
commoning <commoning at lists.wissensallmende.de>, P2P Foundation mailing 
list <p2p-foundation at lists.ourproject.org>, squares 
<squares at lists.takethesquare.net>, 2011movements-fsm 
<2011movements-fsm-wsf-discussion at lists.openfsm.net>

That would be great if we could laid down a work-learning-education
tool/space for instance towards internet un-governance conf., next ISF
and WSF 2016.

With this spirit did create a test space (on Networked Labour
University, under test space created for Global Square initiative, yet
not been activated). We could test this to see if it would help out in
rolling a collaborative work so that we could formulate and pool
concrete ideas, proposals, and undertake practices and projects, link
up with relavant groups and communities that share similar objective
of building and connecting peoples' Internet(s) bottom up.

The test space might be utilized as a collaborative open space, where
we could organise our selves by sharing and providing necessary basic
self-education materials, open access libraries, research, and form
study-circles to learn more on information and communication
technologies, networks and emancipatory complex systems in general and
related topics in collaboration:

http://networkedlabour.networg.nl/moodle/course/view.php?id=17

Any one like to join and test can either open and account or register
as a guest here:

http://networkedlabour.networg.nl/moodle/login/index.php

in solidarity,
orsan


-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: Re: [WSF-Discuss] The decentralization of the DNS system
Datum: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 10:02:17 -0300
Von: willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at riseup.net>
An: WSF discuss <WorldSocialForum-Discuss at openspaceforum.net>

Dear friends,

I'm not sure if this formulation (bring in, bring out) is correct in
english. Mikael start to use it. In the history, the telecommunication
instances "bring in" the "internet" in the social environment. The
people was passiv, consumer.

We have to go the other direction. We create the Internet, how we need
it. We "bring out" the Internet from our social environments. This
means, we define and determine the archetectural and technical
principles based on our general social principles. And in our social
environment grow up our "networkedlabour", our distributed connection of
our Point to Point activity.

many greetings, willi


-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: Re: [WSF-Discuss] The decentralization of the DNS system
Datum: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 09:42:42 -0300
Von: willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at riseup.net>
An: Discussion list about the WSF 
<worldsocialforum-discuss at openspaceforum.net>

Am 25/08/2015 um 02:33 schrieb Mikael Book:
 > Willi,
 >
 > in my reply to you, I stressed that the internet has to be woven into
 > the fabric of the human societies. To this, you suggested a turnaround:
 > not to bring the internet into the societies, but the bring the
 > societies out of the internet.

Dear Mikael,

only this i have read. The rest never can be valuable, because the base
is wrong.

My answer: We bring out the Intenet from our social environment.

many greetings, willi
Salvador



---
Este email foi escaneado pelo Avast antivírus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


From avri at acm.org  Thu Aug 27 12:39:04 2015
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 12:39:04 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [] IGF Best Practices - OC and MAG meeting next
 week
In-Reply-To: <SN2PR0601MB717BAD0C4167F0D6DA58963CA6F0@SN2PR0601MB717.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
References: <SN2PR0601MB717BAD0C4167F0D6DA58963CA6F0@SN2PR0601MB717.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <55DF3D28.2030606@acm.org>

hi,

I encourage people to read and get involved in commenting on the various
documents being posted by all of these groups.  The 'working group'
activity with the IGF is growing and there are lots of opportunities to
contribute on all sorts of topics both in these fora  and in the dynamic
coalitions.  Planning groups for most of the sessions are also open for
participation.

Dynamic Coalition contributions can be found in
<http://review.intgovforum.org/igf-2015/dynamic-coalitions/>

I will be attending the MAG meeting in Paris*.  Let me know if you need
anything or if the remote participation isn't working for you, I can at
least pass messages on.

avri

* Self funded through using miles and staying at a friends' apartment as
well as a measure of deficit financing.

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[Bp_multistakeholder] IGF Best Practices - OC and MAG meeting
next week
Date: 	Thu, 27 Aug 2015 14:35:19 +0000
From: 	Constance Bommelaer
To: 	MAG-public <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>,
intersessional_2015 at intgovforum.org <intersessional_2015 at intgovforum.org>
CC: 	Bp_counteringabuse at intgovforum.org
<Bp_counteringabuse at intgovforum.org>, bp_spam at intgovforum.org
<bp_spam at intgovforum.org>, bp_certs at intgovforum.org
<bp_certs at intgovforum.org>, Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org
<Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org>, Bp_ixps at intgovforum.org
<Bp_ixps at intgovforum.org>, bp_multistakeholder at intgovforum.org
<bp_multistakeholder at intgovforum.org>



Dear Colleagues,

As part of next week's OC and MAG meeting
<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/jevents/icalrepeat.detail/2015/09/02/284/-/igf-third-open-consultations-and-mag-meeting?Itemid=28&filter_reset=1#general-information>
in Paris (2-4 Sept.), coordinators and experts of the various IGF Best
Practices Forums
<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/best-practice-forums>will be giving
updates on where their groups stand.

Over the past weeks, stakeholders have been working within virtual
groups on a number of issues. Within a few weeks, all draft outputs will
be ready and up for public comments on the IGF website. We expect to
have some of the drafts up for the MAG meeting next week. Following an
iterative process, the drafts will then evolve on the basis of comments
received, and finally be discussed at IGF Brazil, in November.  IGF Best
Practices Forums are open to all interested stakeholders.
To learn more about these initiatives and join the discussion, click on
the links below:

 1. */Best Practices to Strengthen Multistakeholder Mechanisms/*

<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/best-practice-forums/3-developing-meaningful-multistakeholder-participation-mechanisms>
 2. */Enabling Environments for Establishing Successful IXPs/*

<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/best-practice-forums/6-enabling-environments-to-establish-successful-ixps>
 3. */Best Practices to counter Abuse Against Women Online/*

<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/best-practice-forums/4-practices-to-countering-abuse-against-women-online>
 4. */Establishing and Supporting CSIRTs/*

<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/best-practice-forums/2-establishing-and-supporting-csirts>
 5. */Best Practices to Regulate and Mitigate Spam/*

<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/best-practice-forums/regulation-and-mitigation-of-unwanted-communications>
 6. */Creating an Enabling Environment for IPv6 Adoption/*

<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/best-practice-forums/5-creating-an-enabling-environment-for-ipv6-adoption>



*Participate remotely next week*


Below is the link to the agenda for next week's Open Consultation and
MAG meeting at UNESCO in Paris. In due time the links will be live for
accessing the meeting via remote participation, as well as the webcast
archives and transcripts, etc. - so as to allow you all to follow the
MAG and broader community discussions set to take place:
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/jevents/icalrepeat.detail/2015/09/02/284/-/igf-third-open-consultations-and-mag-meeting?Itemid=28&filter_reset=1

Best regards,

Constance Bommelaer






---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Bp_multistakeholder mailing list
Bp_multistakeholder at intgovforum.org
http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_multistakeholder_intgovforum.org



From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Thu Aug 27 15:00:37 2015
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 16:00:37 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] Digital Rights: Latin America & The Caribbean
Message-ID: <CACpVkK3mQu-kKBwx=xMsQXtzeQfb75ihLr8thrRaHCnSsTqbAQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

The 25th issue of "Digital Rights: Latin America & The Caribbean" is out.
This is a monthly newsletter published in three languages with the aim to
analyse recent developments related to technology and human rights in the
LAC region.

The project is the result of a partnership between the Asociación por los
Derechos Civiles (ADC), the NGO Derechos Digitales, Fundación Karisma and
the Center for Technology and Society (CTS/FGV).

To subscribe to the newsletter:

EN: http://bit.ly/1mR1I1L
EN: http://bit.ly/1t4wqXl
ES: http://bit.ly/1jQqYHF

Highlight from this issue: Pilar Sáenz and Carolina Botero, from Fundación
Karisma, analyse the recent leak of information from the company Hacking
Team, which revealed the purchase of a remote control software by the
Colombian government for PUMA (the platform used for monitoring and
surveillance in the country).

See also:

   - Anti-discrimination and freedom of expression in Argentina
   <http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en/antidiscriminacion-y-libertad-de-expresion-en-argentina/>
   - Educational organizations agreements with Google: the Uruguayan case
   <http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en/convenios-de-organismos-educativos-con-google-el-caso-uruguayo/>
   - Hacking Team in Chile: Does the software comply with the minimum
   quality standards established by the Chilean legal system?
   <http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en/hacking-team-en-chile-cumple-el-software-con-los-estandares-minimos-de-legalidad-establecidos-en-el-sistema-juridico-chileno/>
   - Three years of the Access to Information Act: for a culture of
   transparency
   <http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en/tres-anos-de-la-ley-de-acceso-a-la-informacion-por-una-cultura-de-transparencia/>
   - Hacking Patriarchy: the first #femhack experience
   <http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en/hackeando-el-patriarcado-la-experiencia-del-primer-femhack/>


We hope you enjoy the reading!
Best wishes,
Marilia

-- 
*Marília Maciel*
Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law
School
http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts

DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu
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/20150827/d1dd9f43/attachment.htm>

From jmalcolm at eff.org  Thu Aug 27 19:34:31 2015
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 16:34:31 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] TISA and Tech's Double Standards On Secret Government
 Internet Deals
Message-ID: <55DF9E87.2020309@eff.org>

https://eff.org/deeplinks/2015/08/tisa-and-techs-double-standards-secret-government-internet-deals
:

...
These companies seem to to be taking a remarkably relaxed attitude
towards a closed-door process in which governments could rewrite the
rules for information flows on the global Internet. It also marks a
stark contrast with their attitude towards another process that could
have been described in almost identical terms—the 2012 World Conference
of International Telecommunication (WCIT) of the International
Telecommunications Union (ITU).
...
The answer, we fear, is that lobbyists and political power brokers feel
comfortable that they have the TISA negotiations under their control. As
IBM puts it a communication found in the document stash that EFF
released this week
<https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/08/new-foia-released-emails-reveal-cozy-relations-between-us-trade-officials-and>,
“the US and the EU ... are in the best position to define the rules of
the road necessary to protect the world's vital governmental,
environmental and societal interests”.
...
Nor do these states seem as interested in loosening their control over
these processes as other nations. Amongst the countries /excluded/ from
TISA, Brazil crafted its Marco Civil da Internet
<https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/marco-civil-devil-detail> in an
open, multi-stakeholder process, Similarly the Philippines crowdsourced
the drafting of a Magna Carta for the Internet that included some
powerful principles
<https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/brief-analysis-magna-carta-philippine-internet-freedom>.

