From willi.uebelherr at gmail.com  Sun Feb  1 09:23:55 2015
From: willi.uebelherr at gmail.com (willi uebelherr)
Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2015 10:23:55 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Towards an Internet Social Forum
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <w1tknuhwuokwhm1bwrq7nf82.1421824340505@email.android.com> <54C0BF75.9030809@itforchange.net> <207E590CDEB1344EB16A3D3424E8D74202304FE5AB3B@EXVMBX016-2.exch016.msoutlookonline.net> <54C0DFD4.6070202@itforchange.net> <54C111D0.2050809@itforchange.net> <54C12314.2060407@alainet.org> <54C236DE.3050903@itforchange.net> <54C2E1A8.9040703@itforchange.net> <001001d03899$2ad41c00$807c5400$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642A88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <007d01d038b1$aaee5fa0$00cb1ee0$@gmail.com> <009001d038b5$65699a40$303ccec0$@gmail.com> <54C52F8E.9000601@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642ACE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20150131180341.527f3a62@quill> <14b419e2068.2762.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20150201083418.086b8607@quill> <"CACTo+v_yf0rwXwxiJbDiLwYWb-71bC8aSZwxky_px =WSW8woJg"@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801642AD6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <54CE36FB.6000601@gmail.com>


Dear Wolfgang,

i thank you very much for this clarification. In particular for:

"knowing that this "one voice" is based on a broad variety of different 
nuances but is united around basic values as human rights, equality , 
justice, access, knowledge, bridging the digital divide etc. .."

mamy greetings, willi
La Paz, Bolivia


Am 01/02/2015 um 08:01 a.m. schrieb "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang":
> Hi
>
> thx. for the discussion.
>
> The "speak with one voice" question can be easily answered: It is the outcome of a process where different CS groups participate in a bottom up open, transparent and inclusive drafting process and agree on common languge around a number of issues. This has been possible in the past from the CS WSIS 2003 declaration via numerous statements in CSTD, IGF, UNESCO, ITU/WTPF and others.  This was workable on the basis of a principle which was inspired by Jon Postels RFC 793."Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept".
>
> If the various CS Groups return to RFC 793, there is a good chance to reach rough consensus among the various groups so that we can speak seriously with "one" voice in the WSIS 10+  process, knowing that this "one voice" is based on a broad variety of different nuances but is united around basic values as human rights, equality , justice, access, knowledge, brdiging the digital divide etc. ..
>
> Wolfgang
>
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Mawaki Chango
> Gesendet: So 01.02.2015 10:24
> An: Internet Governance; Norbert Bollow
> Betreff: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
>
> On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>
>> ...
>>   WK is
>> calling for civil society to "speak with one voice".
>>
>> So I find it natural to ask how it would be determined what this "one
>> voice" says concretely!
>>
>
> I find this question one of the most critical questions we are faced with.
> It pertains to the same problem and observation that previously led me to
> state that IGC does not have just ONE voice. Interesting enough, you
> (Norbert) replied the following which I don't disagree with but just wasn't
> the issue implied by my statement.
>
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:03:20 +0000
>> Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In other words, IGC which is also a CSCG member is certainly not one
>>> voice.
>>
>> In fact, despite all its shortcomings (which include the fact that
>> what the Charter says about enforcing the posting rules is not being
>> done, and may in fact be impossible to do) IGC. i.e. this list, right
>> now is still the best place to go to when desiring a broad discussion
>> inclusive of the whole variety of civil society viewpoints.
>>
>
> So the question is How and When can IGC have a unique/common/united voice
> (you choose your preferred adjective)?
> Part of it is the representation-accountability dimension which seems to be
> what you're concerned with here (and yes, while mentioning the
> non-enforcement of posting rules in passing.) But the other big part is
> this: What will it take for members to accept that their views, no matter
> how strong they feel about them, may not carry the day (and they certainly
> cannot always
> do)
> and still allow the group to make a decision while keeping peace and trust
> among us? This applies to all sides of our worldview spectrum.
>
> In my opinion, this question cluster is the million dollars knot for IGC to
> untie (solve) in order to be functional again.
>
> Mawaki
>
>
>> In particular, some kind of credible plan would be needed to prevent
>> such a determination from being made on behalf of civil society as a
>> whole in a way that in reality might be significantly less inclusive
>> than it would claim to be.
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Thu Feb  5 10:25:33 2015
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 10:25:33 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Confused About Title II? Join Our Reddit AMA Today at
 1PM ET
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAcBjAky8XPpjK6uUOxKMA=Ok5S6bDKmcxUTk83OTptKjA@mail.gmail.com>

    [image: Public Knowledge]
<http://publicknowledge.nationbuilder.com/?e=a571c6807d67bdc9959d4926b33007b9&utm_source=publicknowledge&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=title_ii_ama1&n=1>

Excited about yesterday's big net neutrality announcement but don't know
exactly what it means? Join our "Ask Me Anything"
<http://publicknowledge.nationbuilder.com/r?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FIAmA%2F&utm_campaign=title_ii_ama1&n=2&e=a571c6807d67bdc9959d4926b33007b9&utm_source=publicknowledge&utm_medium=email>
session on Reddit today at 1PM ET where various Public Knowledge staffers
will be online and ready to answer any questions you may have.
                     [image: TitleIIcartoon.jpg]

Reminder: you do not need a Reddit user name to follow along.  Just search
for "PublicKnowledgeDC."

Image attribution: Ken Fager
<http://publicknowledge.nationbuilder.com/r?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fkenfagerdotcom%2F4886342418%2Fin%2Fphotolist-eM2nTf-8rMMn5-dwWHw5-dy7VqD-8N85PB-8z46Zb-jguuCC-fNi2S3-46X4aS-bpDgSG-5sp1Ck-bHG7Xv-gNNH7L-h1tFVc-3EPVar-hsag9u-ABCPv-84iSwE-e3rpgk-nTEQyj-aozpTJ-62y9LK-btg35P-5AQcCL-akQfJA-f6JEGH-5UmJSP-iDxLiz-4cDH3c-bpzZXc-gngvpk-eBgYBe-7VsPiK-gcM8Tz-57QuGi-eDYdub-cT5zyW-aE7QNa-ekbBsW-57UH89-nbAw4b-exumeh-c3pmWN-73pcjk-2WgkV-57QuRM-4zLGNH-huQToH-jiwmoq-39TZ9R%3Frb%3D1&utm_campaign=title_ii_ama1&n=3&e=a571c6807d67bdc9959d4926b33007b9&utm_source=publicknowledge&utm_medium=email>


  Created with NationBuilder
<http://publicknowledge.nationbuilder.com/r?u=http%3A%2F%2Fnationbuilder.com&utm_campaign=title_ii_ama1&n=7&e=a571c6807d67bdc9959d4926b33007b9&utm_source=publicknowledge&utm_medium=email>,
the essential toolkit for leaders.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150205/fea518d8/attachment.htm>

From LB at lucabelli.net  Thu Feb  5 05:49:10 2015
From: LB at lucabelli.net (LB at lucabelli.net)
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 03:49:10 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] [nncoalition] FOLLOW WIRED Twitter Facebook RSS FCC
 Chairman Tom Wheeler: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality
Message-ID: <20150205034910.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.c649c57dc4.wbe@email07.europe.secureserver.net>

Hi all, 

FYI

Fact Sheet: Chairman Wheeler Proposes New Rules for Protecting the Open
Internet

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0204/DOC-331869A1.pdf

Best, 
Luca 


> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [nncoalition] FOLLOW WIRED Twitter Facebook RSS FCC Chairman
> Tom Wheeler: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality
> From: Carolina Rossini <carolina.rossini at gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, February 04, 2015 4:07 pm
> To: "nncoalition at mailman.edri.org" <nncoalition at mailman.edri.org>, 
> "<bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt"
> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
> 
> 
> http://www.wired.com/2015/02/fcc-chairman-wheeler-net-neutrality/
> 
> -- 
> -- 
> *Carolina Rossini *
> *Vice President, International Policy*
> *Public Knowledge*
> *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini<hr>_______________________________________________
> NNcoalition mailing list
> NNcoalition at mailman.edri.org
> http://mailman.edri.org/mailman/listinfo/nncoalition

From wjdrake at gmail.com  Thu Feb  5 21:25:28 2015
From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 10:25:28 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] in memory of Heike Jensen
In-Reply-To: <54D27E00.30001@apc.org>
References: <A9AAF0C8-6F4D-4C27-B407-4B4AF43674B3@gmx.de> <54D2719A.7050500@gold.ac.uk> <54D27E00.30001@apc.org>
Message-ID: <66DF2EEC-03CA-470B-8C3A-DD8BF27ADCC3@gmail.com>

Hi

I was certainly shocked and dismayed when Anriette told me this yesterday.  Heike was a great person, this is a big loss.  

I could send her chapter on Women’s Human Rights in the Information Society to anyone who wants to post it online, probably I shouldn’t as it was in a book series I edited and MIT Press might balk.

Bill

> On Feb 5, 2015, at 4:16 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:
> 
> Dear Marianne
> 
> Thanks for posting this. This also reached us at APC this week, and  many of us did not know about Heike's death. She worked with us closely on many projects and publications, and we are planning to dedicate an edition of GenderIT.org to her and her work.
> 
> In 2013 she wrote this chapter for us for Global Information Society Watch.
> 
> http://www.giswatch.org/institutional-overview/womens-rights-gender/whose-internet-it-anyway-shaping-internet-feminist-voice <http://www.giswatch.org/institutional-overview/womens-rights-gender/whose-internet-it-anyway-shaping-internet-feminist-voice>
> 
> It is a great loss.
> 
> Anriette
> 
> On 04/02/2015 21:23, Marianne Franklin wrote:
>> Dear all
>> 
>> Apologies for the cross-posting, and the sombre content. Some of you will already know that a year ago Heike Jensen passed away. Heike was a stalwart of Giganet, the Gender DC and other civil society work at the IGF, and the GigaNET community in the crucial early years. Her involvement and contribution goes back to the WSIS e.g. Heike contributed to the Joergensen edited volume (2006) on Human Rights in the Global Information Society, reporting for Freedom House and others and being part of IGF meetings through the Gender DC and Giganet symposia. 
>> 
>> The last time Heike was at the IGF was Sharm el Sheikh I think, though she may also have been in Nairobi. In recent years she devoted herself to other work from her (new) homebase in Munich where she was very happy after adjusting from the move there from Berlin. 
>> 
>> Heike was a wonderful person, a great researcher and advocate as her partner below reminds us. I, for one, have missed having her take part in recent years but I will miss her for the years to come at this anniversary. 
>> 
>> Just thought some of you would like to know of her passing if you did not already. 
>> 
>> best
>> MF
>> 
>> 
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> Subject:	in memory of Heike Jensen
>> Date:	Mon, 2 Feb 2015 21:33:17 +0100
>> From:	Thomas Ochs <ThomasOchs at gmx.de> <mailto:ThomasOchs at gmx.de>
>> To:	Thomas Ochs <thomasochs at gmx.de> <mailto:thomasochs at gmx.de>
>> 
>> In Memory of our Beloved 
>> 
>>  Heike
>> 
>> Dr.phil. Heike Jensen
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> On the first anniversary of her death on February 3, 2014
>> 
>> 
>> Heike was a dedicated feminist and from the bottom of her heart a humanitarian.
>> 
>> Both her scholarship and her work for NGOs aimed at making the world a more just place for every human being.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> The pain and grief caused by the loss of a beloved person is only bearable when we experience how much she meant to those whose lives she touched. Because the only thing that matters in life are the traces of love that a person leaves behind.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> One year ago, after her brave fight against cancer, Heike passed away.
>> 
>> She contitnues to live in our hearts.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Thomas Ochs
>> Streitbergstr. 18
>> 81249 München
>> 
>> Brunhilde Jensen
>> Angermünder Str. 55 A
>> 12305 Berlin
>> 
>> 
>> <Mail Attachment.jpeg>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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 <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/20150206/e4d4bd7e/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Fri Feb  6 13:15:32 2015
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 13:15:32 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] CALL - Fellowship at ITS in Rio de Janeiro
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAfhPv779hxxYEiPGpuiJr-y9=t4NPt8gtyTVOQMFTLJUQ@mail.gmail.com>

http://www.itsrio.org/2015/02/04/its-global-policy-fellowship-program-2015/


ITS Global Policy Fellowship Program 2015

*Program overview:*

The Institute of Technology and Society (ITSrio.org) invites researchers,
graduate students as well as professionals working with technology policy,
to apply to its Global Policy Fellowship Program and spend four weeks* in
Brazil at ITS. Last year, we welcomed six fellows from all over the world,
who contributed immensely for the success of the Fellowship Program. (See
the list of our 2014 fellows here
<http://www.itsrio.org/sobre-o-its/fellows/>, and what they have to say
about their experiences here
<http://www.itsrio.org/2015/02/04/its-fellows-2014-and-what-they-said-about-their-experience/>
).

Our Global Fellows will have the opportunity to work with the team who
created and developed the landmark “Marco Civil” legislation, a bill
protecting fundamental rights, including privacy, net neutrality and
freedom of expression, approved as law in Brazil in April 2014. ITS will
offer the opportunity to work with research in the five broad areas, namely:

   - Law, democracy and technology (dealing with topics such civic
   engagement, online participation, and others);
   - Access to technology, justice and human rights (dealing with topics
   such as connectivity, accesibility, digital divide and others)
   - Internet regulation and Internet governance;
   - Privacy and data protection (dealing with topics such as big data,
   anti-survailance, data protection and mass surveilance);
   - Rethinking culture, media and education (working with topics such as
   intelectual property, digital entrepreneurship, art & technology, online
   teaching, and others).