These are the kinds of processes, and the kinds of documents resulting
from them, that at least nod to the openness we need for a legitimate
debate about the future of the Internet. It's notable that it is the
world's developing countries, rather than the U.S. and EU trade
ministries who are at the forefront of innovating such processes.
...

-- 
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/20150827/0e30ad77/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 230 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150827/0e30ad77/attachment.sig>

From pranesh at cis-india.org  Fri Aug 28 04:20:02 2015
From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 13:50:02 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] JNC's comments on ICANN oversight (non) transition
In-Reply-To: <55D32E4F.7030400@itforchange.net>
References: <55D32E4F.7030400@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <55E019B2.5090101@cis-india.org>

Dear Parminder,
Thank you very much for sending these.  Other than one or two small 
difference, I find myself almost fully in agreement.

The ICG report, which supports the PTI proposal by the names community, 
is utterly status quoist, and doesn't address the questions of 
jurisdiction at all.

In fact, it doesn't even call out the attempt by ICANN to ensure that 
PTI will be US-based (a requirement listed in P1. Annex S).

Regards,
Pranesh

parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> [2015-08-18 18:38:31 +0530]:
> Just Net Coalition has submitted its comments to the process that is
> coming up with proposals for what was supposed to be the transition of
> ICANN's oversight from the US to a globally legitimate structure, but
> the - now more or less final - proposals on the table do nothing of the
> sort, and merely serve to cement the status quo.
>
> We have submitted our comments in two parts
>
> A overall political commentary can be found at
>
> https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission19.pdf
>
> A more technical response to finer issues and processes of the process
> is at
>
> https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission18.pdf
>
> In sum, we have firmly rejected both, the legitimacy of the process and
> the arbitrary manner in which it was conducted, and its result in the
> form of the final proposals on the table.
>
> parminder
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283
sip:pranesh at ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org
https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150828/1907d771/attachment.sig>

From pranesh at cis-india.org  Fri Aug 28 04:40:13 2015
From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 14:10:13 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] JNC's comments on ICANN oversight (non)
 transition
In-Reply-To: <B2B23B8A-A9E0-4781-9D2E-9E96D44BBD57@hserus.net>
References: <55D32E4F.7030400@itforchange.net> <55E019B2.5090101@cis-india.org> <B2B23B8A-A9E0-4781-9D2E-9E96D44BBD57@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <55E01E6D.2010909@cis-india.org>

Dear Suresh,
The worst of the three community proposals is that by the names 
community, which is the only one pushing for a single operator of all 
current IANA functions.  Instead of noting this as a point of 
inconsistency, the ICG has gone with the names proposal as the basis for 
their suggestion.

The simple, workable alternative is that of separating the functions. 
Having this kind of separation is what I see as the natural outcome of 
what community leaders like Paul Wilson have called for:

http://ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-June/000693.html

Further, the ICG has stated that some IANA functions (tzdata, .int), 
etc., aren't part of the transition since they aren't linked to the NTIA 
contract, and so is not part of their mandate.  So what will happen to 
those?  All in all, this is an incredibly confused exercise, and the ICG 
has done a poor job in bringing clarity to it.

Regards,
Pranesh

Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> [2015-08-28 13:56:22 +0530]:
> Given a surprising lack of consensus on the substantials of several alternate proposals - is there one, especially which maintains the technical structure besides political considerations?
>
> One concrete proposal that civil society AND the technical community can rally behind would be useful if we are not to damn the status quo and then not propose any usable alternate proposal.
>
> So far both proposals I reviewed here - while quite well drafted - are still focused on the political considerations, and quite bare of technical details.
>
>
>> On 28-Aug-2015, at 1:50 PM, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Parminder,
>> Thank you very much for sending these.  Other than one or two small difference, I find myself almost fully in agreement.
>>
>> The ICG report, which supports the PTI proposal by the names community, is utterly status quoist, and doesn't address the questions of jurisdiction at all.
>>
>> In fact, it doesn't even call out the attempt by ICANN to ensure that PTI will be US-based (a requirement listed in P1. Annex S).
>>
>> Regards,
>> Pranesh
>>
>> parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> [2015-08-18 18:38:31 +0530]:
>>> Just Net Coalition has submitted its comments to the process that is
>>> coming up with proposals for what was supposed to be the transition of
>>> ICANN's oversight from the US to a globally legitimate structure, but
>>> the - now more or less final - proposals on the table do nothing of the
>>> sort, and merely serve to cement the status quo.
>>>
>>> We have submitted our comments in two parts
>>>
>>> A overall political commentary can be found at
>>>
>>> https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission19.pdf
>>>
>>> A more technical response to finer issues and processes of the process
>>> is at
>>>
>>> https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission18.pdf
>>>
>>> In sum, we have firmly rejected both, the legitimacy of the process and
>>> the arbitrary manner in which it was conducted, and its result in the
>>> form of the final proposals on the table.
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Pranesh Prakash
>> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
>> http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283
>> sip:pranesh at ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org
>> https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash
>>
>

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283
sip:pranesh at ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org
https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150828/df948a49/attachment.sig>

From lea at gp-digital.org  Fri Aug 28 05:04:13 2015
From: lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 10:04:13 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] IGF2015 Online Registration
Message-ID: <CAJTVAjxh9QJZUa+wgpFZ=3efLg9jV9R+seiLD-7m2+n7BuTZtg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

See below the link to register for this year's IGF in Joao Pessoa. Feel
free to share widely!

Best,

*Lea Kaspar*

Head of Programmes and International Policy | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL

Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT

T: +44 (0)20 7549 0337 | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 | Skype: l.kaspar

gp-digital.org

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Chengetai Masango <cmasango at unog.ch>
Date: Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 8:42 AM
Subject: [IGFmaglist] IGF2015 online Registration
To: MAG-public <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>


Dear All,



The IGF 2015 registration is online at :
https://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf2015-registration



I would be grateful if you could inform your various constituents.



Best regards



Chengetai

_______________________________________________
Igfmaglist mailing list
Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150828/dbd53c7c/attachment.htm>

From nashton at consensus.pro  Mon Aug  3 10:43:16 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 14:43:16 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Open Consultation of the ITU CWG-Internet on IXPs
In-Reply-To: <CAJTVAjzD_tMcgPfhV1A4DpBWSxgFKNEV0-FbMDEk3f+ZYD_mig@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJTVAjzD_tMcgPfhV1A4DpBWSxgFKNEV0-FbMDEk3f+ZYD_mig@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0000014ef404420f-d4aa37be-681a-4786-ae41-3637348a7a14-000000@email.amazonses.com>

Thanks, Lea,

I would add that it was a considerable effort to end up with a process as good as the one below, and to end up with a subject as constructive as this one.

> On 3 Aug 2015, at 15:56, Lea Kaspar <Lea at gp-digital.org> wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> In case of interest, please find below information about public consultations held by the ITU's Council Working Group on Internet-related public policy issues (CWG-Internet). The consultations are held on "the challenges faced and [...] accepted best practices for the design, installation and operation of IXPs."
> 
> Deadline for submissions: August 28.
> 
> Opening the CWG-Internet discussions to the public was one of the 'wins' from the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference, so if groups here have the capacity to engage, this would be logical follow-up.
> 
> Warm wishes,
> Lea
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Sareidaki, Despoina <despoina.sareidaki at itu.int <mailto:despoina.sareidaki at itu.int>>
> Date: Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 2:40 PM
> Subject: Open Consultation of the ITU CWG-Internet on IXPs
> To: "Sareidaki, Despoina" <despoina.sareidaki at itu.int <mailto:despoina.sareidaki at itu.int>>
> Cc: "CWG-Internet, ITU" <cwg-internet at itu.int <mailto:cwg-internet at itu.int>>, "InternetPublicViews, ITU" <internetpublicviews at itu.int <mailto:internetpublicviews at itu.int>>
> 
> 
> Dear Sir/Madam,
> 
> We would like to bring to your attention that, following the instruction of the 2014 ITU Plenipotentiary conference, it was resolved that the ITU Council Working Group on international Internet-related public policy issues (CWG-Internet) <http://www.itu.int/en/council/cwg-internet/Pages/default.aspx> would hold regular online and physical consultations, open to all stakeholders. The goal of the open consultations is to bring unique perspectives on topics related to international Internet-related public policy issues. Relevant inputs from the online open consultation will form the basis of discussion at the physical open consultation meetings.
> 
> On 3 February 2015 the Council Working Group decided that Open Consultations would be convened on the following issue:
> 
> “With a view to discussing the establishment of Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) to advance connectivity, improve service quality and increase network stability and resilience, fostering competition and reducing interconnection costs, as proposed by Opinion 1 of WTPF-13 and consistent with PP-14 Resolutions 101 and 102, stakeholders are invited to elaborate and exemplify on the challenges faced and identify widely accepted best practices for the design, installation and operation of IXPs.”
> 
> We kindly invite you to participate in this consultation by sending us your inputs by 28 August 2015, and we also look forward to seeing you at the physical consultation meeting which will be held on 28 September 2015 at the ITU HQ. Please also feel free to share this information with other interested parties.
> 
> To participate in the online open consultations, please click here: http://www.itu.int/en/council/cwg-internet/Pages/consultation-june2015.aspx <http://www.itu.int/en/council/cwg-internet/Pages/consultation-june2015.aspx>
> For updates on the upcoming physical consultations and future work of the CWG-Internet, please click here:
> http://www.itu.int/en/council/cwg-internet/Pages/default.aspx <http://www.itu.int/en/council/cwg-internet/Pages/default.aspx>
> We remain available to provide any additional clarifications.
> 
> 
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <image001.jpg>
> 
> Despoina Sareidaki
> 
> ITU, Place des Nations
> CH-1211 Geneva , Switzerland
> 
> Tel :+41 22 730 6818 <tel:%2B41%2022%20730%206818>
> despoina.sareidaki at itu.int <mailto:despoina.sareidaki at itu.int>
> www.itu.int <http://www.itu.int/>
> www.itu150.org <http://www.itu150.org/>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150803/c4962f3e/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/20150803/c4962f3e/attachment.sig>

From pranesh at cis-india.org  Fri Aug 28 11:42:03 2015
From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 21:12:03 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] JNC's comments on ICANN oversight (non)
 transition
In-Reply-To: <DM2PR07MB589C85BE4F7351FB108CED9AC6E0@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <55D32E4F.7030400@itforchange.net> <55E019B2.5090101@cis-india.org> <DM2PR07MB589C85BE4F7351FB108CED9AC6E0@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <55E0814B.6090202@cis-india.org>

Dear Milton,
Thanks for your response.  We aren't in disagreement as to what the 
ICG's role was.  We are however disagreeing as to whether it performed 
it correctly, and more specifically as to what an inconsistency is / 
what goes into compatibility/interoperability.

1. Is it worth noting there might be an inconsistency between one 
community putting forward a jurisdictional limitation ("for negotiation 
with the PTI") and others not doing so, with the protocols community 
stating "The current agreement does not specify a jurisdiction," and the 
names community stating, "?  I think the obvious answer is yes, there 
is.  Did the ICG call this out?  No.

2. Is it worth noting that there might be an inconsistency between one 
community putting forward an all-in-one vision of a "Post-Transition 
IANA", while the other two communities only dealing with "IANA Numbering 
Services Operator" and the other being unclear but stating "there is no 
overlap between organizations because responsibility for each registry 
is carefully delineated" and talking of the "protocol registry operator 
role" (P3.III.5)?    Yes.  Did the ICG call this out?  No.

Now we might disagree on what constitutes an 
inconsistency/compatibility/interoperability, but it seems to me that 
"unworkable in a technical sense" is not the only definition for that, 
nor one that I would choose since workability was a separate criterion.

I support your views on the PTI, as also Paul Wilson's proposal to have 
a staggered transition and how a staggered transition is not lacking for 
completeness.

Regards,
Pranesh

Mueller, Milton L <milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu> [2015-08-28 
15:02:51 +0000]:
> Pranesh:
> It's clear that you don't quite understand the role of the ICG, and of the decentralization of authority that was implicit in the model for designing the transition.
> The ICG has no authority to rewrite proposals, and in passing on a proposal it does not express "support" for it or "opposition to it. It is not in a position to "call out" jurisdictional issues. The only things the ICG can "call out" or question are:
>
> 1) did the proposal we receive have consensus of the operational community that developed it?
> 2) are there inconsistencies between the proposals, or are they literally unworkable in a technical sense?
>
> The question neither you nor Parminder asks is how much support for your positions regarding jurisdiction was there in the names community? I did not see either one of you in that process advocating a position - correct me if I am wrong. Further, neither of you could convincingly demonstrate that a change of jurisdiction could have commanded a consensus among the global community. I mean, if you completely ignore the issue of WHERE the new jurisdiction would be, or the question of WHAT LAW would be applicable, as Parminder has repeatedly done, it becomes pretty easy, but also meaningless, to complain about jurisdiction.
>
> As a member of the ICG we evaluated the proposals and stitched them together according to our mandate. As a member of the names CWG you probably know (if you followed the process) that I made many of the same criticisms about PTI as Richard Hill, but in the end the current position was the only one that could command consensus. So your view, then, if I understand it, is that ICG should act as a central authority that dictates its preferences to the rest of the community?
>
> If that's not your view, please tell me what positions about the transition could have been both feasible and gotten consensus. If you make such points in your comments they might actually have an impact. Parminder's "rejection in toto" won't, because it's mostly just empty posturing.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> The ICG report, which supports the PTI proposal by the names community, is
>> utterly status quoist, and doesn't address the questions of jurisdiction at all.
>>
>> In fact, it doesn't even call out the attempt by ICANN to ensure that PTI will
>> be US-based (a requirement listed in P1. Annex S).
>>
>> Regards,
>> Pranesh
>>
>> parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> [2015-08-18 18:38:31 +0530]:
>>> Just Net Coalition has submitted its comments to the process that is
>>> coming up with proposals for what was supposed to be the transition of
>>> ICANN's oversight from the US to a globally legitimate structure, but
>>> the - now more or less final - proposals on the table do nothing of
>>> the sort, and merely serve to cement the status quo.
>>>
>>> We have submitted our comments in two parts
>>>
>>> A overall political commentary can be found at
>>>
>>> https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission19.pdf
>>>
>>> A more technical response to finer issues and processes of the process
>>> is at
>>>
>>> https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission18.pdf
>>>
>>> In sum, we have firmly rejected both, the legitimacy of the process
>>> and the arbitrary manner in which it was conducted, and its result in
>>> the form of the final proposals on the table.
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> __________________________________________________________
>> __
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>        bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>        http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Pranesh Prakash
>> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society http://cis-india.org | tel:+91
>> 80 40926283 sip:pranesh at ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org
>> https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash
>

-- 
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283
sip:pranesh at ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org
https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150828/a15c6097/attachment.sig>

From suresh at hserus.net  Fri Aug 28 04:49:49 2015
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 14:19:49 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] JNC's comments on ICANN oversight (non)
 transition
In-Reply-To: <55E01E6D.2010909@cis-india.org>
References: <55D32E4F.7030400@itforchange.net> <55E019B2.5090101@cis-india.org> <B2B23B8A-A9E0-4781-9D2E-9E96D44BBD57@hserus.net> <55E01E6D.2010909@cis-india.org>
Message-ID: <2451042E-9632-4281-9EDB-F1B42B4CA13C@hserus.net>

I actually happen to agree with you that the current proposals are not particularly usable.  And I do like Paul’s proposal there, which also does bring technical rigour into the process.

tzdata is essentially Paul Eggert, and .int could remain with IANA - it sees very little change and has clear cut criteria on who gets a domain name.  I don’t see any reason why the status quo can’t continue for those special cases.

My question still remains - where is the consensus proposal that ALSO has technical rigour?

—srs

> On 28-Aug-2015, at 2:10 PM, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:
> 
> Dear Suresh,
> The worst of the three community proposals is that by the names community, which is the only one pushing for a single operator of all current IANA functions.  Instead of noting this as a point of inconsistency, the ICG has gone with the names proposal as the basis for their suggestion.
> 
> The simple, workable alternative is that of separating the functions. Having this kind of separation is what I see as the natural outcome of what community leaders like Paul Wilson have called for:
> 
> http://ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-June/000693.html
> 
> Further, the ICG has stated that some IANA functions (tzdata, .int), etc., aren't part of the transition since they aren't linked to the NTIA contract, and so is not part of their mandate.  So what will happen to those?  All in all, this is an incredibly confused exercise, and the ICG has done a poor job in bringing clarity to it.
> 
> Regards,
> Pranesh
> 
> Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> [2015-08-28 13:56:22 +0530]:
>> Given a surprising lack of consensus on the substantials of several alternate proposals - is there one, especially which maintains the technical structure besides political considerations?
>> 
>> One concrete proposal that civil society AND the technical community can rally behind would be useful if we are not to damn the status quo and then not propose any usable alternate proposal.
>> 
>> So far both proposals I reviewed here - while quite well drafted - are still focused on the political considerations, and quite bare of technical details.
>> 
>> 
>>> On 28-Aug-2015, at 1:50 PM, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear Parminder,
>>> Thank you very much for sending these.  Other than one or two small difference, I find myself almost fully in agreement.
>>> 
>>> The ICG report, which supports the PTI proposal by the names community, is utterly status quoist, and doesn't address the questions of jurisdiction at all.
>>> 
>>> In fact, it doesn't even call out the attempt by ICANN to ensure that PTI will be US-based (a requirement listed in P1. Annex S).
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Pranesh
>>> 
>>> parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> [2015-08-18 18:38:31 +0530]:
>>>> Just Net Coalition has submitted its comments to the process that is
>>>> coming up with proposals for what was supposed to be the transition of
>>>> ICANN's oversight from the US to a globally legitimate structure, but
>>>> the - now more or less final - proposals on the table do nothing of the
>>>> sort, and merely serve to cement the status quo.
>>>> 
>>>> We have submitted our comments in two parts
>>>> 
>>>> A overall political commentary can be found at
>>>> 
>>>> https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission19.pdf
>>>> 
>>>> A more technical response to finer issues and processes of the process
>>>> is at
>>>> 
>>>> https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission18.pdf
>>>> 
>>>> In sum, we have firmly rejected both, the legitimacy of the process and
>>>> the arbitrary manner in which it was conducted, and its result in the
>>>> form of the final proposals on the table.
>>>> 
>>>> parminder
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Pranesh Prakash
>>> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
>>> http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283
>>> sip:pranesh at ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org
>>> https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash
>>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Pranesh Prakash
> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
> http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283
> sip:pranesh at ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org
> https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash


From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu  Fri Aug 28 11:02:51 2015
From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 15:02:51 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] JNC's comments on ICANN oversight (non)
 transition
In-Reply-To: <55E019B2.5090101@cis-india.org>
References: <55D32E4F.7030400@itforchange.net>
 <55E019B2.5090101@cis-india.org>
Message-ID: <DM2PR07MB589C85BE4F7351FB108CED9AC6E0@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>

Pranesh:
It's clear that you don't quite understand the role of the ICG, and of the decentralization of authority that was implicit in the model for designing the transition. 
The ICG has no authority to rewrite proposals, and in passing on a proposal it does not express "support" for it or "opposition to it. It is not in a position to "call out" jurisdictional issues. The only things the ICG can "call out" or question are:

1) did the proposal we receive have consensus of the operational community that developed it? 
2) are there inconsistencies between the proposals, or are they literally unworkable in a technical sense?