The ITS Fellowship Program will offer the opportunity for those interested
in internet and technology policy to deepen their knowledge about the
Brazilian technology context. We have prepared an intensive 4-week* program
for our fellows, which include visits to the biggest technology national
and international companies operating in Brazil, the Brazilian Internet
Steering Committee (CGI.br) and visits to São Paulo and Brasília, including
meetings with representatives of the Ministry of Justice, Ministry of
Culture, and Congress members who are advocating for policies related to
internet and technology.

During their stay, selected fellows will be expected to:

   - Present at least one public seminar, organized in partnership with
   ITS. Suggested topics can include: broadband and access policy, content
   regulation, copyright and creativity, consumer privacy, open government,
   government surveillance, data security, data innovation, freedom of
   expression, democracy and technology and human rights.
   - To publish at least one article or webpost about their experience as a
   fellow in Brazil.
   - To collaborate with the ITS team and its projects.

*Who should apply?*

We are looking for students, researchers, and professionals who are
following the debates in the public policy field, and who want to spend
part of their summer/winter in Brazil, learning about Internet policy.
People from all backgrounds are encouraged to apply. For the selection
processes, please send us:

   - Your complete academic and professional resume, including your
   LinkedIn profile and other online references you want us to consider;
   - A 1-page personal statement about your motivations to work in Brazil;
   - A brief work description of your experience with technology policy;
   - Proposal for a public presentation of your work;
   - Indication of one of the five main areas ITS which you would like to
   work on;
   - One project or idea you would be interested in developing while at ITS.

Portuguese skills are not required (but English is mandatory).
All documents must be sent in one single e-mail message to itsrio at itsrio.org,
with the subject “Global Fellows Application :: YOUR NAME”.

*Our Fellowship Package includes:*

   - Intensive 4-week* program for the fellows;
   - Air tickets to São Paulo and Brasília;
   - Accommodation in São Paulo and Brasília during the days of our visit;
   - Shared office space at our headquarters for four weeks*;
   - A visit to a “samba” music club will also be organized, but is not
   mandatory;

*Our Fellowship Package does not include:*

   - International Traveling to and from Brazil;
   - Accommodation for the four weeks* in Rio de Janeiro, where our program
   takes place;
   - Other costs related to your stay in Brazil other than those mentioned
   above.
   - Necessary visa to entry the country.

Our team will provide tips and information about how to find accommodation
in the city during that time.

*Relevant Dates:*

Applications deadline: March 20th, 2015;
Announcement of fellows by e-mail: March 31st, 2015;
Fellowship Program will start: June 29th, and will finish in July 27th, 2015
*;

** Fellows are expected to stay in Rio from 29/June/2015 to 27/Jul/2015.
After this date, fellows can coordinate with ITS the possibility of staying
for a longer term if they wish. Visa and costs for additional stays are to
be provided by the fellows.*

-- 
-- 
*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/20150206/fe4fdeba/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Sat Feb  7 13:18:45 2015
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2015 13:18:45 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] vote on the 9th - igf renewal
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAeC-K=8iOMZuSzOQZcwhgrwpzDjXAGoyMe=+xtOdsWhVg@mail.gmail.com>

from a colleague in Europe

"I hope you are following the EP Resolution "Renewal of the mandate of the
Internet Governance Forum" too be voted 9 February:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=AGENDA&reference=20150209&secondRef=SIT&language=EN#D-61

-- 
-- 
*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/20150207/618fa8cc/attachment.htm>

From erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu  Sun Feb  8 02:27:30 2015
From: erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu (JOSEFSSON Erik)
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2015 07:27:30 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] vote on the 9th - igf renewal
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAeC-K=8iOMZuSzOQZcwhgrwpzDjXAGoyMe=+xtOdsWhVg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK-FJAeC-K=8iOMZuSzOQZcwhgrwpzDjXAGoyMe=+xtOdsWhVg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A4356E140@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>

Thanks Carolina,

There are 4 reslutions tabled:

EPP+S&D+ALDE:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2f%2fEP%2f%2fTEXT%2bMOTION%2bB8-2015-0099%2b0%2bDOC%2bXML%2bV0%2f%2fEN&language=EN

Greens/EFA+GUE/NGL:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2f%2fEP%2f%2fTEXT%2bMOTION%2bB8-2015-0121%2b0%2bDOC%2bXML%2bV0%2f%2fEN&language=EN

EFDD:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2f%2fEP%2f%2fTEXT%2bMOTION%2bB8-2015-0131%2b0%2bDOC%2bXML%2bV0%2f%2fEN&language=EN

ECR:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2f%2fEP%2f%2fTEXT%2bMOTION%2bB8-2015-0130%2b0%2bDOC%2bXML%2bV0%2f%2fEN&language=EN


Here are some diffs (with EPP+S&D+ALDE as reference):

Greens/EFA+GUE/NGL:
http://en.euwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Sandbox&diff=17666&oldid=17665

EFDD:
http://en.euwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Sandbox&diff=17666&oldid=17664

ECR:
http://en.euwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Sandbox&diff=17666&oldid=17663


We're working on a plagiarism tool (Pippilongstrings) which would present the diffs in a more comprehensive way. The wikidiff engine can be 'forced' to compare blocks you decide, but not compare texts where the difference is mostly in the order of the paragraphs.

Best regards.

//Erik



________________________________
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Carolina Rossini [carolina.rossini at gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday 7 February 2015 19:18
To: <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt
Subject: [bestbits] vote on the 9th - igf renewal


from a colleague in Europe

"I hope you are following the EP Resolution "Renewal of the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum" too be voted 9 February:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=AGENDA&reference=20150209&secondRef=SIT&language=EN#D-61

--
--
Carolina Rossini
Vice President, International Policy
Public Knowledge
http://www.publicknowledge.org/
+ 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150208/633e7f72/attachment.htm>

From jmalcolm at eff.org  Mon Feb  9 14:10:28 2015
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 11:10:28 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] Draft joint statement on European Parliament IGF
 resolution
Message-ID: <54D90624.5030400@eff.org>

This has been put together by the CCIA, which is of course not a civil
society organisation but they are canvassing for civil society
signatories and some civil society inputs have already been
incorporated, along with inputs from the private sector.  They are
trying to close by 9:30am Brussels time on Wednesday.

If you would like to endorse, I can forward on your name (along with any
requests for small changes) - or alternatively, if it would be helpful,
I could put this up on the Best Bits site for those who want to sign on
to do so there (but I plan to check with CCIA first whether this would
be OK with them).

---
*
**Stakeholders welcome the European Parliament’s Resolution to**
**Strengthen the Internet Governance Forum*


We the undersigned, representing civil society and the Internet
industry community in Europe:

*The need for renewal of the Internet Governance Forum’s mandate*

    Welcome the European Parliament’s calls for a renewal of the
mandate of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and for the
strengthening of its resources.

    We strongly support the call on the General Assembly of the UN to
renew and possibly extend beyond 5-year terms the mandate of the IGF.

    Underscore that the IGF must be a genuinely representative
multi-stakeholder global forum for open discussions on Internet
governance.  The IGF has been a catalyst for the creation of regional
and national IGFs which have positively enriched the discussions and
increased the level of inclusiveness.

    Commend the European Parliament, and the European Union, more
broadly for its active support and participation in the IGF.
*
**The value of the open and global Internet*

    Commend the Resolution for underscoring the Internet’s crucial
role in our society.

    Welcome the understanding of the Internet’s potential for
supporting democracy, cultural diversity and promotion of human rights
such as freedom of expression.

    Support the resolution’s call for the open and independent
Internet and the need to secure non-discriminatory access to the
Internet in the future.

    We applaud the European Parliament for correctly stressing “that
it is crucial … to ensure legal protection of net neutrality which is
an indispensable precondition to safeguard the freedom of information
and expression, to boost growth and jobs by developing innovation and
business opportunities in the Internet and to promote and safeguard
the cultural and linguistic diversity.”


*The importance of today’s multi-stakeholder governance model*

    Welcome calls for a genuinely multistakeholder model of Internet
governance and the call to further strengthen the model by making
processes at national, regional and international levels more
inclusive, transparent and accountable.

    We call on European decision makers to go further and demand that
UN processes become more inclusive, transparent and more open in its
processes towards all stakeholders.

    We discourage any attempts to “centralise” Internet governance
debates by moving the debates from multi-stakeholder fora to
inter-governmental organisations.

    We support an active participation and engagement by the
multistakeholder community in the WSIS+10 review process.

    We warn that the future of the IGF must not become a bargaining
chip for seeking a more intergovernmental model for Internet
governance.  While the UN plays an important role on key matters such
as broadband development and issues of a more developmental nature, we
oppose any proposals to extend the scope to areas such as the routing
of Internet-based traffic or content-related issues.

    We stress the importance of fundamental freedoms and human rights
such as freedom of expression, access to information and privacy.  We
agree with the Resolutions rejections of attempts by states and
non-state actors to impose censorship and mass surveillance.


*Support for the IANA transition*

    We agree with the importance of the successful completion of the
IANA stewardship transition from the U.S. government to the global
multistakeholder community and its support for enhanced accountability
and transparency of ICANN which will provide a long term solution to
the stability and security of the Internet’s domain name system.

-- 
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/20150209/ddeed81b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 244 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150209/ddeed81b/attachment.sig>

From erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu  Mon Feb  9 14:54:32 2015
From: erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu (JOSEFSSON Erik)
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 19:54:32 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Draft joint statement on European Parliament IGF
 resolution
In-Reply-To: <54D90624.5030400@eff.org>
References: <54D90624.5030400@eff.org>
Message-ID: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43570613@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>

Please consider explicitly supporting the following amendment too:

AM 2 (to point 6):

"Stresses that it is firmly committed to a democratically accountable multistakeholder model of Internet governance; calls upon the Member States, the European Commission and all relevant stakeholders to further strengthen the sustainability of the multi-stakeholder model by making actors and processes at national, regional and international levels more inclusive, transparent and accountable;"

It should have been tabled less than an hour ago!

//Erik


________________________________
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Jeremy Malcolm [jmalcolm at eff.org]
Sent: Monday 9 February 2015 20:10
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: [bestbits] Draft joint statement on European Parliament IGF resolution

This has been put together by the CCIA, which is of course not a civil society organisation but they are canvassing for civil society signatories and some civil society inputs have already been incorporated, along with inputs from the private sector.  They are trying to close by 9:30am Brussels time on Wednesday.

If you would like to endorse, I can forward on your name (along with any requests for small changes) - or alternatively, if it would be helpful, I could put this up on the Best Bits site for those who want to sign on to do so there (but I plan to check with CCIA first whether this would be OK with them).

---

Stakeholders welcome the European Parliament’s Resolution to
Strengthen the Internet Governance Forum


We the undersigned, representing civil society and the Internet
industry community in Europe:

The need for renewal of the Internet Governance Forum’s mandate

    Welcome the European Parliament’s calls for a renewal of the
mandate of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and for the
strengthening of its resources.

    We strongly support the call on the General Assembly of the UN to
renew and possibly extend beyond 5-year terms the mandate of the IGF.

    Underscore that the IGF must be a genuinely representative
multi-stakeholder global forum for open discussions on Internet
governance.  The IGF has been a catalyst for the creation of regional
and national IGFs which have positively enriched the discussions and
increased the level of inclusiveness.

    Commend the European Parliament, and the European Union, more
broadly for its active support and participation in the IGF.

The value of the open and global Internet

    Commend the Resolution for underscoring the Internet’s crucial
role in our society.

    Welcome the understanding of the Internet’s potential for
supporting democracy, cultural diversity and promotion of human rights
such as freedom of expression.

    Support the resolution’s call for the open and independent
Internet and the need to secure non-discriminatory access to the
Internet in the future.

    We applaud the European Parliament for correctly stressing “that
it is crucial … to ensure legal protection of net neutrality which is
an indispensable precondition to safeguard the freedom of information
and expression, to boost growth and jobs by developing innovation and
business opportunities in the Internet and to promote and safeguard
the cultural and linguistic diversity.”


The importance of today’s multi-stakeholder governance model

    Welcome calls for a genuinely multistakeholder model of Internet
governance and the call to further strengthen the model by making
processes at national, regional and international levels more
inclusive, transparent and accountable.

    We call on European decision makers to go further and demand that
UN processes become more inclusive, transparent and more open in its
processes towards all stakeholders.

    We discourage any attempts to “centralise” Internet governance
debates by moving the debates from multi-stakeholder fora to
inter-governmental organisations.

    We support an active participation and engagement by the
multistakeholder community in the WSIS+10 review process.

    We warn that the future of the IGF must not become a bargaining
chip for seeking a more intergovernmental model for Internet
governance.  While the UN plays an important role on key matters such
as broadband development and issues of a more developmental nature, we
oppose any proposals to extend the scope to areas such as the routing
of Internet-based traffic or content-related issues.

    We stress the importance of fundamental freedoms and human rights
such as freedom of expression, access to information and privacy.  We
agree with the Resolutions rejections of attempts by states and
non-state actors to impose censorship and mass surveillance.


Support for the IANA transition

    We agree with the importance of the successful completion of the
IANA stewardship transition from the U.S. government to the global
multistakeholder community and its support for enhanced accountability
and transparency of ICANN which will provide a long term solution to
the stability and security of the Internet’s domain name system.

--
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org<mailto: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/20150209/258fe62f/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Tue Feb 10 09:07:35 2015
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 09:07:35 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Request for Input to Terms of Reference for
 Netmundial Initiative
In-Reply-To: <CAFUobpo++zbY51n10mE8gZMT_uxu_J+BA+TvoLCZkWs_dn3+9Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFUobpo++zbY51n10mE8gZMT_uxu_J+BA+TvoLCZkWs_dn3+9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAfYkn2V_woEwWkXx09hbXkUzv+0rDi6vmu=6bUPR2b4fQ@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Eileen Donahoe" <eileencd at gmail.com>
Date: Feb 9, 2015 10:11 PM
Subject: Request for Input to Terms of Reference for Netmundial Initiative
To: "donahoe at hrw.org" <donahoe at hrw.org>
Cc:

Dear All,

In an effort to continue the momentum from NETmundial last April in Sao
Paulo on multistakeholder Internet governance, the NETmundial Initiative is
seeking input from all interested parties!

To submit comments: <https://www.netmundial.org/node/250>

Please contribute your thoughts and ideas about constructive next steps on
how to move multlayer, multistakeholder Internet governance forward.
Thanks for your input, and please spread the link to your communities for
contributions.
Best,
Eileen
Launching the community consultation for the development of the Terms of
Reference of the NETmundial Initiative

The April 2014 NETmundial meeting held in São Paulo, Brazil, adopted
the NETmundial
Multistakeholder Statement(link is external)
<http://netmundial.br/netmundial-multistakeholder-statement/>, which
covered a wide range of topics that include:

   - Internet governance principles
   - Roadmap for the future evolution of the Internet governance ecosystem
   - Issues dealing with specific Internet governance topics
   - Points to be further discussed beyond NETmundial

The NETmundial Initiative builds on the NETmundial principles and roadmap
to engage into actions. To get the consultation process under way, all
interested parties are invited to provide input on a set of questions
relating to the Initiative’s purpose, scope and organization. These
non-exhaustive questions seek to capture the broadest possible range of
views and ideas. The input collected during this initial phase (from 2-16
February 2015) will help inform the first draft of the Terms of Reference.
The draft document will then be made available for public comment and
further discussion from 2-16 March 2015. The Council will discuss the
adoption of the document at its first gathering on 31 March 2015.

To submit comments: <https://www.netmundial.org/node/250>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150210/792af6ab/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Tue Feb 10 09:17:00 2015
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 09:17:00 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Tactical Tech looking for testimonials
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAc=cD-=R0z-b1MZw7W9unNOO15E9nxEH+dFX_s6owrE3Q@mail.gmail.com>

Tactical Tech looking for testimonials from "women net activists and human
rights defenders"

Here's the survey: https://archive2015.tacticaltech.org/siabtestimonials

They can accept responses in the following languages: Arabic,
Brazilian, Catalan, French, English, Spanish, German, Russian.

Please feel free to share with your communities!



-- 
*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/20150210/18434604/attachment.htm>

From lea at gp-digital.org  Mon Feb  2 12:50:48 2015
From: lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 17:50:48 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] [GCCS2015] Call for Civil Society Expressions of
 Interest
In-Reply-To: <CAJTVAjyK=VaSJXCz961Hq6wAAhw+ppVnaH6J6ntWTgh=0Ax=Mg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJTVAjyK=VaSJXCz961Hq6wAAhw+ppVnaH6J6ntWTgh=0Ax=Mg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJTVAjxuPLPHPYEF3CuDJVgj0TKaQ8zQBNJzLMQdyUTGz9jqnQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

In case of interest - the deadline for civil society expressions of
interest to participate in the upcoming Global Conference on Cyberspace has
been extended *until Wednesday, Feb 4*.

Funding for civil society from developing countries available. Details
below.

Best,
Lea

On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Lea Kaspar <lea at gp-digital.org> wrote:

> Dear Friends,
>
>
>
> [Apologies for possible duplications]
>
>
>
> We would like to bring to your attention the civil society call for
> expressions of interest to participate in the Global Conference on
> Cyberspace 2015 <https://www.gccs2015.com/gccs/all-about-gccs2015> (GCCS
> 2015) and a civil society pre-event, hosted by the government of the
> Kingdom of the Netherlands, and taking place in The Hague on 16 and 17
> April 2015.
>
>
>
> Following on from the London (2011), Budapest (2012), and Seoul (2013)
> Conferences, the 2015 event in The Hague will provide an opportunity for
> strategic level discussion of key cyberspace issues. The Conference aims to
> examine core issues <https://www.gccs2015.com/gccs/all-about-gccs2015> related
> to the cyber domain, structured around the three main themes of Freedom
> <https://www.gccs2015.com/themes/freedom>, Security
> <https://www.gccs2015.com/themes/security-0> and Growth
> <https://www.gccs2015.com/themes/growth>. Focus will be placed on
> exchange of knowledge and ideas on these issues and the development of
> concrete solutions. The Conference will encourage multi-stakeholder
> participation from the worlds of business, academia as well as civil
> society.
>
>
>
> A day and a half civil society pre-event will take place in the run-up to
> the Conference (14-15 April) to facilitate civil society coordination and
> input into the main Conference. An in-depth training on cyber security
> issues will be offered as part of this pre-event. In addition, an online
> training curriculum will be made available to the wider public. The
> Conference organisers are interested in a balanced and diverse
> participation and in supporting those who will find a practical use for the
> training and attendance offered.
>
>
>
> The Expression of Interest Form, in addition to logging interest in
> attending the Conference and the civil society pre-event, will also serve
> as a platform to capture requests for financial support. Limited financial
> support is available for a number of civil society participants.
>
>
>
> In order to be considered as a Conference/pre-event participant and/or a
> candidate for financial support, please fill in the Expression of Interest
> Form via the following link by *January 30*: *https://www.gccs2015.com/civil-society-participation-form
> <https://www.gccs2015.com/civil-society-participation-form>*
>
>
>
> Expressions of interest and requests for funding received will be
> evaluated by an ad hoc Advisory Board
> <https://www.gccs2015.com/sites/default/files/attachments/AdvisoryBoardProfiles.pdf> set
> up to assist the organizers of the Conference in selecting civil society
> participants to receive funding and to attend the GCCS2015 and the civil
> society pre-event, to help ensure that the Conference is as inclusive and
> representative as possible.
>
>
>
> Criteria for financial support are designed to ensure a diverse spread of
> applicants is achieved, focussing on global south applicants and aimed at
> securing a balance of gender, regional diversity and level of experience in
> cyber security issues.
>
>
>
> Please feel free to share this information with your networks.
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
>
> On behalf of:
>
> Andrew Puddephatt, Evelien Wijkstra, Tim Maurer
>
> Advisory Board Co-chairs
>
>
> *---*
>
>
> *Lea Kaspar*
>
> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
>
> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>
> T: +44 (0)20 7549 033*7* | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 | Skype: l.kaspar
>
> gp-digital.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150202/cf27e049/attachment.htm>

From lea at gp-digital.org  Tue Feb 10 11:07:40 2015
From: lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 16:07:40 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] IGF 2015 Update - February
Message-ID: <CAJTVAjzu9vd=Xg3UF8cdJO3SZ7wOYznA_xHvoM=Zx5C4inj8MQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear friends,

Find below information related to ongoing IGF 2015 preparations, *including
the call for workshop proposals*.

Best,

*Lea Kaspar*

Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL

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

T: +44 (0)20 7549 033*7* | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 | Skype: l.kaspar

gp-digital.org

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Constance Bommelaer <bommelaer at isoc.org>
Date: Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 3:45 PM
Subject: [discuss] Get involved in IGF 2015 preparations!
To: "discuss at 1net.org" <discuss at 1net.org>

Dear all,

This is to inform you of recent developments on the front of preparations
for IGF 2015.



Echoing some of the priorities of the UN's upcoming Sustainable Development
Summit, the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) decided to retain as a
main theme for IGF Brazil (10-13 Nov.): *“Evolution of Internet Governance:
Empowering Sustainable Development”*.


 This theme will be supported by eight sub-themes that will frame the
discussions at the João Pessoa meeting: *Cybersecurity and Trust;* *Internet
Economy;* *Inclusiveness and Diversity;* *Openness;* *Enhancing
Multistakeholder Cooperation;* *Internet and Human Rights;* *Critical
Internet Resources;* *Emerging Issues.*



Work is also underway to further develop the *IGF’s inter-sessional
activities *such as the Best Practices Forums
<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/best-practice-forums>. The community’s
input will be critical to help the Forum work towards more tangible
outputs. Please get involved by joining this mailing list
<http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/intersessional_2015_intgovforum.org>.




Now is also the right time for you to *submit workshop proposals*. The
submission form template as well as guidelines for proposals are available
on the IGF’s website <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/>. Submissions will be
accepted until 30 March.



Finally, for additional background on this year’s preparations, I encourage
you to read *Janis Karklins’s (Chair of the MAG) blog*
<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/magabout/mag-chair-s-blog>.


 Best regards,


 Constance Bommelaer

Senior Director, Global Policy Partnerships

The Internet Society

http://www.isoc.org
_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150210/2422546d/attachment.htm>

From joao.caribe at me.com  Tue Feb 10 13:19:28 2015
From: joao.caribe at me.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Jo=E3o_Carlos_R=2E_Carib=E9=22?=)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 16:19:28 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] The digital castes are now alive!
Message-ID: <6C335490-3B9D-4590-91DD-3D1BA7E69B0A@me.com>

Folks,

On november I wrote one short article about the perverse side of Zero Rating (I sure don't know if there was some benefit on this), on my text, my concern was about with zero rating, they are creating digital castes

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20141103_zero_rating_and_the_creation_of_digital_castes

Now this short research prove that I was right, and it's terrible!

http://qz.com/333313/milliions-of-facebook-users-have-no-idea-theyre-using-the-internet/?utm_source=howtogeek&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter

Enjoy, 

--
João Carlos R. Caribé
Consultor 
Skype joaocaribe
(021) 4042 7727 
(021) 9 8761 1967

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150210/aabbcbdd/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Tue Feb 10 15:49:14 2015
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 15:49:14 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Draft joint statement on European Parliament IGF
 resolution
In-Reply-To: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43570613@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>
References: <54D90624.5030400@eff.org>
	<4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43570613@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAfRGF-B9_JUVKf9B4ZOxKRMf_tO=HhA+8nBtFEDs3dKqw@mail.gmail.com>

+1 on Erik suggestion
Jeremy, is this still possible?

On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 2:54 PM, JOSEFSSON Erik <
erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu> wrote:

>  Please consider explicitly supporting the following amendment too:
>
> AM 2 (to point 6):
>
> "Stresses that it is firmly committed to a *democratically accountable
> multistakeholder model* of Internet governance; calls upon the Member
> States, the European Commission and all relevant stakeholders to further
> strengthen the sustainability of the multi-stakeholder model by making
> actors and processes at national, regional and international levels more
> inclusive, transparent and accountable;"
>
> It should have been tabled less than an hour ago!
>
> //Erik
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [
> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Jeremy Malcolm [
> jmalcolm at eff.org]
> *Sent:* Monday 9 February 2015 20:10
> *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> *Subject:* [bestbits] Draft joint statement on European Parliament IGF
> resolution
>
>  This has been put together by the CCIA, which is of course not a civil
> society organisation but they are canvassing for civil society signatories
> and some civil society inputs have already been incorporated, along with
> inputs from the private sector.  They are trying to close by 9:30am
> Brussels time on Wednesday.
>
> If you would like to endorse, I can forward on your name (along with any
> requests for small changes) - or alternatively, if it would be helpful, I
> could put this up on the Best Bits site for those who want to sign on to do
> so there (but I plan to check with CCIA first whether this would be OK with
> them).
>
> ---
>
> *Stakeholders welcome the European Parliament’s Resolution to*
> *Strengthen the Internet Governance Forum*
>
>
> We the undersigned, representing civil society and the Internet
> industry community in Europe:
>
> *The need for renewal of the Internet Governance Forum’s mandate*
>
>     Welcome the European Parliament’s calls for a renewal of the
> mandate of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and for the
> strengthening of its resources.
>
>     We strongly support the call on the General Assembly of the UN to
> renew and possibly extend beyond 5-year terms the mandate of the IGF.
>
>     Underscore that the IGF must be a genuinely representative
> multi-stakeholder global forum for open discussions on Internet
> governance.  The IGF has been a catalyst for the creation of regional
> and national IGFs which have positively enriched the discussions and
> increased the level of inclusiveness.
>
>     Commend the European Parliament, and the European Union, more
> broadly for its active support and participation in the IGF.
>
> *The value of the open and global Internet*
>
>     Commend the Resolution for underscoring the Internet’s crucial
> role in our society.
>
>     Welcome the understanding of the Internet’s potential for
> supporting democracy, cultural diversity and promotion of human rights
> such as freedom of expression.
>
>     Support the resolution’s call for the open and independent
> Internet and the need to secure non-discriminatory access to the
> Internet in the future.
>
>     We applaud the European Parliament for correctly stressing “that
> it is crucial … to ensure legal protection of net neutrality which is
> an indispensable precondition to safeguard the freedom of information
> and expression, to boost growth and jobs by developing innovation and
> business opportunities in the Internet and to promote and safeguard
> the cultural and linguistic diversity.”
>
>
> *The importance of today’s multi-stakeholder governance model*
>
>     Welcome calls for a genuinely multistakeholder model of Internet
> governance and the call to further strengthen the model by making
> processes at national, regional and international levels more
> inclusive, transparent and accountable.
>
>     We call on European decision makers to go further and demand that
> UN processes become more inclusive, transparent and more open in its
> processes towards all stakeholders.
>
>     We discourage any attempts to “centralise” Internet governance
> debates by moving the debates from multi-stakeholder fora to
> inter-governmental organisations.
>
>     We support an active participation and engagement by the
> multistakeholder community in the WSIS+10 review process.
>
>     We warn that the future of the IGF must not become a bargaining
> chip for seeking a more intergovernmental model for Internet
> governance.  While the UN plays an important role on key matters such
> as broadband development and issues of a more developmental nature, we
> oppose any proposals to extend the scope to areas such as the routing
> of Internet-based traffic or content-related issues.
>
>     We stress the importance of fundamental freedoms and human rights
> such as freedom of expression, access to information and privacy.  We
> agree with the Resolutions rejections of attempts by states and
> non-state actors to impose censorship and mass surveillance.
>
>
> *Support for the IANA transition*
>
>     We agree with the importance of the successful completion of the
> IANA stewardship transition from the U.S. government to the global
> multistakeholder community and its support for enhanced accountability
> and transparency of ICANN which will provide a long term solution to
> the stability and security of the Internet’s domain name system.
>
> --
> 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
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>



-- 
-- 
*Carolina Rossini *
*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/20150210/6042d847/attachment.htm>

From jmalcolm at eff.org  Tue Feb 10 15:57:05 2015
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 12:57:05 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] Draft joint statement on European Parliament IGF
 resolution
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAfRGF-B9_JUVKf9B4ZOxKRMf_tO=HhA+8nBtFEDs3dKqw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <54D90624.5030400@eff.org>	<4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43570613@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> <CAK-FJAfRGF-B9_JUVKf9B4ZOxKRMf_tO=HhA+8nBtFEDs3dKqw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54DA70A1.9060505@eff.org>

On 10/02/2015 12:49 pm, Carolina Rossini wrote:
> +1 on Erik suggestion 
> Jeremy, is this still possible?