The question neither you nor Parminder asks is how much support for your positions regarding jurisdiction was there in the names community? I did not see either one of you in that process advocating a position - correct me if I am wrong. Further, neither of you could convincingly demonstrate that a change of jurisdiction could have commanded a consensus among the global community. I mean, if you completely ignore the issue of WHERE the new jurisdiction would be, or the question of WHAT LAW would be applicable, as Parminder has repeatedly done, it becomes pretty easy, but also meaningless, to complain about jurisdiction. 

As a member of the ICG we evaluated the proposals and stitched them together according to our mandate. As a member of the names CWG you probably know (if you followed the process) that I made many of the same criticisms about PTI as Richard Hill, but in the end the current position was the only one that could command consensus. So your view, then, if I understand it, is that ICG should act as a central authority that dictates its preferences to the rest of the community? 

If that's not your view, please tell me what positions about the transition could have been both feasible and gotten consensus. If you make such points in your comments they might actually have an impact. Parminder's "rejection in toto" won't, because it's mostly just empty posturing.

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> The ICG report, which supports the PTI proposal by the names community, is
> utterly status quoist, and doesn't address the questions of jurisdiction at all.
> 
> In fact, it doesn't even call out the attempt by ICANN to ensure that PTI will
> be US-based (a requirement listed in P1. Annex S).
> 
> Regards,
> Pranesh
> 
> parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> [2015-08-18 18:38:31 +0530]:
> > Just Net Coalition has submitted its comments to the process that is
> > coming up with proposals for what was supposed to be the transition of
> > ICANN's oversight from the US to a globally legitimate structure, but
> > the - now more or less final - proposals on the table do nothing of
> > the sort, and merely serve to cement the status quo.
> >
> > We have submitted our comments in two parts
> >
> > A overall political commentary can be found at
> >
> > https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission19.pdf
> >
> > A more technical response to finer issues and processes of the process
> > is at
> >
> > https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission18.pdf
> >
> > In sum, we have firmly rejected both, the legitimacy of the process
> > and the arbitrary manner in which it was conducted, and its result in
> > the form of the final proposals on the table.
> >
> > parminder
> >
> >
> >
> >
> __________________________________________________________
> __
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> >
> 
> --
> Pranesh Prakash
> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society http://cis-india.org | tel:+91
> 80 40926283 sip:pranesh at ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org
> https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash


From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu  Fri Aug 28 12:28:32 2015
From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:28:32 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] JNC's comments on ICANN oversight (non)
 transition
In-Reply-To: <55E01E6D.2010909@cis-india.org>
References: <55D32E4F.7030400@itforchange.net>
 <55E019B2.5090101@cis-india.org>
 <B2B23B8A-A9E0-4781-9D2E-9E96D44BBD57@hserus.net>
 <55E01E6D.2010909@cis-india.org>
Message-ID: <DM2PR07MB589AB63807F260AE216449BAC6E0@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>

Staged transition. Ha. That is an attempt by numbers and protocols to slip out of the party before the names host gets roaring drunk and starts breaking things. 
Speaking metaphorically, of course. Speaking more literally, if the numbers folk are getting worried that the names transition will never happen, it makes sense for them to offer a two step approach that frees numbers and protocols from U.S. oversight and let names languish. From  a names point of view, howerver, it makes sense to hold numbers and protocols "hostage" to ensure that the whole transition occurs. 

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> The simple, workable alternative is that of separating the functions.
> Having this kind of separation is what I see as the natural outcome of what
> community leaders like Paul Wilson have called for:
> 
> http://ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-June/000693.html
> 
> Further, the ICG has stated that some IANA functions (tzdata, .int), etc.,
> aren't part of the transition since they aren't linked to the NTIA contract, and
> so is not part of their mandate.  So what will happen to those?  All in all, this is
> an incredibly confused exercise, and the ICG has done a poor job in bringing
> clarity to it.
> 
> Regards,
> Pranesh
> 
> Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> [2015-08-28 13:56:22
> +0530]:
> > Given a surprising lack of consensus on the substantials of several alternate
> proposals - is there one, especially which maintains the technical structure
> besides political considerations?
> >
> > One concrete proposal that civil society AND the technical community can
> rally behind would be useful if we are not to damn the status quo and then
> not propose any usable alternate proposal.
> >
> > So far both proposals I reviewed here - while quite well drafted - are still
> focused on the political considerations, and quite bare of technical details.
> >
> >
> >> On 28-Aug-2015, at 1:50 PM, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear Parminder,
> >> Thank you very much for sending these.  Other than one or two small
> difference, I find myself almost fully in agreement.
> >>
> >> The ICG report, which supports the PTI proposal by the names
> community, is utterly status quoist, and doesn't address the questions of
> jurisdiction at all.
> >>
> >> In fact, it doesn't even call out the attempt by ICANN to ensure that PTI
> will be US-based (a requirement listed in P1. Annex S).
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Pranesh
> >>
> >> parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> [2015-08-18 18:38:31 +0530]:
> >>> Just Net Coalition has submitted its comments to the process that is
> >>> coming up with proposals for what was supposed to be the transition
> >>> of ICANN's oversight from the US to a globally legitimate structure,
> >>> but the - now more or less final - proposals on the table do nothing
> >>> of the sort, and merely serve to cement the status quo.
> >>>
> >>> We have submitted our comments in two parts
> >>>
> >>> A overall political commentary can be found at
> >>>
> >>> https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission19.pdf
> >>>
> >>> A more technical response to finer issues and processes of the
> >>> process is at
> >>>
> >>> https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission18.pdf
> >>>
> >>> In sum, we have firmly rejected both, the legitimacy of the process
> >>> and the arbitrary manner in which it was conducted, and its result
> >>> in the form of the final proposals on the table.
> >>>
> >>> parminder
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> __________________________________________________________
> __
> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >>>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Pranesh Prakash
> >> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society http://cis-india.org
> >> | tel:+91 80 40926283 sip:pranesh at ostel.co |
> >> xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash
> >>
> >
> 
> --
> Pranesh Prakash
> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society http://cis-india.org | tel:+91
> 80 40926283 sip:pranesh at ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org
> https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash


From milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu  Fri Aug 28 12:23:59 2015
From: milton.mueller at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:23:59 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] JNC's comments on ICANN oversight (non)
 transition
In-Reply-To: <55E0814B.6090202@cis-india.org>
References: <55D32E4F.7030400@itforchange.net>
 <55E019B2.5090101@cis-india.org>
 <DM2PR07MB589C85BE4F7351FB108CED9AC6E0@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <55E0814B.6090202@cis-india.org>
Message-ID: <DM2PR07MB58921D52C7A22F736347363AC6E0@DM2PR07MB589.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>



> -----Original Message-----

Pranesh

> 1. Is it worth noting there might be an inconsistency between one
> community putting forward a jurisdictional limitation ("for negotiation with
> the PTI") and others not doing so, with the protocols community stating "The
> current agreement does not specify a jurisdiction," and the names
> community stating, "?  I think the obvious answer is yes, there is.  Did the ICG
> call this out?  No.

I don't see the inconsistency here. BTW the GAC members of the ICG put a lot of pressure on the protocols community to specify what they meant by an unspecified jurisdiction and a lot of questions were asked about that and some clarifications were made as we reviewed the IETF proposal. I don't have time to dig up the records now, but will forward something later about how this was handled. In effect the IETF said that since either party has the right to terminate the agreement unilaterally courts and litigation don't necessarily enter into it. PTI was proposed to be a California NPPB Corp, as is ICANN, but since IETF already contracts with such a beast to provide protocol IANA, how is that an inconsistency?

> 2. Is it worth noting that there might be an inconsistency between one
> community putting forward an all-in-one vision of a "Post-Transition IANA",
> while the other two communities only dealing with "IANA Numbering
> Services Operator" and the other being unclear but stating "there is no
> overlap between organizations because responsibility for each registry is
> carefully delineated" and talking of the "protocol registry operator
> role" (P3.III.5)?    Yes.  Did the ICG call this out?  No.

The ICG didn't call this out because there is no inconsistency: once PTI is separated from ICANN, names will have a relationship to IANA that is a bit more like the contractual arrangement that numbers and protocols will have. Each OC will have the right to terminate their contract and shift to a new IANA functions operator, however. PTI will have a contract to be the names IANA; the problem here is that ICANN, which is really names community based, currently supplies all three and at least two of the communities want to contract directly with ICANN (as IETF already is). This is due to the fact that PTI is an unknown entity for them. But I don't see an incompatibility; ICANN just subcontracts the function to PTI. Longer term numbers and protocols will probably contract directly with PTI.

> Now we might disagree on what constitutes an
> inconsistency/compatibility/interoperability, but it seems to me that
> "unworkable in a technical sense" is not the only definition for that, nor one
> that I would choose since workability was a separate criterion.

We did operate with a broader sense of compatibility and consistency. 

From reading this, I am still having trouble figuring out where you think an incompatibility lies. 
Can you elaborate? Happy to be pointed to anything we overlooked. The general approach, however, was to accept whatever came out of the OCs with consensus. 

The simple fact is that no one was terribly interested in changing jurisdiction or making it an issue, in any of the 3 communities. When the issue was explicitly posed, e.g. in the straw poll of the  names CWG, it fell flat.

From suresh at hserus.net  Fri Aug 28 04:26:22 2015
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 13:56:22 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] JNC's comments on ICANN oversight (non)
 transition
In-Reply-To: <55E019B2.5090101@cis-india.org>
References: <55D32E4F.7030400@itforchange.net> <55E019B2.5090101@cis-india.org>
Message-ID: <B2B23B8A-A9E0-4781-9D2E-9E96D44BBD57@hserus.net>

Given a surprising lack of consensus on the substantials of several alternate proposals - is there one, especially which maintains the technical structure besides political considerations?

One concrete proposal that civil society AND the technical community can rally behind would be useful if we are not to damn the status quo and then not propose any usable alternate proposal.

So far both proposals I reviewed here - while quite well drafted - are still focused on the political considerations, and quite bare of technical details.


> On 28-Aug-2015, at 1:50 PM, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:
> 
> Dear Parminder,
> Thank you very much for sending these.  Other than one or two small difference, I find myself almost fully in agreement.
> 
> The ICG report, which supports the PTI proposal by the names community, is utterly status quoist, and doesn't address the questions of jurisdiction at all.
> 
> In fact, it doesn't even call out the attempt by ICANN to ensure that PTI will be US-based (a requirement listed in P1. Annex S).
> 
> Regards,
> Pranesh
> 
> parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> [2015-08-18 18:38:31 +0530]:
>> Just Net Coalition has submitted its comments to the process that is
>> coming up with proposals for what was supposed to be the transition of
>> ICANN's oversight from the US to a globally legitimate structure, but
>> the - now more or less final - proposals on the table do nothing of the
>> sort, and merely serve to cement the status quo.
>> 
>> We have submitted our comments in two parts
>> 
>> A overall political commentary can be found at
>> 
>> https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission19.pdf
>> 
>> A more technical response to finer issues and processes of the process
>> is at
>> 
>> https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission18.pdf
>> 
>> In sum, we have firmly rejected both, the legitimacy of the process and
>> the arbitrary manner in which it was conducted, and its result in the
>> form of the final proposals on the table.
>> 
>> parminder
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Pranesh Prakash
> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
> http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283
> sip:pranesh at ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org
> https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash
> 


From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com  Fri Aug 28 23:19:31 2015
From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji)
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2015 04:19:31 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] JNC's comments on ICANN oversight (non)
 transition
In-Reply-To: <B2B23B8A-A9E0-4781-9D2E-9E96D44BBD57@hserus.net>
References: <55D32E4F.7030400@itforchange.net>
	<55E019B2.5090101@cis-india.org>
	<B2B23B8A-A9E0-4781-9D2E-9E96D44BBD57@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <CAD_dc6g=jgTMSysoiT4NXqZkDD8OPm0V_Zh-d0GVk-VOAOMhjA@mail.gmail.com>

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 28 Aug 2015 18:20, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>
>
> One concrete proposal that civil society AND the technical community can
rally behind would be useful if we are not to damn the status quo and then
not propose any usable alternate proposal.
>

SO: Am afraid that may remain a dream even though I wish it can be
possible. Perhaps the first question is whether civil society within itself
have a consensus view? I will be surprised if the answer is yes.

Cheers!

> So far both proposals I reviewed here - while quite well drafted - are
still focused on the political considerations, and quite bare of technical
details.
>
>
> > On 28-Aug-2015, at 1:50 PM, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org>
wrote:
> >
> > Dear Parminder,
> > Thank you very much for sending these.  Other than one or two small
difference, I find myself almost fully in agreement.
> >
> > The ICG report, which supports the PTI proposal by the names community,
is utterly status quoist, and doesn't address the questions of jurisdiction
at all.
> >
> > In fact, it doesn't even call out the attempt by ICANN to ensure that
PTI will be US-based (a requirement listed in P1. Annex S).
> >
> > Regards,
> > Pranesh
> >
> > parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> [2015-08-18 18:38:31 +0530]:
> >> Just Net Coalition has submitted its comments to the process that is
> >> coming up with proposals for what was supposed to be the transition of
> >> ICANN's oversight from the US to a globally legitimate structure, but
> >> the - now more or less final - proposals on the table do nothing of the
> >> sort, and merely serve to cement the status quo.
> >>
> >> We have submitted our comments in two parts
> >>
> >> A overall political commentary can be found at
> >>
> >> https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission19.pdf
> >>
> >> A more technical response to finer issues and processes of the process
> >> is at
> >>
> >> https://comments.ianacg.org/pdf/submission/submission18.pdf
> >>
> >> In sum, we have firmly rejected both, the legitimacy of the process and
> >> the arbitrary manner in which it was conducted, and its result in the
> >> form of the final proposals on the table.
> >>
> >> parminder
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> >>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Pranesh Prakash
> > Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
> > http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283
> > sip:pranesh at ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org
> > https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash
> >
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150829/9ad5f344/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Aug 31 09:17:24 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 18:47:24 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Taking place next week: Asian Regional Consultation
 on the WSIS+10 Review - remote participation available
In-Reply-To: <CAJqNAHDhvs10QJS2Sj_Cy+o394DCq0ba7DT=e6KChqviXmvb7Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJqNAHDhvs10QJS2Sj_Cy+o394DCq0ba7DT=e6KChqviXmvb7Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55E453E4.6080205@itforchange.net>

Dear organisers of the *Asian Regional Consultation on the WIS+10 Review,

*With your permission I have some questions to ask you. I know this is a
treacherous territory, given an extra ordinary (and completely
inappropriate) sensitivity to being asked questions by some groups, but
my apologies, I cannot but ask them in pursuance of my public interest
work, however distasteful it may be even for me to get into this thing....

This is being called a 'consultation' and further an 'Asian Regional'
consultation, on what is a global governance process, and so some
questions arise in my mind:

(1) who is funding this 'consultation'

(2) on what criteria participants were determined, and invitations sent,
and by whom - were all concerned people invited (that, in my view, would
be a consultation)

(3) On what criteria funding for participation was provided, and by
whom, and who decided it..

Thanks for answering these public interest questions...

I may declare that my interest got evoked from the knowledge that no
member of the Just Net Coalition has been invited... IT for Change is
among very few groups in Asia Pacific which has been engaged with the
WSIS process from the start, and very thoroughly engaged. Further, there
is in fact an Asia Pacific Regional CSO Engagement Mechanism
<http://www.asiapacificrcem.org/>, which describes itself as

    "APRCEM is a civil society platform aimed to enable stronger
    cross constituency coordination and ensure that voices of all
    sub-regions of Asia Pacific are heard in intergovernmental processes
    in regional and global level. The platform is initiated, owned and
    driven by the CSOs, and has been set up under the auspices of
    UN-ESCAP and seeks to engage with UN agencies and Member States on
    the Post-2015 as well as other development related issues/processes. "

In fact the APRCEM also has an Science and Technology Constituency which
works as an active network (of which IT for Change is a member) which
has begun to work closely with the Just Net Coalition (many JNC members
also being its members) and the Internet Social Forum initiatives, which
shows its interest in Internet issues... As far as I know no member of
this network, or the network as a whole, has been involved in this
so-called "Asia Regional Consultation' which being on a UN process this
group would be natural constituency... All of which makes me wonder, and
so my questions..


parminder


On Wednesday 26 August 2015 08:21 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> The Internet Democracy Project, Bytes for All, APNIC, the Association
> for Progressive Communications, ISOC, Global Partners Digital and ICT
> Watch are together organising an *Asian Regional Consultation on the
> WIS+10 Review* from 3 to 5 September in Pattaya, Thailand.
>
>
> The Asian Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review will bring
> together experts from different backgrounds and from around the Asian
> region who are concerned about issues concerning ICTs, sustainable
> development, human rights and Internet governance, to ask: *what are
> the issues that our governments need to squarely address in the
> process of the review?
> *
>
>
> The meeting is timed so as to be able for the group to comment on the
> non-paper that will have been released by the co-facilitators of the
> review process in late August (inputs into that paper can be made by
> all stakeholders and are due on 31 July).The group will take stock of
> the extent to which priorities for the Asian region have been
> reflected in the non-paper, and will work together on formulating a
> joint comment on the non-paper (comments on the non-paper will be due
> in mid-September, and will be drawn on by the co-facilitators to
> formulate a zero-draft). The group will also look forward to consider
> which further inputs could be made or actions could be taken
> strategically to ensure that priorities from the Asian region are
> fully taken onto board in the final WSIS+10 Review outcome documents.
> If there are other processes the group believes this work could
> usefully feed into, these might be taken into consideration as well.
>
>
> *The meeting is conceived as a highly interactive working meeting that
> is geared towards producing a joint submission to the next input round
> on the Review outcome document. *Participants will be drawn from all
> non-government stakeholder groups, and will have a wide and rich
> variety of backgrounds, both in terms of professional expertise and
> geographical location. What unites all, however, is a shared
> commitment to a free and open Internet and to the use of technology to
> benefit the development and human rights of all in our region.
>
>
> *We're very happy to let you know that remote participation will be
> available. *For more information on remote participation and the event
> in general, please see the event website <http://www.wsis10.asia/>. Or
> follow us on Twitter @WSISAsia #wsis10.
>
>
> We look forward to your inputs into this event. Do please let me know
> if you have any comments or questions.
>
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Anja
>
>
>
> -- 
> 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/20150831/1ecd6bc2/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Mon Aug 31 09:47:09 2015
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 09:47:09 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [gvadvocacy] India internet shutdown - our
 statement
In-Reply-To: <CAN9cB4Hjh-t33Q_ZH2s1qE2YtTYFKx3ANdeHmx++Uxjcyizhgg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN9cB4Hjh-t33Q_ZH2s1qE2YtTYFKx3ANdeHmx++Uxjcyizhgg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAeJZtUoHzU5-CSoun8AZN8jdQYHRdRRRu+OcKdi9YY4pw@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Deji Olukotun <deji at accessnow.org>


Hi to All,

Thought this might interest you. It's a complex situation with a lot of
flash points right now.
Access urges officials in Gujarat, India to rescind internet disruption 4:57pm
| 27 August 2015 | by * Raman Jit Singh Chima*
<https://www.accessnow.org/blog/author/122/%20Raman%20Jit%20Singh%20Chima>,
*Max
Anderson* <https://www.accessnow.org/blog/authors/98/Max%20Anderson>, *Peter
Micek* <https://www.accessnow.org/blog/authors/58/Peter%20Micek>

[image: gujarat_suzanne_lee]

This week telecom operators complied with a request from agencies of the
Gujarat state government to shut down SMS functionality and disrupt mobile
internet service. To justify the ongoing shutdown, the state police are
reported
<http://www.firstpost.com/india/mobile-services-blocked-in-gujarat-patel-unrest-not-the-only-one-affected-by-internet-rumours-2410362.html>
to have cited “concerns of rumour-mongering and crowd mobilization through
WhatsApp”, a reference to ongoing actions by a group of organised protestors
<http://www.ibnlive.com/news/politics/patel-quota-stir-continues-gujarat-government-asks-telecos-to-temporarily-shut-down-internet-services-1051614.html>
to force a general strike, or “bandh”, across the state.