Yes EDRI has made the same suggestion and forwarded it to CCIA.  So
hopefully it will be accepted.

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

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

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

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


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 244 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150210/376d6c6e/attachment.sig>

From avri at acm.org  Tue Feb 10 19:18:01 2015
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 08:18:01 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] in memory of Heike Jensen
In-Reply-To: <66DF2EEC-03CA-470B-8C3A-DD8BF27ADCC3@gmail.com>
References: <A9AAF0C8-6F4D-4C27-B407-4B4AF43674B3@gmx.de> <54D2719A.7050500@gold.ac.uk> <54D27E00.30001@apc.org> <66DF2EEC-03CA-470B-8C3A-DD8BF27ADCC3@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54DA9FB9.5080409@acm.org>


This was really shocking and sad news.  And to realize that most of us
did not hear until a year after is especially saddening.

She was a great lady and whatever we can do to celebrate her life and
work in a lasting way would be worth doing.

avri

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150211/fdafc68b/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Tue Feb 10 19:40:34 2015
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 19:40:34 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Joint submission to the UN Special Rapporteur on
 freedom of expression
In-Reply-To: <05952898-498C-4374-8F06-3CE7A456E23F@utoronto.ca>
References: <05952898-498C-4374-8F06-3CE7A456E23F@utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAe0GrBkmhjn9o783YK_wbdHw8np2qY_wYVdjd7xxXpfoQ@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Ronald Deibert" <r.deibert at utoronto.ca>
Date: Feb 10, 2015 7:39 PM
Subject: Joint submission to the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of
expression
To: <MIOR-L at listserv.utoronto.ca>
Cc:


*Joint submission to the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression*
February 10, 2015

In response to the call for submissions of the United Nations Special
Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression regarding the use of
encryption and anonymity in digital communications, the Citizen Lab
and independent researcher Collin Anderson have submitted a joint analysis,
entitled “The need for democratization of digital security solutions to
ensure the right to freedom of expression.” The submission explores the
essential role of digital security tools, particularly encryption and
anonymity software, in protecting the rights to freedom of expression and
privacy of civil society actors, many of which are subject to
politically-motivated digital surveillance and censorship.

As an Appendix to our analysis, we include a chart on the relationship
between civil society requirements for effective and secure digital
communications, and the use of encryption or anonymity tools. This table is
not exhaustive and should be considered a first attempt at elaborating on
the types of information security risks posed to freedom of expression and
privacy. Properly implemented and non-backdoored encryption can reduce
exposure to certain forms of mass surveillance and provide users the
opportunity to remain in control of their information despite efforts to
compromise it, including interception and hacking. However, this analysis
also demonstrates that encryption is not a panacea for the diversity of
physical and digital threats that at-risk individuals face on a daily basis.

We look forward to further developing this resource and encourage members
of the technical community, civil society, journalists, and others to
critique the form and content of the Appendix.

The full submission can be found at the following link:
https://citizenlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/SR-FOE-submission.pdf
 [PDF}


Ronald Deibert
Director, the Citizen Lab
and the Canada Centre for Global Security Studies
Munk School of Global Affairs
University of Toronto
(416) 946-8916
PGP: http://deibert.citizenlab.org/pubkey.txt
http://deibert.citizenlab.org/
twitter.com/citizenlab
r.deibert at utoronto.ca
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150210/8afc417c/attachment.htm>

From nashton at consensus.pro  Wed Feb 11 09:36:45 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:36:45 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] in memory of Heike Jensen
In-Reply-To: <54DA9FB9.5080409@acm.org>
References: <A9AAF0C8-6F4D-4C27-B407-4B4AF43674B3@gmx.de> <54D2719A.7050500@gold.ac.uk> <54D27E00.30001@apc.org> <66DF2EEC-03CA-470B-8C3A-DD8BF27ADCC3@gmail.com> <54DA9FB9.5080409@acm.org>
Message-ID: <B05B4B35-BBB3-452F-9AE0-A6648FC5B846@consensus.pro>

+1 - I remember Heike well from my early days in the At-Large secretariat where she was a very passionate voice for the proposition, in short, that people count - and that women need to count equally to men. 

On 11 Feb 2015, at 01:18, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> 
> This was really shocking and sad news.  And to realize that most of us did not hear until a year after is especially saddening.
> 
> She was a great lady and whatever we can do to celebrate her life and work in a lasting way would be worth doing.
> 
> avri
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
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/20150211/19b0cd35/attachment.sig>

From jac at apcwomen.org  Thu Feb 12 03:33:41 2015
From: jac at apcwomen.org (Jac Sm Kee)
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 10:33:41 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] [GenderDC] in memory of Heike Jensen
In-Reply-To: <66DF2EEC-03CA-470B-8C3A-DD8BF27ADCC3@gmail.com>
References: <A9AAF0C8-6F4D-4C27-B407-4B4AF43674B3@gmx.de> <54D2719A.7050500@gold.ac.uk> <54D27E00.30001@apc.org> <66DF2EEC-03CA-470B-8C3A-DD8BF27ADCC3@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BD6E17F0-6F00-48B5-B0A5-5A6CF2E3F408@apcwomen.org>

Hi Bill,

We are going to do a special edition of GenderIT dedicated to Heike's work, so if you can send the writing on as a contribution to this, that would be really great. 

Much thanks,
Jac

- Sent from phone 

> On 6 Feb 2015, at 04:25, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi
> 
> I was certainly shocked and dismayed when Anriette told me this yesterday.  Heike was a great person, this is a big loss.  
> 
> I could send her chapter on Women’s Human Rights in the Information Society to anyone who wants to post it online, probably I shouldn’t as it was in a book series I edited and MIT Press might balk.
> 
> Bill
> 
>> On Feb 5, 2015, at 4:16 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear Marianne
>> 
>> Thanks for posting this. This also reached us at APC this week, and  many of us did not know about Heike's death. She worked with us closely on many projects and publications, and we are planning to dedicate an edition of GenderIT.org to her and her work.
>> 
>> In 2013 she wrote this chapter for us for Global Information Society Watch.
>> 
>> http://www.giswatch.org/institutional-overview/womens-rights-gender/whose-internet-it-anyway-shaping-internet-feminist-voice
>> 
>> It is a great loss.
>> 
>> Anriette
>> 
>>> On 04/02/2015 21:23, Marianne Franklin wrote:
>>> Dear all
>>> 
>>> Apologies for the cross-posting, and the sombre content. Some of you will already know that a year ago Heike Jensen passed away. Heike was a stalwart of Giganet, the Gender DC and other civil society work at the IGF, and the GigaNET community in the crucial early years. Her involvement and contribution goes back to the WSIS e.g. Heike contributed to the Joergensen edited volume (2006) on Human Rights in the Global Information Society, reporting for Freedom House and others and being part of IGF meetings through       the Gender DC and Giganet symposia. 
>>> 
>>> The last time Heike was at the IGF was Sharm el Sheikh I think, though she may also have been in Nairobi. In recent years she devoted herself to other work from her (new) homebase in Munich where she was very happy after adjusting from the move there from       Berlin. 
>>> 
>>> Heike was a wonderful person, a great researcher and advocate as her partner below reminds us. I, for one, have missed having her take part in recent years but I will miss her for the years to come at this anniversary. 
>>> 
>>> Just thought some of you would like to know of her passing if you did not already. 
>>> 
>>> best
>>> MF
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>> Subject:	in memory of Heike Jensen
>>> Date:	Mon, 2 Feb 2015 21:33:17 +0100
>>> From:	Thomas Ochs <ThomasOchs at gmx.de>
>>> To:	Thomas Ochs <thomasochs at gmx.de>
>>> 
>>> In Memory of our Beloved 
>>> 
>>>  Heike
>>> 
>>> Dr.phil. Heike Jensen
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> On the first anniversary of her death on February 3, 2014
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Heike was a dedicated feminist and from the bottom of her heart a humanitarian.
>>> 
>>> Both her scholarship and her work for NGOs aimed at making the world a more just place for every human being.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> The pain and grief caused by the loss of a beloved person is only bearable when we experience how much she meant to those whose lives she touched. Because the only thing that matters in life are the traces of love that a person leaves behind.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> One year ago, after her brave fight against cancer, Heike passed away.
>>> 
>>> She contitnues to live in our hearts.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thomas Ochs
>>> Streitbergstr. 18
>>> 81249 München
>>> 
>>> Brunhilde Jensen
>>> Angermünder Str. 55 A
>>> 12305 Berlin
>>> 
>>> 
>>> <Mail Attachment.jpeg>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Genderigf mailing list
> Genderigf at lists.apcwomen.org
> http://lists.apcwomen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/genderigf
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150212/42487ba4/attachment.htm>

From jmalcolm at eff.org  Thu Feb 12 13:23:01 2015
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 10:23:01 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] Draft joint statement on European Parliament IGF
 resolution
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAfRGF-B9_JUVKf9B4ZOxKRMf_tO=HhA+8nBtFEDs3dKqw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <54D90624.5030400@eff.org>	<4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43570613@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> <CAK-FJAfRGF-B9_JUVKf9B4ZOxKRMf_tO=HhA+8nBtFEDs3dKqw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54DCEF85.50506@eff.org>

The final resolution did not contain the amendment:

www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=P8-RC-2015-0099&language=EN

The relevant passage: " Stresses that it is firmly committed to the
multistakeholder model of internet governance; calls upon the Member
States, the Commission and all relevant stakeholders to further
strengthen the sustainability of this model by making actors and
processes at national, regional and international levels more inclusive,
transparent and accountable;"

On 10/02/2015 12:49 pm, Carolina Rossini wrote:
> +1 on Erik suggestion 
> Jeremy, is this still possible?
>
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 2:54 PM, JOSEFSSON Erik
> <erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu
> <mailto:erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu>> wrote:
>
>     Please consider explicitly supporting the following amendment too:
>
>     AM 2 (to point 6):
>
>     "Stresses that it is firmly committed to a *democratically
>     accountable multistakeholder model* of Internet governance; calls
>     upon the Member States, the European Commission and all relevant
>     stakeholders to further strengthen the sustainability of the
>     multi-stakeholder model by making actors and processes at
>     national, regional and international levels more inclusive,
>     transparent and accountable;"
>
>     It should have been tabled less than an hour ago!
>
>     //Erik
>

-- 
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/20150212/082e83fa/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 244 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150212/082e83fa/attachment.sig>

From lea at gp-digital.org  Fri Feb 13 11:37:19 2015
From: lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar)
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 16:37:19 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] [Deadline extension] Freedom Online Coalition - Working
 Group 2 call for members
Message-ID: <CAJTVAjxuDyKvNT+RFqRQ+QT4oDXjs5tdWSY_MqXHuT9jxX_qcw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear friends

As an FYI, please see below. I would be grateful if you could share with
your networks where appropriate.

Best
Lea

---

Call for Members: FOC Working Group “Digital Development and Openness”

*>> Deadline extended to COB February 18 <<*

At the end of 2014, FOC Working Group 2 (WG2) – “Digital Development and
Openness” – reframed its work to focus on digital development and the rule
of law. WG2 is now looking for members to join its efforts in contributing
to new and arising challenges for promoting the respect for human rights
online.

The WG will seek to, in a multistakeholder setting, explore ways to further
strengthen rule of law principles and good practices in a way that
addresses emerging challenges, respects human rights and maximizes the
impact of the Internet for social and economic development.

The Group will consist of up to 15 selected individuals who will join the
Working Group Co-chairs – the Swedish Government and the Folke Bernadotte
Academy – alongside other FOC country members.

To submit an expression of interest, please send a short motivation letter
outlining how your experience and expertise could contribute to shaping the
Group’s work and outcomes to info at freedomonlinecoalition.com with a subject
line “FOC – WG2 expression of interest_name surname”. The deadline for
submissions has been extended to COB on *18th February 2015.*

Expressions of interest will be evaluated by WG Co-chairs and the FOC
Support Unit, based on the following criteria:

Quality of submission
Relevance of experience and expertise
Regional, gender, and stakeholder balance

Please note that participation in the Working Group is voluntary. Feel free
to get in touch if you have any questions.

For more information about WG2 please visit the Working Group section of
the website.
<https://www.freedomonlinecoalition.com/how-we-work/working-groups/working-group-2/>

---

*Lea Kaspar*

Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL

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

T: +44 (0)20 7549 033*7* | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 | Skype: l.kaspar

gp-digital.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150213/68aa5896/attachment.htm>

From lists at digitaldissidents.org  Mon Feb  2 13:10:15 2015
From: lists at digitaldissidents.org (Niels ten Oever)
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 18:10:15 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] [GCCS2015] Call for Civil Society Expressions of
 Interest
In-Reply-To: <CAJTVAjxuPLPHPYEF3CuDJVgj0TKaQ8zQBNJzLMQdyUTGz9jqnQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJTVAjyK=VaSJXCz961Hq6wAAhw+ppVnaH6J6ntWTgh=0Ax=Mg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJTVAjxuPLPHPYEF3CuDJVgj0TKaQ8zQBNJzLMQdyUTGz9jqnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54CFBD87.1000608@digitaldissidents.org>

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

Hi Lea,

Was about to tweet this, but the form on the website does not seem to
be working, or is it just a glitch?

Cheers,

Niels

On 02/02/2015 05:50 PM, Lea Kaspar wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> In case of interest - the deadline for civil society expressions
> of interest to participate in the upcoming Global Conference on
> Cyberspace has been extended *_until Wednesday, Feb 4_*.
> 
> Funding for civil society from developing countries available.
> Details below.
> 
> Best, Lea
> 
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Lea Kaspar <lea at gp-digital.org 
> <mailto:lea at gp-digital.org>> wrote:
> 
> Dear Friends,
> 
> 
> 
> [Apologies for possible duplications]
> 
> 
> 
> We would like to bring to your attention the civil society call
> for expressions of interest to participate in the Global Conference
> on Cyberspace 2015 
> <https://www.gccs2015.com/gccs/all-about-gccs2015> (GCCS 2015) and
> a civil society pre-event, hosted by the government of the Kingdom
> of the Netherlands, and taking place in The Hague on 16 and 17
> April 2015.
> 
> 
> 
> Following on from the London (2011), Budapest (2012), and Seoul 
> (2013) Conferences, the 2015 event in The Hague will provide an 
> opportunity for strategic level discussion of key cyberspace
> issues. The Conference aims to examine core issues 
> <https://www.gccs2015.com/gccs/all-about-gccs2015> related to the 
> cyber domain, structured around the three main themes of Freedom 
> <https://www.gccs2015.com/themes/freedom>, Security 
> <https://www.gccs2015.com/themes/security-0> and Growth 
> <https://www.gccs2015.com/themes/growth>. Focus will be placed on 
> exchange of knowledge and ideas on these issues and the
> development of concrete solutions. The Conference will encourage 
> multi-stakeholder participation from the worlds of business, 
> academia as well as civil society.
> 
> 
> 
> A day and a half civil society pre-event will take place in the 
> run-up to the Conference (14-15 April) to facilitate civil society 
> coordination and input into the main Conference. An in-depth 
> training on cyber security issues will be offered as part of this 
> pre-event. In addition, an online training curriculum will be made 
> available to the wider public. The Conference organisers are 
> interested in a balanced and diverse participation and in
> supporting those who will find a practical use for the training and
> attendance offered.
> 
> 
> 
> The Expression of Interest Form, in addition to logging interest
> in attending the Conference and the civil society pre-event, will
> also serve as a platform to capture requests for financial
> support. Limited financial support is available for a number of
> civil society participants.
> 
> 
> 
> In order to be considered as a Conference/pre-event participant 
> and/or a candidate for financial support, please fill in the 
> Expression of Interest Form via the following link by *January 30*:
> _https://www.gccs2015.com/civil-society-participation-form_
> 
> 
> 
> Expressions of interest and requests for funding received will be 
> evaluated by an ad hoc Advisory Board 
> <https://www.gccs2015.com/sites/default/files/attachments/AdvisoryBoardProfiles.pdf>
> set up to assist the organizers of the Conference in selecting
> civil society participants to receive funding and to attend the
> GCCS2015 and the civil society pre-event, to help ensure that the
> Conference is as inclusive and representative as possible.
> 
> 
> 
> Criteria for financial support are designed to ensure a diverse 
> spread of applicants is achieved, focussing on global south 
> applicants and aimed at securing a balance of gender, regional 
> diversity and level of experience in cyber security issues.
> 
> 
> 
> Please feel free to share this information with your networks.
> 
> 
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> 
> 
> On behalf of:
> 
> Andrew Puddephatt, Evelien Wijkstra, Tim Maurer
> 
> Advisory Board Co-chairs
> 
> * *
> 
> *---*
> 
> * *
> 
> *Lea Kaspar*
> 
> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
> 
> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
> 
> T: +44 (0)20 7549 033_7_ | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 
> <tel:%2B44%20%280%297583%20929216> | Skype: l.kaspar
> 
> 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
> 

- -- 
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
                   678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUz72HAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjp6wQH/3kAa7gSZpL9ZILI6kHekwLA
XxO5e5YdL9v4JQrsbOV/8zEbqf3MhDLamYpRm+BNWBgTf1DaP63QMBLB+O5tKqQt
Abx972UVxBmqZW3xTgb4gJigyaQmUM9QpHG5l0uoTXzgI5mMVQo1yw4OnyAxyCEb
dYA2verxH9D+lSZwu5uKk5LqPBn/z0w72JvALPMEmHHf+6X/No7g1zbrm6LtnNqu
bXDzMv1yYiCSymXOX3KWzkUSCREj7Q6hj563XEBhrXor6q9vi3BseWKVp1GOD/2C
n2Q/cc5c0WtB9f2FUsbpaosXiIr38nSDju/0YvyvWES+oqNpyWk9Gk2XSQbqIEs=
=O2sT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Feb 13 23:02:50 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 09:32:50 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Draft joint statement on European Parliament IGF
 resolution
In-Reply-To: <54DCEF85.50506@eff.org>
References: <54D90624.5030400@eff.org>	<4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43570613@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> <CAK-FJAfRGF-B9_JUVKf9B4ZOxKRMf_tO=HhA+8nBtFEDs3dKqw@mail.gmail.com> <54DCEF85.50506@eff.org>
Message-ID: <54DEC8EA.2060503@itforchange.net>


It is rather unfortunate, and perhaps ominous, that "democratically 
accountable mutlistakeholder model of IG' is dismissed in favour of just 
'mutlistakeholder model of IG'.

Does it mean that it is considered unnecessary for 'multistakeholder 
model(s) of IG' to be democratically accountable?

This is a very important question that must be addressed.

It is in this background that the Just Net Coalition has been making a 
distinction between an explicitly democratic multistakeholder (MS) 
models and those MS models that do not just avoid mentioning the term 
'democratic' but often actively avoid it - as this particular amendment 
exercise seems to suggest. (A distinction that some people here have 
considered superfluous, and perhaps self serving!)

When I said 'ominous' above, I meant how the post democratic sentiment 
that took root at the 'global' 'IG' space has begun to spread downwards 
to spaces where the democratic tradition is otherwise rather well 
entrenched (and will also spread to non IG areas as well, such are the 
powerful forces backing the post democratic ideologies). One is so 
disappointed that this kind of thing should happen at a forum like the 
EU. But perhaps a good indicator and a warning, if we can use it as one, 
that we may be playing with fire in the unthinking promoting of some 
very problematic governance models in the global IG space, unmindful of 
their impact on democratic traditions.

parminder


On Thursday 12 February 2015 11:53 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> The final resolution did not contain the amendment:
>
> www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=P8-RC-2015-0099&language=EN
>
> The relevant passage: " Stresses that it is firmly committed to the 
> multistakeholder model of internet governance; calls upon the Member 
> States, the Commission and all relevant stakeholders to further 
> strengthen the sustainability of this model by making actors and 
> processes at national, regional and international levels more 
> inclusive, transparent and accountable;"
>
> On 10/02/2015 12:49 pm, Carolina Rossini wrote:
>> +1 on Erik suggestion
>> Jeremy, is this still possible?
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 2:54 PM, JOSEFSSON Erik 
>> <erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu 
>> <mailto:erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu>> wrote:
>>
>>     Please consider explicitly supporting the following amendment too:
>>
>>     AM 2 (to point 6):
>>
>>     "Stresses that it is firmly committed to a *democratically
>>     accountable multistakeholder model* of Internet governance; calls
>>     upon the Member States, the European Commission and all relevant
>>     stakeholders to further strengthen the sustainability of the
>>     multi-stakeholder model by making actors and processes at
>>     national, regional and international levels more inclusive,
>>     transparent and accountable;"
>>
>>     It should have been tabled less than an hour ago!
>>
>>     //Erik
>>
>
> -- 
> 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
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as 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/20150214/cf02bb77/attachment.htm>

From erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu  Sat Feb 14 03:47:54 2015
From: erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu (JOSEFSSON Erik)
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 08:47:54 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Draft joint statement on European Parliament IGF
 resolution
In-Reply-To: <54DEC8EA.2060503@itforchange.net>
References: <54D90624.5030400@eff.org>
	<4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43570613@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>
 <CAK-FJAfRGF-B9_JUVKf9B4ZOxKRMf_tO=HhA+8nBtFEDs3dKqw@mail.gmail.com>
 <54DCEF85.50506@eff.org>,<54DEC8EA.2060503@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A435727D7@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>

Dear parminder,

It does not mean much in terms of content that an amendment tabled by a political group with ~7% of the seats in the EP does not get a majority. Happens all the time. One has to be aware of, and work with, the EP internal processes to get Good Stuff through. So, I would not worry much about the rejection of the amendment.

What I do worry about though is that it seems nobody on this list even knew about it until Carolina pinged on 7 February, 4 days before the vote.

Were there no public processes in the IG space preparing for the EP resolution before that ping?

Why?

//Erik


________________________________
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net]
Sent: Saturday 14 February 2015 05:02
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Draft joint statement on European Parliament IGF resolution


It is rather unfortunate, and perhaps ominous, that "democratically accountable mutlistakeholder model of IG' is dismissed in favour of just 'mutlistakeholder model of IG'.

Does it mean that it is considered unnecessary for 'multistakeholder model(s) of IG' to be democratically accountable?

This is a very important question that must be addressed.

It is in this background that the Just Net Coalition has been making a distinction between an explicitly democratic multistakeholder (MS) models and those MS models that do not just avoid mentioning the term 'democratic' but often actively avoid it - as this particular amendment exercise seems to suggest. (A distinction that some people here have considered superfluous, and perhaps self serving!)

When I said 'ominous' above, I meant how the post democratic sentiment that took root at the 'global' 'IG' space has begun to spread downwards to spaces where the democratic tradition is otherwise rather well entrenched (and will also spread to non IG areas as well, such are the powerful forces backing the post democratic ideologies). One is so disappointed that this kind of thing should happen at a forum like the EU. But perhaps a good indicator and a warning, if we can use it as one, that we may be playing with fire in the unthinking promoting of some very problematic governance models in the global IG space, unmindful of their impact on democratic traditions.

parminder


On Thursday 12 February 2015 11:53 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
The final resolution did not contain the amendment:

www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=P8-RC-2015-0099&language=EN<http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=P8-RC-2015-0099&language=EN>

The relevant passage: " Stresses that it is firmly committed to the multistakeholder model of internet governance; calls upon the Member States, the Commission and all relevant stakeholders to further strengthen the sustainability of this model by making actors and processes at national, regional and international levels more inclusive, transparent and accountable;"

On 10/02/2015 12:49 pm, Carolina Rossini wrote:
+1 on Erik suggestion
Jeremy, is this still possible?

On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 2:54 PM, JOSEFSSON Erik <erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu<mailto:erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu>> wrote:
Please consider explicitly supporting the following amendment too:

AM 2 (to point 6):

"Stresses that it is firmly committed to a democratically accountable multistakeholder model of Internet governance; calls upon the Member States, the European Commission and all relevant stakeholders to further strengthen the sustainability of the multi-stakeholder model by making actors and processes at national, regional and international levels more inclusive, transparent and accountable;"

It should have been tabled less than an hour ago!

//Erik


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



____________________________________________________________
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150214/6e9084f9/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Feb 14 04:00:30 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 14:30:30 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Draft joint statement on European Parliament IGF
 resolution
In-Reply-To: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A435727D7@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>
References: <54D90624.5030400@eff.org>	<4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43570613@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> <CAK-FJAfRGF-B9_JUVKf9B4ZOxKRMf_tO=HhA+8nBtFEDs3dKqw@mail.gmail.com> <54DCEF85.50506@eff.org>,<54DEC8EA.2060503@itforchange.net> <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A435727D7@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>
Message-ID: <54DF0EAE.50605@itforchange.net>

Hi Erik

I can fully understand and appreciate your particular point and focus, 
from the vantage you are looking it from.

On my part, I just used a particular element of the process to make a 
rather different point, which remains a very important one in 
international IG discourse.

Please also see inline.

On Saturday 14 February 2015 02:17 PM, JOSEFSSON Erik wrote:
> Dear parminder,
>
> It does not mean much in terms of content that an amendment tabled by 
> a political group with ~7% of the seats in the EP does not get a majority.

Just eager; which political group is this, becuase I do consider the 
amendment proposal to be very sane.

> Happens all the time.