*Internet shutdowns have no place in Indian law or globally*

The disruption of the network in Gujarat for more than 60 million residents
raises many concerns. The Constitution of India provides strong fundamental
rights protecting the freedoms of expression and association, and the right
to liberty. Earlier this year in its landmark Shreya Singhal v. Union of
India
<https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2015/03/24/supreme-court-of-india-issue-historic-ruling-on-free-expression-but-disappo>
judgment, the Supreme Court of India emphasised that these fundamental
rights apply to Indian citizens accessing the internet, and that any
government measures affecting these rights have to pass careful
constitutional scrutiny.

The current situation is especially troubling, as news reports appear to
indicate that telecom operators merely implemented the shutdown at the
request of state government officials, and not under any direction from the
Union Government’s Department of Telecommunications — which under Indian
law holds national authority for regulating telecommunications.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has made it clear that any restriction by
the Union Government that affects network functioning and access to the
internet must be made in accordance with applicable law, particularly the
provisions of the Information Technology Act and Telegraph Act. So far,
there has been no indication that any such order has been passed.

At the global level, it has become increasingly clear that internet
shutdowns conflict with international law. This year, experts from the UN
and several human rights bodies jointly declared that shutdowns — and other
communications network “kill switches” which shut down entire parts of
communications systems — can never be justified
<https://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/37951/en/joint-declaration-on-freedom-of-expression-and-responses-to-conflict-situation>
under international law.

*Disrupting internet access harms crisis response*

Not only are they illegal, shutdowns are bad public policy:  you do not
quell “rumour-mongering” by cutting off access to information. Attempts to
block online tools for crowd mobilization  disproportionately harm everyone
by restricting access to emergency services and news reports. Blocking also
cuts off avenues for public officials and community leaders to communicate
accurate information or voice calls for restraint. There is no compelling
evidence that shutting down of communication services improves security,
further casting doubt on the value of network shutdowns as tools for public
officials in democracies.

Given these concerns, it is even more imperative for us to recognise that
blanket denial of internet access is a violation of fundamental rights. As
Access’ Brett Solomon wrote recently
<https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2015/05/08/its-time-to-say-no-to-internet-shutdowns>
:

*Shutdowns are a horribly blunt instrument: they affect dissidents and
rabble-rousers, ambulance drivers, and worried parents alike, plunging
whole societies into darkness. Rather than increasing public safety, they
cut off access to vital information and send more people into the streets.*

*Who should fix this*

Telecommunications companies and ISPs are crucial gatekeepers in responding
to shutdown orders. We believe that they hold a responsibility to respect
the fundamental rights of their users and that they have an obligation to
ensure that users can access telecommunications networks at all times.
Together, the companies can push back on government requests and end — or
even prevent — shutdown orders by following the steps in our Telco Action
Plan.
<https://s3.amazonaws.com/access.3cdn.net/1f9ab2891a86f3f081_uom6iil1w.pdf>
In the present situation, in which a blanket network shutdown might not
even meet Indian legal and regulatory requirements, the onus falls on
telcos to act and respond to the government.

Access strongly believes no authority should issue internet shutdown
orders, and that authorities in the state of Gujarat should urgently
rescind the current blanket measures affecting so many Indian citizens and
institutions. Public officials and telecom companies should uphold their
duty to restore unfettered internet access for millions of users.

*For more information, contact Raman Jit Singh Chima at raman [at]
accessnow.org <http://accessnow.org> or at press at accessnow.org
<press at accessnow.org>.*


-- 
Deji Olukotun
Senior Global Advocacy Manager
Access | accessnow.org

tel: +1 415-935-4572 | @dejiridoo
PGP: 0x6012CDA8
Fingerprint: 3AEE 4194 F70E C806 A810 857A 6AD5 8F48 6012 CDA8

*Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter on digital rights, the Access
Express: accessnow.org/express <https://accessnow.org/express>*


-- 
Deji Olukotun
Senior Global Advocacy Manager
Access | accessnow.org

tel: +1 415-935-4572 | @dejiridoo
PGP: 0x6012CDA8
Fingerprint: 3AEE 4194 F70E C806 A810 857A 6AD5 8F48 6012 CDA8

*Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter on digital rights, the Access
Express: accessnow.org/express <https://accessnow.org/express>*



-- 

*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/20150831/b1960c2a/attachment.htm>

From roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca  Mon Aug 31 12:49:35 2015
From: roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca (Becky Lentz)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 12:49:35 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] CFP: Children's and young people's rights in the digital
 age (Special issue of New Media and Society)
Message-ID: <D209FDBD.3CB9C%roberta.lentz@mcgill.ca>




> Deadline approachingŠ and apologies for cross-posting
>  
> Children¹s and young people¹s rights in the digital age
> Call for papers for a special issue of NEW MEDIA & SOCIETY
>  
> Editors: Sonia Livingstone and Amanda Third
> Abstracts due (400-500 words): 15th September 2015
>  
> In 1989, Sir Tim Berners Lee released the code that would form the foundation
> of the World Wide Web, which now boasts an audience of three billion users
> worldwide. The same year, the United Nations adopted the Convention on the
> Rights of the Child (UNCRC), the most widely ratified human rights treaty in
> the history of the UN. The trajectories thereby set in motion have recently
> become explicitly intertwined, with growing momentum behind calls for the
> recognition of the potential of online and networked media for promoting
> children¹s rights. At the same time, researchers, child rights¹ advocates and
> internet governance experts, among others, are concerned that children¹s
> rights are being newly infringed rather than enhanced in the digital age.
> While the past quarter of a century has seen the emergence of a significant
> literature examining the broad issue of children¹s rights and, in parallel, a
> burgeoning field of research on children¹s new media and digital practices in
> a variety of national and international contexts, the question of children¹s
> rights in the digital age has yet to receive sustained scholarly attention,
> especially compared with the attention paid to adult rights online. Within
> popular discourse, children and young people are frequently configured as
> riding at the forefront of the Œdigital revolution¹. Nonetheless, as high
> level debates about global internet provision and governance extend their
> geographic, political and economic scope, the position of children and young
> people is barely acknowledged. Further, in the twists and turns of often
> heated policy debates, children¹s own experiences, voices and interests are
> vastly under-considered. This special issue thus seeks to contribute to the
> definition, empirical evidence base, and theorisation of the field
> internationally.
> Not only are children¹s needs and experiences in the digital age often treated
> as merely a minority interest but they are also often seen as essentially
> problematic, as demanding exceptional treatment from adult society or causing
> unwarranted restrictions on adult freedoms. It is important to recognise the
> fundamental nature of the challenges ­ this is not just a matter of Œdigital
> rights¹ but of all children¹s rights as they may be being transformed in a
> Œdigital age¹. Nor is it just a matter of the exceptional circumstances that
> apply to children, for addressing the rights of children and young people also
> has implications for adult rights in a digital age. How does a consideration
> of children compel a wider re-examination of the concepts both of the digital
> and of human rights?
> If children¹s rights in the digital age have yet to receive attention in the
> global North, this is even more acute in the global South. The tipping point
> has already passed, with two thirds of the world¹s nearly three billion
> internet users living in developing countries, many of them children. At
> present, the evidence regarding their online activities is very patchy, too
> often drawing on anecdote, practitioners¹ observations and institutional
> reports or media accounts. There is thus an urgent need for a scholarly focus
> on the rights of children and young people within this larger picture of
> expanding connectivity in the global South. This is vital to foster debates
> about children¹s rights informed by dialogues among diverse epistemologies,
> experiences and normative frameworks.
> This special issue seeks to unpack the ways digital media are impacting ­ both
> positively and negatively ­ children¹s rights today and, in doing so, to
> reflect on the ways that children¹s rights might provide a meaningful
> counterpoint from which to consider the role of Œthe digital¹ in advancing
> human rights more broadly. Assembling contributions from leading scholars and
> practitioners in the field internationally, this special issue seeks to bring
> fully into view the ways in which children¹s rights ­ indeed rights generally
> ­ may be being reconfigured by the appropriation of digital networked
> technologies around the world. Submissions will critically examine the
> normative and socio-technological assumptions embedded in conceptual, policy
> and practitioner perspectives. To catalyse the debates, we now call for
> reflective papers of 6000-7000 words analysing key dilemmas or tensions
> shaping children¹s rights in the digital age, as well as shorter empirical or
> practitioner pieces (3000-4000 words each).
>  
> Papers on key dilemmas or tensions that respondents to the call might address
> include:
> * The tension between universal or fundamental human rights and the specific
> rights demanded by the digital age
> * The tensions between Œadult rights¹ and Œchildren¹s rights¹
> * The relationship between children¹s rights and their citizenship
> * Collective rights versus individual rights
> * The tension between Œadult power¹ and Œchildren¹s rights¹
> * The tension between the universal (Œthe child¹, Œrights¹) and the specific
> (the lived experiences of children)
> * Hierarchies of children¹s rights in the digital age
> * Children¹s rights in the digital age in the global North and global South
> Empirical or practitioner pieces might address:
> * Children¹s privacy rights and the role of peers and peer culture
> * Youth participation rights in the mediated public sphere
> * Historical shifts in children¹s communication rights
> * Child protection in the global South: is the internet helping or hindering?
> * From principles to practice: applying arguments about digital rights in
> particular domains
> * Who is (or should be) ensuring children¹s rights online ­ parents,
> government, industry?
> * Children¹s creative workarounds to gain health resources online
> * Evaluating initiatives for e-learning and other digital educational
> programmes
> * How are children¹s rights represented or abused in Œbig data¹
> * Digital exclusion as a barrier to children¹s communication rights
> * Rethinking possibilities for children¹s identity and expression in the
> network society
> * Problems of reputation for networked youth
> * Public policy /multi-stakeholder governance regarding children¹s rights in
> the digital age
> * Children¹s information rights: what are the dilemmas?
> * Education for all ­ newly possible in the network society?
> * Grooming, hacking, cyberstalking, trolling and other crimes against children
> online
> * Meanings/limits of ³voice² in participatory research on children¹s rights in
> the digital age
> * The intergenerational dimensions of children¹s rights

> Please submit abstracts for either the Œdilemma¹ papers or
> Œempirical/practitioner papers¹ by 15th September 2015 to both editors ­ Sonia
> Livingstone (s.livingstone at lse.ac.uk <mailto:s.livingstone at lse.ac.uk> ) and
> Amanda Third (A.Third at uws.edu.au <mailto:A.Third at uws.edu.au> ).
>  
> The editors will invite full papers from selected submissions by early
> October, with full papers to be submitted for independent review by 1st
> February 2016. It is anticipated that the special issue will be published via
> Online First by late 2016.
>  
>  
> Professor Sonia Livingstone, DPhil, FBPS, FRSA, OBE
> Department of Media and Communications, LSE
> S105, St Clements Building, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UK
> Web: www.sonialivingstone.net <http://www.sonialivingstone.net>
> Blog: www.parenting.digita <http://www.parenting.digita at Livingstone_S> l
> Twitter: @Livingstone_S
> EU Kids Online: www.eukidsonline.net <http://www.eukidsonline.net>
> TEDx talk: http://ow.ly/wwWiC <http://ow.ly/wwWiC>
> Open access papers:
> http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/view/lseauthor/Livingstone,_Sonia.default.html
> <http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/view/lseauthor/Livingstone,_Sonia.default.html>
> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Harvard
> Fellow and past President, International Communication Association
> Books: Meanings of Audiences (2013), Digital Technologies in the Lives of
> Young People (2014)
>  
>  


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150831/cb554c19/attachment.htm>

From willi.uebelherr at riseup.net  Tue Aug  4 11:40:55 2015
From: willi.uebelherr at riseup.net (willi uebelherr)
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 12:40:55 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [JNC - Forum] for your considereation
In-Reply-To: <55C0D32B.1010309@riseup.net>
References: <55C0D32B.1010309@riseup.net>
Message-ID: <55C0DD07.209@riseup.net>


Dear friends,

i send this text also to this 3 lists, because Norbert Bollow is also 
active there. I will inform you about this discussion thread on the JNC 
Forum list and the admin group. And i hope, on this way i can inform the 
members of the JNC Forum list.

many greetings, willi
Salvador, Brasil



-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: [JNC - Forum] for your considereation
Datum: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 11:58:51 -0300
Von: willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at riseup.net>
An: account.dprt <account.dprt at consultant.com>, anita 
<anita at itforchange.net>, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>, Arun 
Mohan Sukumar <arunmohan.s at gmail.com>, Arzak Khan 
<director at ipop.org.pk>, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca>, chlebrum 
<chlebrum at gmail.com>, Cynthia Stephen <cynstepin at gmail.com>, David Allen 
<David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu>, David Golumbia 
<dgolumbia at gmail.com>, Diego Rafael Canabarro 
<diegocanabarro at gmail.com>, Eduardo Villanueva <evillan at gmail.com>, JNC 
forum owner <forum-owner at justnetcoalition.org>, George Sadowsky 
<george.sadowsky at gmail.com>, Gildenis Silva <gildenis at gmail.com>, Guru 
Acharya <gurcharya at gmail.com>, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>, J M 
<jorgemerlo at hotmail.com>, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS 
<jc.nothias at globalgeneva.net>, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS 
<jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>, Leanne Sajor <leanne at apwld.org>, 
Louis Pouzin <pouzin at well.com>, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>, 
Michel Bauwens <michel at p2pfoundation.net>, Mishi Choudhary 
<mishi at softwarefreedom.org>, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>, Paranjoy 
Guha Thakurta <paranjoy at gmail.com>, parminder <parminder.js at gmail.com>, 
parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>, peter waterman 
<peterwaterman1936 at gmail.com>, prabir <prabirp at gmail.com>, Pranesh 
Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org>, Renata Avila 
<renata.avila at webfoundation.org>, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch>, 
Roberto Bissio <rbissio at item.org.uy>, Roberto Bissio 
<roberto.bissio at gmail.com>, Roberto Verzola <rverzola at gn.apc.org>, 
Sarvjeet Singh <sarvjeetmoond at gmail.com>, Shobhan Saxena 
<shobhan.saxena at gmail.com>, Susan Chalmers <susan at chalmers.associates>, 
Tarakiyee <tarakiyee at apc.org>, tony.phillips 
<tony.phillips at laposte.net>, Roberto Savio <utopie at ips.org>, 
williams.deirdre <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
Kopie (CC): JNC secretariat <secretariat at justnetcoalition.org>, JNC Just 
Net Coalition <info at justnetcoalition.org>, ISF secretariat 
<secretariat at InternetSocialForum.net>, ISF Pragati Mitta 
<pragati at itforchange.net>, ISF secretariat 
<isfsecretariat at internetsocialforum.net>, ISF Alex Gakaru 
<AlexG at InternetSocialForum.net>, Wolfgang Kleinwächter 
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>


Dear friends,

i combined the addresses of the writers to the JNC Forum list and some
others to inform you about the practics of Norbert Bollow. He like to
organize a personal private control environment and with such
reactionary person i will never cooperate. But i want, that all people
know it.

The basic for that is his relation to the members of the list. This
people, the foundation for any activities, are only supernumeraries and
appendages for him. And this we find also in all his argumentations. As
a member for a list, this is not problematic. But in his controller
position he will organize the monotony and limiting of thinking. Then,
JNC lost the space for development.

As i see, Norbert Bollow is also activ in the ISF coordination groups.
But his principles and perspectives are total controversial to the texts 
like "call for ISF" of the ISF. I do not understand, why such
reactionary person can act in this environment.

The JNC as a single instance is not really important. But as a part of
our global cooperation we need all active people. I hope, you think about.

This way for distribution is my last way. I can no longer write to the list.

many greetings, willi
Salvador, Brasil



-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: Re: Moderator action Re: [JNC - Forum] for your considereation
Datum: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 10:21:40 +0200
Von: Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>
Organisation: GoalTree Consulting N. Bollow
An: willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at riseup.net>
Kopie (CC): JNC Steering Committee <Steeringcommittee at justnetcoalition.org>

On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 22:10:28 -0300
willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at riseup.net> wrote:
> before i write directly to the JNC Steering Comittee, i have some
> question.
>
> 1. Why you do not send this answer also to the JNV Forum list?

It would be off-topic on that list.

> You
> are moderator on behalf of the members of the list

No, I do it on behalf of JNC, and hence my accountability is to JNC.

> and the list is
> not your private control space.

Of course not. That's why there is the possibility of an appeals
process.

> 2. In my answer to Andrea, where you find a "cheap attack"? Against
> who?

Both against Roberto Savio's work as well as against the current
government of Greece.

> In what part is my argumentation destructive?

If it is not immediately clear to you after just a bit of reflection
that your posting was in very bad taste and inappropriate for a list
like the JNC Forum list, that IMO simply means that you lack some
necessary skill for participation on this kind of list.

> I have to understand, about what you speak. Then i can write my
> question to the JNC SC. Clear, this i can never send to the list with
> you as moderator control port. But i try it.

If there was any need for further evidence in support of my decision to
put you on moderation, such additional evidence has now been provided
by your act of intentionally trying to post something about which you
knew that it would be considered unacceptable.

Greetings,
Norbert



-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: Re: Moderator action Re: [JNC - Forum] for your considereation
Datum: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 22:10:28 -0300
Von: willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at riseup.net>
An: Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>
Kopie (CC): JNC Steering Committee
<Steeringcommittee at justnetcoalition.org>, JNC forum
<forum at justnetcoalition.org>, JNC secretariat
<secretariat at justnetcoalition.org>

Hi Norbert,

before i write directly to the JNC Steering Comittee, i have some question.

1. Why you do not send this answer also to the JNV Forum list? You are
moderator on behalf of the members of the list and the list is not your
private control space.

2. In my answer to Andrea, where you find a "cheap attack"? Against who?
In what part is my argumentation destructive?

I have to understand, about what you speak. Then i can write my question
to the JNC SC. Clear, this i can never send to the list with you as
moderator control port. But i try it.

many greetings, willi
Salvador, Brasil



-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: Moderator action Re: [JNC - Forum] for your considereation
Datum: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 22:27:00 +0200
Von: Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>
Organisation: GoalTree Consulting N. Bollow
An: willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at riseup.net>
Kopie (CC): JNC Steering Committee <Steeringcommittee at justnetcoalition.org>

Hi Willi

This kind of cheap attacks is not acceptable on the JNC Forum list,
which is intended to be a forum for constructive discussion with a
focus on Internet governance topics.

In my role as the current list admin for this list, I have the
unpleasant duty to react by taking some "moderator action", which in
this case consists mainly in putting you "on moderation". Also, if
there any replies on the list, I will probably kill that thread soon.

In case you wish to appeal this decision, such an appeal may be
addressed to the JNC Steering Committee at:

<Steeringcommittee at justnetcoalition.org>

Greetings,
Norbert



-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: Re: [JNC - Forum] for your considereation
Datum: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 09:06:46 -0300
Von: willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at riseup.net>
An: JNC forum <forum at justnetcoalition.org>

Am 01/08/2015 um 14:26 schrieb utopie at ips.org:
> ...

to the text by Roberto Savio:
Opinion: The Sad Historical Consequences of the Greek Bailout

Dear Andrea,

this is not a valuable text on Greece. A little valuable to the
illusions on Europa. Never this was a project in solidarity, what
Roberto Savio (wrote).

For this imperial structures such as England, France and Germany
solidarity is not possible. They organize the Egosim on the different level.