Maybe it happens. Nonetheless I am concerned that the majority actually 
rejected a proposal for explicitly making MS models democratically 
accountable. It says something to me, which I am troubled with.

parminder


> One has to be aware of, and work with, the EP internal processes to 
> get Good Stuff through. So, I would not worry much about the rejection 
> of the amendment.
>
> What I do worry about though is that it seems nobody on this list even 
> knew about it until Carolina pinged on 7 February, 4 days before the vote.
>
> Were there no public processes in the IG space preparing for the EP 
> resolution before that ping?
>
> Why?
>
> //Erik
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net 
> [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of parminder 
> [parminder at itforchange.net]
> *Sent:* Saturday 14 February 2015 05:02
> *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Draft joint statement on European Parliament 
> IGF resolution
>
>
> It is rather unfortunate, and perhaps ominous, that "democratically 
> accountable mutlistakeholder model of IG' is dismissed in favour of 
> just 'mutlistakeholder model of IG'.
>
> Does it mean that it is considered unnecessary for 'multistakeholder 
> model(s) of IG' to be democratically accountable?
>
> This is a very important question that must be addressed.
>
> It is in this background that the Just Net Coalition has been making a 
> distinction between an explicitly democratic multistakeholder (MS) 
> models and those MS models that do not just avoid mentioning the term 
> 'democratic' but often actively avoid it - as this particular 
> amendment exercise seems to suggest. (A distinction that some people 
> here have considered superfluous, and perhaps self serving!)
>
> When I said 'ominous' above, I meant how the post democratic sentiment 
> that took root at the 'global' 'IG' space has begun to spread 
> downwards to spaces where the democratic tradition is otherwise rather 
> well entrenched (and will also spread to non IG areas as well, such 
> are the powerful forces backing the post democratic ideologies). One 
> is so disappointed that this kind of thing should happen at a forum 
> like the EU. But perhaps a good indicator and a warning, if we can use 
> it as one, that we may be playing with fire in the unthinking 
> promoting of some very problematic governance models in the global IG 
> space, unmindful of their impact on democratic traditions.
>
> parminder
>
>
> On Thursday 12 February 2015 11:53 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> The final resolution did not contain the amendment:
>>
>> www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=P8-RC-2015-0099&language=EN
>>
>> The relevant passage: " Stresses that it is firmly committed to the 
>> multistakeholder model of internet governance; calls upon the Member 
>> States, the Commission and all relevant stakeholders to further 
>> strengthen the sustainability of this model by making actors and 
>> processes at national, regional and international levels more 
>> inclusive, transparent and accountable;"
>>
>> On 10/02/2015 12:49 pm, Carolina Rossini wrote:
>>> +1 on Erik suggestion
>>> Jeremy, is this still possible?
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 2:54 PM, JOSEFSSON Erik 
>>> <erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu 
>>> <mailto:erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     Please consider explicitly supporting the following amendment too:
>>>
>>>     AM 2 (to point 6):
>>>
>>>     "Stresses that it is firmly committed to a *democratically
>>>     accountable multistakeholder model* of Internet governance;
>>>     calls upon the Member States, the European Commission and all
>>>     relevant stakeholders to further strengthen the sustainability
>>>     of the multi-stakeholder model by making actors and processes at
>>>     national, regional and international levels more inclusive,
>>>     transparent and accountable;"
>>>
>>>     It should have been tabled less than an hour ago!
>>>
>>>     //Erik
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> 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
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as 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/20150214/581f15cc/attachment.htm>

From erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu  Sat Feb 14 04:34:29 2015
From: erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu (JOSEFSSON Erik)
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 09:34:29 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Draft joint statement on European Parliament IGF
 resolution
In-Reply-To: <54DF0EAE.50605@itforchange.net>
References: <54D90624.5030400@eff.org>
	<4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43570613@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>
 <CAK-FJAfRGF-B9_JUVKf9B4ZOxKRMf_tO=HhA+8nBtFEDs3dKqw@mail.gmail.com>
 <54DCEF85.50506@eff.org>,<54DEC8EA.2060503@itforchange.net>
 <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A435727D7@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>,<54DF0EAE.50605@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A435727F0@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>

Dear parminder,

The amendment was tabled by MEPs Michel Ramon and Julia Reda on behalf of Greens/EFA (see attachment at the bottom of the mail in the mail archive):

http://icg.greens-efa.eu/pipermail/hub/2015-February/000209.html

I am happy that you find it sane.


I do appreciate your points on 'post democratic ideologies'. Actually, if it would not have been for the exchange of views on these matters on this list and others, I believe that AM3 to Paragraph 6 would not have been tabled at all. Would there have been more time than 5 days for you and others who find AM3 sane to give it more public support, it could maybe have received more votes, and, also, the votes could maybe even have been recorded per individual MEP (a so called Roll Call Vote could have been requested).


Maybe you would find it useful to have a look at the possible strategic advantage of being more in sync with the mechanics of the EP through tools like AT4AM? Please then have a look at the this video:

https://vimeo.com/17598642

and the first instance of AT4AM running on a standalone server, here with two examples of documents (the first one is hand made, second is probably scripted) that it could be relevant to amend (not only directives and resolutions need patches):

http://ghajini.dfri.se:8080/at4am/editor.html?documentID=http://erikjosefsson.eu/sites/default/files/proposal-for-an-update-of-the-rules-of-procedure-for-the-greens-efa-staff-association.xml
http://ghajini.dfri.se:8080/at4am/editor.html?documentID=6

Further exchange on this is welcome at https://at4am.eu


Best regards.

//Erik



________________________________
From: parminder [parminder at itforchange.net]
Sent: Saturday 14 February 2015 10:00
To: JOSEFSSON Erik; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Draft joint statement on European Parliament IGF resolution

Hi Erik

I can fully understand and appreciate your particular point and focus, from the vantage you are looking it from.

On my part, I just used a particular element of the process to make a rather different point, which remains a very important one in international IG discourse.

Please also see inline.

On Saturday 14 February 2015 02:17 PM, JOSEFSSON Erik wrote:
Dear parminder,

It does not mean much in terms of content that an amendment tabled by a political group with ~7% of the seats in the EP does not get a majority.

Just eager; which political group is this, becuase I do consider the amendment proposal to be very sane.

Happens all the time.

Maybe it happens. Nonetheless I am concerned that the majority actually rejected a proposal for explicitly making MS models democratically accountable. It says something to me, which I am troubled with.

parminder


One has to be aware of, and work with, the EP internal processes to get Good Stuff through. So, I would not worry much about the rejection of the amendment.

What I do worry about though is that it seems nobody on this list even knew about it until Carolina pinged on 7 February, 4 days before the vote.

Were there no public processes in the IG space preparing for the EP resolution before that ping?

Why?

//Erik


________________________________
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>] on behalf of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>]
Sent: Saturday 14 February 2015 05:02
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Draft joint statement on European Parliament IGF resolution


It is rather unfortunate, and perhaps ominous, that "democratically accountable mutlistakeholder model of IG' is dismissed in favour of just 'mutlistakeholder model of IG'.

Does it mean that it is considered unnecessary for 'multistakeholder model(s) of IG' to be democratically accountable?

This is a very important question that must be addressed.

It is in this background that the Just Net Coalition has been making a distinction between an explicitly democratic multistakeholder (MS) models and those MS models that do not just avoid mentioning the term 'democratic' but often actively avoid it - as this particular amendment exercise seems to suggest. (A distinction that some people here have considered superfluous, and perhaps self serving!)

When I said 'ominous' above, I meant how the post democratic sentiment that took root at the 'global' 'IG' space has begun to spread downwards to spaces where the democratic tradition is otherwise rather well entrenched (and will also spread to non IG areas as well, such are the powerful forces backing the post democratic ideologies). One is so disappointed that this kind of thing should happen at a forum like the EU. But perhaps a good indicator and a warning, if we can use it as one, that we may be playing with fire in the unthinking promoting of some very problematic governance models in the global IG space, unmindful of their impact on democratic traditions.

parminder


On Thursday 12 February 2015 11:53 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
The final resolution did not contain the amendment:

www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=P8-RC-2015-0099&language=EN<http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=P8-RC-2015-0099&language=EN>

The relevant passage: " Stresses that it is firmly committed to the multistakeholder model of internet governance; calls upon the Member States, the Commission and all relevant stakeholders to further strengthen the sustainability of this model by making actors and processes at national, regional and international levels more inclusive, transparent and accountable;"

On 10/02/2015 12:49 pm, Carolina Rossini wrote:
+1 on Erik suggestion
Jeremy, is this still possible?

On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 2:54 PM, JOSEFSSON Erik <erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu<mailto:erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu>> wrote:
Please consider explicitly supporting the following amendment too:

AM 2 (to point 6):

"Stresses that it is firmly committed to a democratically accountable multistakeholder model of Internet governance; calls upon the Member States, the European Commission and all relevant stakeholders to further strengthen the sustainability of the multi-stakeholder model by making actors and processes at national, regional and international levels more inclusive, transparent and accountable;"

It should have been tabled less than an hour ago!

//Erik


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



____________________________________________________________
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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150214/7d0dfef1/attachment.htm>

From nashton at consensus.pro  Sat Feb 14 07:36:53 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 13:36:53 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Draft joint statement on European Parliament IGF
 resolution
In-Reply-To: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A435727F0@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>
References: <54D90624.5030400@eff.org> <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43570613@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> <CAK-FJAfRGF-B9_JUVKf9B4ZOxKRMf_tO=HhA+8nBtFEDs3dKqw@mail.gmail.com> <54DCEF85.50506@eff.org>,<54DEC8EA.2060503@itforchange.net> <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A435727D7@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>,<54DF0EAE.50605@itforchange.net> <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A435727F0@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>
Message-ID: <08260621-7015-414D-99CE-E90C5EACB3D6@consensus.pro>

Dear Erik,

I understand your surprise that many didn't know that the EP was dealing with this, but the reality is: most of the processes where Internet policy is being discussed are not covered by the overwhelming majority of the stakeholders who participate in the core Internet Governance policy discussions.

Below is a note I prepared for a few of the organisations I work with which just focusses on Geneva; there are many more.

---

In 2015, Geneva will be the home of key processes that will have profound impacts on the Internet as a whole - and almost none of them are covered by the existing Internet Governance focussed policy community. Here’s a short overview:

>> ---
>> 
>> In 2015, Geneva will be the home of key processes that will have profound impacts on the Internet as a whole - and almost none of them are covered by the existing Internet Governance focussed policy community. Here’s a short overview:
>> 
>> Privacy and Data Protection
>> 
>> 18 months ago there were few to no discussions of online privacy in Geneva. Post-Snowden more significant discussions began in the Human Rights Council but were focussed on state surveillance practices. Now the discussions increasingly involve the private sector’s use of PII as well as state use and Western governments are increasingly (and inaccurately) conflating the use of PII by companies and governments - to try and get the latter ‘off the hook'.
>> 
>> In the World Trade Organisation (“WTO”) the US proposed a three-pronged discussion of online commerce in November 2014, one element being data protection and privacy. Discussions are currently underway about how to discuss these subjects, and particularly how they will be treated by the WTO Ministerial in Nairobi in December; that in turn will determine how they will be incorporated into the work of the WTO over the following two years. The ‘spade work’ being done this year in Geneva will be critical to the way the entire discussion dynamic is constructed and whether it creates the possibility of constructive discussion - or simply more conflict - and whether or not linkages will exist with other public policy environments on the subjects in the proposal, like human rights.
>> The negotiators for the Trade in Services Agreement (“TiSA”), representing 50 countries and the overwhelming majority of online services trade continue to discuss how to deal with privacy issues in a trading context; this agreement, given its scope of countries, could have a very significant precedential impact on how transboundary privacy issues are dealt with - as well as so many other features of Internet activity (for more on these issues see my CircleID post “Are the TISA Trade Talks a Threat to Net Neutrality, Data Protection, or Privacy?”)
>> At it’s March meeting the Human Rights Council (“HRC”) is expected to appoint a new Special Rapporteur on Privacy as a follow-up to the UNGA Resolution of December 2014 (A/RES/69/166). This is important because the terms of reference will directly influence the scope of the new SR’s work and reporting. This is one of two SRs dealing with Internet issues - both at the direction of the UN General Assembly - so they will and are having a significant impact in NY and as a consequence travel far beyond Geneva - especially in a WSIS decennial review year.
>> A host of other meetings will address privacy and data protection - including at UNCTAD (UNCTAD is to developing countries as the OECD is to the developed world) in March (see below).
>> 
>> Online Trade
>> 
>> The US’ WTO proposal on electronic commerce’s non privacy elements are cross-border information flows and localisation requirements for hardware and services.  These two elements are at the heart of the global Internet, and any understanding of how they should work in a trading environment will have profound impacts on the way the Internet works for everyone. This is particularly true for those concerned with routing, interconnection and basic Internet infrastructure like IXPs as well as human rights. This year will be the defining year for how these will be discussed over the subsequent two years. 
>> As mentioned the TISA talks on services are far larger than either TTIP or TPP as regards the Internet as they represent many more countries and a larger proportion of services trade (which is how most consumer-facing online services are classified in the global trading system, for example). The negotiations take place exclusively in Geneva.
>> UNCTAD hosts the Expert Meeting on Cyberlaws and Regulations for Enhancing E-commerce 25-27 March. It provides a largely informal forum where developing countries can compare their legal developments in various areas of online activity including security, consumer protection, privacy, and a host of others. There’s a strong focus on legal harmonization; several studies on the event website are salutary.  There will be several other meetings and major publications related to electronic commerce.
>> 
>> Human Rights
>> 
>> The work of the Human Rights Council and its related bodies all takes place in Geneva. While in the past the HRC’s work has been seen as having perhaps less impact on the world outside of its remit than might be desirable this is increasingly changing: where it relates to the Internet the UNGA is increasingly referring work to the HRC and then acting upon that work once it is concluded and inserting references to its products in other resolutions.
>> 
>> At the Human Rights Council the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression is preparing a report on the legal framework governing the relationship between freedom of expression and the use of encryption to be released in June 2015. The report, and the debate which follows in the autumn HRC session, will undoubtedly have ripple effects far beyond the HRC itself - expect to see this percolate into the UNGA in the autumn, likely including in the WSIS+10 negotiations and summit in December as it relates directly to surveillance and calls for ‘backdoors’ in encryption for state security agencies.
>> The next instalment of the “United Nations Forum on Business and Human Rights” Forum will take place in November; these routinely gather more than 2,000 delegates and very senior ministers and CEOs of some of the world’s largest corporations attend and speak. Internet issues will continue to grow in importance due to the work of the HRC on Internet-related subjects increasing and a resolution calling for a treaty on the subject being passed by the HRC in 2013. Note that one of the five foci of the conference is ‘Strengthening multi-stakeholder dialogue and engagement.” Worth reviewing is the foundational document for the conference and related work, the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.
>> 
>> WSIS+10
>> 
>> ECOSOC’s UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (“CSTD”) May 4-8 Meeting: This meeting will be devoted largely to the WSIS+10 review. Much of the positioning of countries will happen in advance; it is essential to influence positions of member-states in the lead up to the May meeting through bilateral meetings in Geneva.
>> The annual WSIS Forum in May will be the last before the WSIS+10 Review; it will be composed of a high-level speaking segment and a series of senior-level roundtable discussions and at the end a series of seminars and workshops organised by stakeholders.
>> 
>> ITU
>> 
>> The ITU always has a busy calendar of meetings with some nexus with Internet policy, from study groups to Council Working Groups to seminars. Below are only a few:
>> 
>> ITU Council’s 2015 Session (12-22 May) will tackle various Internet issues, including the modalities of the open consultations of it’s CWG Internet (see below). Influencing member-states in advance of the session through bilateral meetings in Geneva is key to getting constructive outcomes.
>> Council Working Group on International Internet Public Policy Issues (“CWG-Internet”) May or October meetings will be preceded by an open consultation on the subject of IXPs as agreed at the CWG-Internet meeting 3-4 February. It will be important that the discussion is preceded by dissemination of information about IXPs to member-states - ideally some face-to-face learning / educational sessions - as well as active participation in the open forum and on government delegations at the CWG-Internet meeting itself.
>> 


On 14 Feb 2015, at 10:34, JOSEFSSON Erik <erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu> wrote:

> Dear parminder,
> 
> The amendment was tabled by MEPs Michel Ramon and Julia Reda on behalf of Greens/EFA (see attachment at the bottom of the mail in the mail archive):
> 
> http://icg.greens-efa.eu/pipermail/hub/2015-February/000209.html
> 
> I am happy that you find it sane.
> 
> 
> I do appreciate your points on 'post democratic ideologies'. Actually, if it would not have been for the exchange of views on these matters on this list and others, I believe that AM3 to Paragraph 6 would not have been tabled at all. Would there have been more time than 5 days for you and others who find AM3 sane to give it more public support, it could maybe have received more votes, and, also, the votes could maybe even have been recorded per individual MEP (a so called Roll Call Vote could have been requested).
> 
> 
> Maybe you would find it useful to have a look at the possible strategic advantage of being more in sync with the mechanics of the EP through tools like AT4AM? Please then have a look at the this video:
> 
> https://vimeo.com/17598642
> 
> and the first instance of AT4AM running on a standalone server, here with two examples of documents (the first one is hand made, second is probably scripted) that it could be relevant to amend (not only directives and resolutions need patches):
> 
> http://ghajini.dfri.se:8080/at4am/editor.html?documentID=http://erikjosefsson.eu/sites/default/files/proposal-for-an-update-of-the-rules-of-procedure-for-the-greens-efa-staff-association.xml
> http://ghajini.dfri.se:8080/at4am/editor.html?documentID=6
> 
> Further exchange on this is welcome at https://at4am.eu
> 
> 
> Best regards.
> 
> //Erik
> 
> 
> 
> From: parminder [parminder at itforchange.net]
> Sent: Saturday 14 February 2015 10:00
> To: JOSEFSSON Erik; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Draft joint statement on European Parliament IGF resolution
> 
> Hi Erik
> 
> I can fully understand and appreciate your particular point and focus, from the vantage you are looking it from.
> 
> On my part, I just used a particular element of the process to make a rather different point, which remains a very important one in international IG discourse. 
> 
> Please also see inline.
> 
> On Saturday 14 February 2015 02:17 PM, JOSEFSSON Erik wrote:
>> Dear parminder,
>> 
>> It does not mean much in terms of content that an amendment tabled by a political group with ~7% of the seats in the EP does not get a majority.
> 
> Just eager; which political group is this, becuase I do consider the amendment proposal to be very sane.
> 
>> Happens all the time.
> 
> Maybe it happens. Nonetheless I am concerned that the majority actually rejected a proposal for explicitly making MS models democratically accountable. It says something to me, which I am troubled with.
> 
> parminder 
> 
> 
>> One has to be aware of, and work with, the EP internal processes to get Good Stuff through. So, I would not worry much about the rejection of the amendment.
>> 
>> What I do worry about though is that it seems nobody on this list even knew about it until Carolina pinged on 7 February, 4 days before the vote.
>> 
>> Were there no public processes in the IG space preparing for the EP resolution before that ping?
>> 
>> Why?
>> 
>> //Erik
>> 
>> 
>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net]
>> Sent: Saturday 14 February 2015 05:02
>> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Draft joint statement on European Parliament IGF resolution
>> 
>> 
>> It is rather unfortunate, and perhaps ominous, that "democratically accountable mutlistakeholder model of IG' is dismissed in favour of just 'mutlistakeholder model of IG'.
>> 
>> Does it mean that it is considered unnecessary for 'multistakeholder model(s) of IG' to be democratically accountable?
>> 
>> This is a very important question that must be addressed.
>> 
>> It is in this background that the Just Net Coalition has been making a distinction between an explicitly democratic multistakeholder (MS) models and those MS models that do not just avoid mentioning the term 'democratic' but often actively avoid it - as this particular amendment exercise seems to suggest. (A distinction that some people here have considered superfluous, and perhaps self serving!)
>> 
>> When I said 'ominous' above, I meant how the post democratic sentiment that took root at the 'global' 'IG' space has begun to spread downwards to spaces where the democratic tradition is otherwise rather well entrenched (and will also spread to non IG areas as well, such are the powerful forces backing the post democratic ideologies). One is so disappointed that this kind of thing should happen at a forum like the EU. But perhaps a good indicator and a warning, if we can use it as one, that we may be playing with fire in the unthinking promoting of some very problematic governance models in the global IG space, unmindful of their impact on democratic traditions. 
>> 
>> parminder 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thursday 12 February 2015 11:53 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>> The final resolution did not contain the amendment:
>>> 
>>> www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=P8-RC-2015-0099&language=EN
>>> 
>>> The relevant passage: " Stresses that it is firmly committed to the multistakeholder model of internet governance; calls upon the Member States, the Commission and all relevant stakeholders to further strengthen the sustainability of this model by making actors and processes at national, regional and international levels more inclusive, transparent and accountable;"
>>> 
>>> On 10/02/2015 12:49 pm, Carolina Rossini wrote:
>>>> +1 on Erik suggestion 
>>>> Jeremy, is this still possible?
>>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 2:54 PM, JOSEFSSON Erik <erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu> wrote:
>>>> Please consider explicitly supporting the following amendment too:
>>>> 
>>>> AM 2 (to point 6):
>>>> 
>>>> "Stresses that it is firmly committed to a democratically accountable multistakeholder model of Internet governance; calls upon the Member States, the European Commission and all relevant stakeholders to further strengthen the sustainability of the multi-stakeholder model by making actors and processes at national, regional and international levels more inclusive, transparent and accountable;"
>>>> 
>>>> It should have been tabled less than an hour ago!
>>>> 
>>>> //Erik
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as 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/20150214/e01547ac/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/20150214/e01547ac/attachment.sig>

From dan.oppermann at gmail.com  Sat Feb 14 11:07:10 2015
From: dan.oppermann at gmail.com (Daniel Oppermann)
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 14:07:10 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] CFP: GigaNet Symposium 2015, Brazil
Message-ID: <54DF72AE.5040106@gmail.com>

Dear all,

Here comes the new call for proposals for the 2015 GigaNet Symposium in
Brazil.


Best,
Daniel






*_10th GigaNet Annual Symposium_*

9 November 2015

João Pessoa, Brazil

 

 

* **_Call for proposals_*

Extended abstract submission deadline: 15 April 2015

Full papers due: 15 September 2015

 

On Monday, 9 November 2015, the Global Internet Governance Academic
Network (GigaNet) will hold its 10th annual symposium in João Pessoa,
Brazil. As in the past nine years the event will take place one day
before and in the same location as the United Nations Internet
Governance Forum (IGF).

GigaNet is an international association of academic researchers with a
focus on the multidisciplinary field of Internet Governance. It was
founded in 2006 and is open to researchers from all over the world who
are contributing to local, regional and international debates on
Internet Governance. More information on GigaNet's institutional
structures and activities can be found on the
website http://www.giga-net.org <http://www.giga-net.org/>.

For its 2015 annual symposium GigaNet is now receiving proposals for
papers to be presented during the event in João Pessoa. The scope of the
contributions is not limited to any field of study or topic as long as
it is relevant for global Internet Governance. Therefore, authors are
invited to submit abstracts on a broad spectrum of Internet Governance
topics that include, but are not restricted to: 

  * Changes in the Internet Governance ecosystem
  * Internet Governance 10 years after the WSIS
  * Analyzing, critiquing or supporting multistakeholder governance as
    an ideology or practice
  * The governance and legal implications of decentralized systems such
    as Bitcoin and Ethereum
  * Sustainable development as it relates to global Internet Governance
  * Technical, legal and policy initiatives for cybersecurity and their
    impact on global Internet Governance

_Submission requirements_

Abstracts should consist of 800-1000 words and describe the main
research goals and the methodological background of the paper. Proposals
can be submitted in English, Portuguese or Spanish language. Applicants
should also hand in a one page cv or submit a link to an online cv
including academic background, institutional affiliation and a list of
relevant publications. GigaNet encourages young and emerging scholars to
submit their proposals. All documents must be uploaded until 15 April
2015 to:

https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=giganet2015

 

_Selection Process and Participation_

GigaNet will select abstracts and inform the authors until mid-May 2015.
Final papers can be written and presented in English, Portuguese or
Spanish and need to be handed in by 15 September 2015.  Selected authors
who do not submit their complete papers until this date will be removed
from the program. Participation in the GigaNet symposium is free of charge.

_Timetable_

15 April 2015: deadline for submission of proposals and cv

15 May 2015: GigaNet informs selected authors by email

15 September 2015: deadline for submission of complete papers

09 November 2015: GigaNet symposium in João Pessoa, Brazil

 

_Contact_

Further details on the event can be found on GigaNet's website:

http://giga-net.org/page/symposiums-1

Queries can be send to the Program Committee Chair:
giganet2015 at easychair.org


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150214/08cae0ca/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: call_for_proposals_GigaNet_2015.pdf
Type: application/octetstream
Size: 81603 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150214/08cae0ca/attachment.bin>

From erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu  Sat Feb 14 16:26:04 2015
From: erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu (JOSEFSSON Erik)
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 21:26:04 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Draft joint statement on European Parliament IGF
 resolution
In-Reply-To: <08260621-7015-414D-99CE-E90C5EACB3D6@consensus.pro>
References: <54D90624.5030400@eff.org>
      <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43570613@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>
      <CAK-FJAfRGF-B9_JUVKf9B4ZOxKRMf_tO=HhA+8nBtFEDs3dKqw@mail.gmail.com>
      <54DCEF85.50506@eff.org>,<54DEC8EA.2060503@itforchange.net>
      <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A435727D7@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>,
     <54DF0EAE.50605@itforchange.net>
      <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A435727F0@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>,<08260621-7015-414D-99CE-E90C5EACB3D6@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A435728EF@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>

Hi Nick,

I cannot make sense out of your first paragraph if you mean to say that most stakeholders who participate in the core Internet Governance policy discussions don't cover most processes where Internet policy is being discussed :-)

Unless "core Internet Governance policy discussions" actually are disjunct from "processes where Internet policy is being discussed", in the sense that processes like this one (on this very mailing list) have no impact whatsoever on the "core" :-(

That in turn unfortunately maps perfectly on the classic perception that there are stakeholders on the inside/core and powerless citizens on the outside/periphery.

Which in turn maps again on mainframe<->terminal, client<->server, clouds<->apps.

Hope you all already saw this keunote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOcpDsDSWY0

Best regards.

//Erik



________________________________
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Nick Ashton-Hart [nashton at consensus.pro]
Sent: Saturday 14 February 2015 13:36
To: JOSEFSSON Erik
Cc: parminder; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Draft joint statement on European Parliament IGF resolution

Dear Erik,

I understand your surprise that many didn't know that the EP was dealing with this, but the reality is: most of the processes where Internet policy is being discussed are not covered by the overwhelming majority of the stakeholders who participate in the core Internet Governance policy discussions.

Below is a note I prepared for a few of the organisations I work with which just focusses on Geneva; there are many more.

---

In 2015, Geneva will be the home of key processes that will have profound impacts on the Internet as a whole - and almost none of them are covered by the existing Internet Governance focussed policy community. Here’s a short overview:

---


In 2015, Geneva will be the home of key processes that will have profound impacts on the Internet as a whole - and almost none of them are covered by the existing Internet Governance focussed policy community. Here’s a short overview:

Privacy and Data Protection

18 months ago there were few to no discussions of online privacy in Geneva. Post-Snowden more significant discussions began in the Human Rights Council but were focussed on state surveillance practices. Now the discussions increasingly involve the private sector’s use of PII as well as state use and Western governments are increasingly (and inaccurately) conflating the use of PII by companies and governments - to try and get the latter ‘off the hook'.