And for Greece? We see, that the leadership of Syriza with her partners
are a totally reactionaery group. Now, they cooperate with Israel on
military projects. They have other perspectives then the people in Greece.

The capitalistic thinking and construction acts just before its dissolution.

many greetings, willi
Salvador, Brasil



-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: [JNC - Forum] for your considereation
Datum: 	Sat, 1 Aug 2015 13:26:08 -0400 (EDT)
Von: 	utopie at ips.org
An: 	andrea <utopie at ips.org>








---
Este email foi escaneado pelo Avast antivírus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Mon Aug 31 16:59:57 2015
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 16:59:57 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] South Africa Releases Cybercrimes & Cybersecurity Bill
 for Comment
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAe0pAjGgbnMRiONtJ1mz1bNP1Gb70uxrPSf2PHcmt4W9A@mail.gmail.com>

*South Africa Releases Cybercrimes & Cybersecurity Bill for Comment: Bill
Includes Penalties for Online Infringement*



[Mike Palmedo] The South African government has introduced a draft
Cybercrimes & Cybersecurity Bill for public comment. The Bill states that
anyone who  “sells, offers for download, distributes, or otherwise makes
available” copyrighted works “by means of a computer network or an
electronic communications network” will be guilty of an offense. Penalties
include fines or up to three years imprisonment. Click here for more.
<http://infojustice.org/archives/34925>


-- 

*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/20150831/7011ed2a/attachment.htm>

From andrew at gp-digital.org  Wed Aug  5 06:00:14 2015
From: andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt)
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 11:00:14 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Re Best Bits Steering Group
Message-ID: <CAOi1r6br8dDESqgjLqe0x-EDQENi+y5F5F78PVcLAq9FUR5duA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Colleagues

As you will know the current Steering Group (SG) is due to step down in
the next month.  Elections were called with Ian Peter as returning
officer.  However there were insufficient nominations to necessitate an
election and the SG discussed what to do in the light of this.  After
considerable discussion we agreed that we would communicate the following
to the BB list:



-       Following the elections in July, there were insufficient candidates
to fill all the places on the current steering group and ensure an election;

-       The SG wishes to understand more accurately what users feel about
BB, and what they would like from it, if anything (e.g. whether it has
value for information sharing and/or common messaging and joint actions,
and other purpose or is defunct);

-       Consequently the SG will conduct an anonymised stocktaking survey
of the current BB list to understand what value users ascribe to BB and
whether or how they would like it develop in order to shape a discussion at
a face-to-face meeting before the IGF on the future of BB;

-       The SG will also explore what users find to be incentives and
disincentives to participating in discussions and activity.



We propose that the current Steering Group stays in place for the time
being, and focuses on conducting the survey and organising a session at a
BB meeting in Brazil during the IGF to consider the way forward including
what organisational arrangements best suit the needs of the users. This
will ensure that any decision about the future of Best Bits can be taken at
the meeting in Brazil, collectively by users, rather than by the interim SG
alone.


You will shortly be receiving a survey and we would encourage you to fill
it in and give us feedback.


Best wishes

*Andrew Puddephatt*
Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org




>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150805/0049d2ef/attachment.htm>

From avri at acm.org  Wed Aug  5 06:58:13 2015
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2015 06:58:13 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Re Best Bits Steering Group
In-Reply-To: <CAOi1r6br8dDESqgjLqe0x-EDQENi+y5F5F78PVcLAq9FUR5duA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOi1r6br8dDESqgjLqe0x-EDQENi+y5F5F78PVcLAq9FUR5duA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55C1EC45.8000302@acm.org>

Hi,

Seems like a good way forward to me.

avri

On 05-Aug-15 06:00, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
> Dear Colleagues
>
> As you will know the current Steering Group (SG) is due to step down
> in the next month.  Elections were called with Ian Peter as returning
> officer.  However there were insufficient nominations to necessitate
> an election and the SG discussed what to do in the light of this. 
> After considerable discussion we agreed that we would communicate the
> following to the BB list:
>
>  
>
> -       Following the elections in July, there were insufficient
> candidates to fill all the places on the current steering group and
> ensure an election;
>
> -       The SG wishes to understand more accurately what users feel
> about BB, and what they would like from it, if anything (e.g. whether
> it has value for information sharing and/or common messaging and joint
> actions, and other purpose or is defunct);    
>
> -       Consequently the SG will conduct an anonymised stocktaking
> survey of the current BB list to understand what value users ascribe
> to BB and whether or how they would like it develop in order to shape
> a discussion at a face-to-face meeting before the IGF on the future of BB;
>
> -       The SG will also explore what users find to be incentives and
> disincentives to participating in discussions and activity.
>
>  
>
> We propose that the current Steering Group stays in place for the time
> being, and focuses on conducting the survey and organising a session
> at a BB meeting in Brazil during the IGF to consider the way forward
> including what organisational arrangements best suit the needs of the
> users. This will ensure that any decision about the future of Best
> Bits can be taken at the meeting in Brazil, collectively by users,
> rather than by the interim SG alone.
>
>
> You will shortly be receiving a survey and we would encourage you to
> fill it in and give us feedback.
>
>
> Best wishes
>
>
> *Andrew Puddephatt*
> Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
> gp-digital.org <http://gp-digital.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


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


From anriette at apc.org  Wed Aug  5 07:43:33 2015
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2015 13:43:33 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Re Best Bits Steering Group
In-Reply-To: <55C1EC45.8000302@acm.org>
References: <CAOi1r6br8dDESqgjLqe0x-EDQENi+y5F5F78PVcLAq9FUR5duA@mail.gmail.com> <55C1EC45.8000302@acm.org>
Message-ID: <55C1F6E5.408@apc.org>

Agree. A good way forward.

Anriette


On 05/08/2015 12:58, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Seems like a good way forward to me.
> 
> avri
> 
> On 05-Aug-15 06:00, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
>> Dear Colleagues
>>
>> As you will know the current Steering Group (SG) is due to step down
>> in the next month.  Elections were called with Ian Peter as returning
>> officer.  However there were insufficient nominations to necessitate
>> an election and the SG discussed what to do in the light of this. 
>> After considerable discussion we agreed that we would communicate the
>> following to the BB list:
>>
>>  
>>
>> -       Following the elections in July, there were insufficient
>> candidates to fill all the places on the current steering group and
>> ensure an election;
>>
>> -       The SG wishes to understand more accurately what users feel
>> about BB, and what they would like from it, if anything (e.g. whether
>> it has value for information sharing and/or common messaging and joint
>> actions, and other purpose or is defunct);    
>>
>> -       Consequently the SG will conduct an anonymised stocktaking
>> survey of the current BB list to understand what value users ascribe
>> to BB and whether or how they would like it develop in order to shape
>> a discussion at a face-to-face meeting before the IGF on the future of BB;
>>
>> -       The SG will also explore what users find to be incentives and
>> disincentives to participating in discussions and activity.
>>
>>  
>>
>> We propose that the current Steering Group stays in place for the time
>> being, and focuses on conducting the survey and organising a session
>> at a BB meeting in Brazil during the IGF to consider the way forward
>> including what organisational arrangements best suit the needs of the
>> users. This will ensure that any decision about the future of Best
>> Bits can be taken at the meeting in Brazil, collectively by users,
>> rather than by the interim SG alone.
>>
>>
>> You will shortly be receiving a survey and we would encourage you to
>> fill it in and give us feedback.
>>
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>>
>> *Andrew Puddephatt*
>> Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
>> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
>> gp-digital.org <http://gp-digital.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
> 
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 

-- 
-----------------------------------------
Anriette Esterhuysen
Executive Director
Association for Progressive Communications
anriette at apc.org
www.apc.org
IM: ae_apc

From shahzad at bytesforall.pk  Wed Aug  5 07:52:20 2015
From: shahzad at bytesforall.pk (Shahzad Ahmad)
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 16:52:20 +0500
Subject: [bestbits] Re Best Bits Steering Group
In-Reply-To: <CAOi1r6br8dDESqgjLqe0x-EDQENi+y5F5F78PVcLAq9FUR5duA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOi1r6br8dDESqgjLqe0x-EDQENi+y5F5F78PVcLAq9FUR5duA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55C1F8F4.2080207@bytesforall.pk>

+1. Totally agreed.

And we believe that BB continue to be an important forum for information
sharing and should be strengthened further for joint strategy
development on different IG issues. It may also focus more on how to
facilitate result oriented, stronger interactions between North-South
and South-South. 

best wishes
Shahzad


On 8/5/15 3:00 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
> Dear Colleagues
>
> As you will know the current Steering Group (SG) is due to step down in
> the next month.  Elections were called with Ian Peter as returning
> officer.  However there were insufficient nominations to necessitate an
> election and the SG discussed what to do in the light of this.  After
> considerable discussion we agreed that we would communicate the following
> to the BB list:
>
>
>
> -       Following the elections in July, there were insufficient candidates
> to fill all the places on the current steering group and ensure an election;
>
> -       The SG wishes to understand more accurately what users feel about
> BB, and what they would like from it, if anything (e.g. whether it has
> value for information sharing and/or common messaging and joint actions,
> and other purpose or is defunct);
>
> -       Consequently the SG will conduct an anonymised stocktaking survey
> of the current BB list to understand what value users ascribe to BB and
> whether or how they would like it develop in order to shape a discussion at
> a face-to-face meeting before the IGF on the future of BB;
>
> -       The SG will also explore what users find to be incentives and
> disincentives to participating in discussions and activity.
>
>
>
> We propose that the current Steering Group stays in place for the time
> being, and focuses on conducting the survey and organising a session at a
> BB meeting in Brazil during the IGF to consider the way forward including
> what organisational arrangements best suit the needs of the users. This
> will ensure that any decision about the future of Best Bits can be taken at
> the meeting in Brazil, collectively by users, rather than by the interim SG
> alone.
>
>
> You will shortly be receiving a survey and we would encourage you to fill
> it in and give us feedback.
>
>
> Best wishes
>
> *Andrew Puddephatt*
> Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
> gp-digital.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150805/3fc44185/attachment.htm>