  *
In the World Trade Organisation (“WTO”) the US proposed a three-pronged discussion of online commerce<https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S009-DP.aspx?language=E&CatalogueIdList=129292,128589,127204,126879,126078,124972,124185,119666,77941,92922&CurrentCatalogueIdIndex=0&FullTextSearch=> in November 2014, one element being data protection and privacy. Discussions are currently underway about how to discuss these subjects, and particularly how they will be treated by the WTO Ministerial in Nairobi in December; that in turn will determine how they will be incorporated into the work of the WTO over the following two years. The ‘spade work’ being done this year in Geneva will be critical to the way the entire discussion dynamic is constructed and whether it creates the possibility of constructive discussion - or simply more conflict - and whether or not linkages will exist with other public policy environments on the subjects in the proposal, like human rights.
  *
The negotiators for the Trade in Services Agreement<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_in_Services_Agreement> (“TiSA”), representing 50 countries and the overwhelming majority of online services trade continue to discuss how to deal with privacy issues in a trading context; this agreement, given its scope of countries, could have a very significant precedential impact on how transboundary privacy issues are dealt with - as well as so many other features of Internet activity (for more on these issues see my CircleID post “Are the TISA Trade Talks a Threat to Net Neutrality, Data Protection, or Privacy?<http://www.circleid.com/posts/20141230_are_tisa_trade_talks_threat_to_net_neutrality_data_protection/>”)
  *
At it’s March meeting the Human Rights Council (“HRC”) is expected to appoint a new Special Rapporteur on Privacy as a follow-up to the UNGA Resolution of December 2014 (A/RES/69/166<http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N14/599/15/PDF/N1459915.pdf?OpenElement>). This is important because the terms of reference will directly influence the scope of the new SR’s work and reporting. This is one of two SRs dealing with Internet issues - both at the direction of the UN General Assembly - so they will and are having a significant impact in NY and as a consequence travel far beyond Geneva - especially in a WSIS decennial review year.
  *   A host of other meetings will address privacy and data protection - including at UNCTAD (UNCTAD is to developing countries as the OECD is to the developed world) in March (see below).

Online Trade

  *
The US’ WTO proposal on electronic commerce<https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S009-DP.aspx?language=E&CatalogueIdList=129292,128589,127204,126879,126078,124972,124185,119666,77941,92922&CurrentCatalogueIdIndex=0&FullTextSearch=>’s non privacy elements are cross-border information flows and localisation requirements for hardware and services.  These two elements are at the heart of the global Internet, and any understanding of how they should work in a trading environment will have profound impacts on the way the Internet works for everyone. This is particularly true for those concerned with routing, interconnection and basic Internet infrastructure like IXPs as well as human rights. This year will be the defining year for how these will be discussed over the subsequent two years.
  *
As mentioned the TISA talks on services are far larger than either TTIP or TPP as regards the Internet as they represent many more countries and a larger proportion of services trade (which is how most consumer-facing online services are classified in the global trading system, for example). The negotiations take place exclusively in Geneva.
  *   UNCTAD hosts the Expert Meeting on Cyberlaws and Regulations for Enhancing E-commerce<http://unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=644> 25-27 March. It provides a largely informal forum where developing countries can compare their legal developments in various areas of online activity including security, consumer protection, privacy, and a host of others. There’s a strong focus on legal harmonization; several studies on the event website are salutary. There will be several other meetings and major publications related to electronic commerce.

Human Rights

The work of the Human Rights Council and its related bodies all takes place in Geneva. While in the past the HRC’s work has been seen as having perhaps less impact on the world outside of its remit than might be desirable this is increasingly changing: where it relates to the Internet the UNGA is increasingly referring work to the HRC and then acting upon that work once it is concluded and inserting references to its products in other resolutions.

  *
At the Human Rights Council the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression is preparing a report on the legal framework governing the relationship between freedom of expression and the use of encryption to be released in June 2015. The report, and the debate which follows in the autumn HRC session, will undoubtedly have ripple effects far beyond the HRC itself - expect to see this percolate into the UNGA in the autumn, likely including in the WSIS+10 negotiations and summit in December as it relates directly to surveillance and calls for ‘backdoors’ in encryption for state security agencies.
  *   The next instalment of the “United Nations Forum on Business and Human Rights<http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Business/Forum/Pages/2015ForumBHR.aspx>” Forum will take place in November; these routinely gather more than 2,000 delegates and very senior ministers and CEOs of some of the world’s largest corporations attend and speak. Internet issues will continue to grow in importance due to the work of the HRC on Internet-related subjects increasing and a resolution calling for a treaty on the subject being passed by the HRC in 2013. Note that one of the five foci of the conference is ‘Strengthening multi-stakeholder dialogue and engagement.” Worth reviewing is the foundational document for the conference and related work, the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights<http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf>.

WSIS+10

  *
ECOSOC’s UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development<http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD.aspx> (“CSTD”) May 4-8 Meeting<http://unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=606>: This meeting will be devoted largely to the WSIS+10 review. Much of the positioning of countries will happen in advance; it is essential to influence positions of member-states in the lead up to the May meeting through bilateral meetings in Geneva.
  *   The annual WSIS Forum<http://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2015/OCP/> in May will be the last before the WSIS+10 Review; it will be composed of a high-level speaking segment and a series of senior-level roundtable discussions and at the end a series of seminars and workshops organised by stakeholders.

ITU

The ITU always has a busy calendar of meetings with some nexus with Internet policy, from study groups to Council Working Groups to seminars. Below are only a few:

  *
ITU Council<http://www.itu.int/en/council/Pages/default.aspx>’s 2015 Session (12-22 May) will tackle various Internet issues, including the modalities of the open consultations of it’s CWG Internet (see below). Influencing member-states in advance of the session through bilateral meetings in Geneva is key to getting constructive outcomes.
  *   Council Working Group on International Internet Public Policy Issues<https://www.itu.int/en/council/cwg-internet/Pages/default.aspx> (“CWG-Internet”) May or October meetings will be preceded by an open consultation on the subject of IXPs as agreed at the CWG-Internet meeting 3-4 February. It will be important that the discussion is preceded by dissemination of information about IXPs to member-states - ideally some face-to-face learning / educational sessions - as well as active participation in the open forum and on government delegations at the CWG-Internet meeting itself.


On 14 Feb 2015, at 10:34, JOSEFSSON Erik <erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu<mailto:erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu>> wrote:

Dear parminder,

The amendment was tabled by MEPs Michel Ramon and Julia Reda on behalf of Greens/EFA (see attachment at the bottom of the mail in the mail archive):

http://icg.greens-efa.eu/pipermail/hub/2015-February/000209.html

I am happy that you find it sane.


I do appreciate your points on 'post democratic ideologies'. Actually, if it would not have been for the exchange of views on these matters on this list and others, I believe that AM3 to Paragraph 6 would not have been tabled at all. Would there have been more time than 5 days for you and others who find AM3 sane to give it more public support, it could maybe have received more votes, and, also, the votes could maybe even have been recorded per individual MEP (a so called Roll Call Vote could have been requested).


Maybe you would find it useful to have a look at the possible strategic advantage of being more in sync with the mechanics of the EP through tools like AT4AM? Please then have a look at the this video:

https://vimeo.com/17598642

and the first instance of AT4AM running on a standalone server, here with two examples of documents (the first one is hand made, second is probably scripted) that it could be relevant to amend (not only directives and resolutions need patches):

http://ghajini.dfri.se:8080/at4am/editor.html?documentID=http://erikjosefsson.eu/sites/default/files/proposal-for-an-update-of-the-rules-of-procedure-for-the-greens-efa-staff-association.xml
http://ghajini.dfri.se:8080/at4am/editor.html?documentID=6

Further exchange on this is welcome at https://at4am.eu<https://at4am.eu/>


Best regards.

//Erik



________________________________
From: parminder [parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>]
Sent: Saturday 14 February 2015 10:00
To: JOSEFSSON Erik; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Draft joint statement on European Parliament IGF resolution

Hi Erik

I can fully understand and appreciate your particular point and focus, from the vantage you are looking it from.

On my part, I just used a particular element of the process to make a rather different point, which remains a very important one in international IG discourse.

Please also see inline.

On Saturday 14 February 2015 02:17 PM, JOSEFSSON Erik wrote:
Dear parminder,

It does not mean much in terms of content that an amendment tabled by a political group with ~7% of the seats in the EP does not get a majority.

Just eager; which political group is this, becuase I do consider the amendment proposal to be very sane.

Happens all the time.

Maybe it happens. Nonetheless I am concerned that the majority actually rejected a proposal for explicitly making MS models democratically accountable. It says something to me, which I am troubled with.

parminder


One has to be aware of, and work with, the EP internal processes to get Good Stuff through. So, I would not worry much about the rejection of the amendment.

What I do worry about though is that it seems nobody on this list even knew about it until Carolina pinged on 7 February, 4 days before the vote.

Were there no public processes in the IG space preparing for the EP resolution before that ping?

Why?

//Erik


________________________________
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>] on behalf of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>]
Sent: Saturday 14 February 2015 05:02
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Draft joint statement on European Parliament IGF resolution


It is rather unfortunate, and perhaps ominous, that "democratically accountable mutlistakeholder model of IG' is dismissed in favour of just 'mutlistakeholder model of IG'.

Does it mean that it is considered unnecessary for 'multistakeholder model(s) of IG' to be democratically accountable?

This is a very important question that must be addressed.

It is in this background that the Just Net Coalition has been making a distinction between an explicitly democratic multistakeholder (MS) models and those MS models that do not just avoid mentioning the term 'democratic' but often actively avoid it - as this particular amendment exercise seems to suggest. (A distinction that some people here have considered superfluous, and perhaps self serving!)

When I said 'ominous' above, I meant how the post democratic sentiment that took root at the 'global' 'IG' space has begun to spread downwards to spaces where the democratic tradition is otherwise rather well entrenched (and will also spread to non IG areas as well, such are the powerful forces backing the post democratic ideologies). One is so disappointed that this kind of thing should happen at a forum like the EU. But perhaps a good indicator and a warning, if we can use it as one, that we may be playing with fire in the unthinking promoting of some very problematic governance models in the global IG space, unmindful of their impact on democratic traditions.

parminder


On Thursday 12 February 2015 11:53 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
The final resolution did not contain the amendment:

www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=P8-RC-2015-0099&language=EN<http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=P8-RC-2015-0099&language=EN>

The relevant passage: " Stresses that it is firmly committed to the multistakeholder model of internet governance; calls upon the Member States, the Commission and all relevant stakeholders to further strengthen the sustainability of this model by making actors and processes at national, regional and international levels more inclusive, transparent and accountable;"

On 10/02/2015 12:49 pm, Carolina Rossini wrote:
+1 on Erik suggestion
Jeremy, is this still possible?

On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 2:54 PM, JOSEFSSON Erik <erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu<mailto:erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu>> wrote:
Please consider explicitly supporting the following amendment too:

AM 2 (to point 6):

"Stresses that it is firmly committed to a democratically accountable multistakeholder model of Internet governance; calls upon the Member States, the European Commission and all relevant stakeholders to further strengthen the sustainability of the multi-stakeholder model by making actors and processes at national, regional and international levels more inclusive, transparent and accountable;"

It should have been tabled less than an hour ago!

//Erik


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



____________________________________________________________
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150214/33875be5/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Feb 15 04:57:01 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 15:27:01 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] US gets frank on its vision for the Internet
Message-ID: <54E06D6D.4060506@itforchange.net>

http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/rm/2015/237436.htm

How US sees trade rules being basically the rules for the Internet, 
because the Internet is the 'new shipping lanes' for global trade, and 
so on.

And of course, the rival model is China's and how, and see the blunt 
shift here, it is bad for human rights and the open Internet.

Open trade and open Internet are basically one - and so you choose the 
side you want to be on (So much for the Seattle protesters, and the 
World Social Forum and 'Occupy' kinds, who stand against unbridled 
'open' trade!)

Also, since the US is on the right side, it is clear that it is the US 
who will make the international trade rules, and thus, by derivation, 
the Internet rules.

And when they call the Internet as the new shipping lanes, to many of us 
the connection to colonialism comes through strongly, and somewhat 
chillingly. But then the US now has the global 1 percent across the 
world supporting new forms of hegemonies, of which the WEF is a good 
symbol.

The US establishment's case is rather clear and precise. The rest of the 
world, or people in general (including of the US), need to state theirs.

parminder
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Remarks
Ambassador Daniel A. Sepulveda
Deputy Assistant Secretary and U.S. Coordinator for International 
Communications and Information Policy, Bureau of Economic and Business 
Affairs
U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Association of American Chambers of 
Commerce in Latin America
Los Angeles, CA
February 11, 2015


  Trade Promotion and the Fight to Preserve the Open Internet


  * original <http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/rm/2015/237436.htm>

Three billion people are connected to the Internet today. And trillions 
of devices are set to join them in the Internet of Things. Together, the 
connectivity of people and machines is enabling economic and social 
development around the world on a revolutionary scale.

But it will take open markets, the cooperation of leaders around the 
world, the participation of a vibrant and diverse range of stakeholders, 
and strong trade agreements, with language preserving the free flow of 
information, to protect the Internet’s potential as the world’s engine 
for future growth, both at home and abroad.

As the number of Internet users worldwide has ballooned from 2 to 3 
billion, the increase in Internet use creates significant economic 
potential. The Obama Administration is working to unlock the promise of 
e-commerce, keep the Internet free and open, promote competitive access 
for telecommunications suppliers, and set digital trade 
rules-of-the-road by negotiating new trade agreements. Trade Promotion 
Authority legislation and the pending trade agreements we expect 
Congress to consider over the coming months and years will provide that 
kind of protection. These agreements aim to ensure that the free flow of 
information and data are the default setting for nations. This will 
preserve the architecture that has empowered the Internet and global 
communications to fuel economic growth at home and abroad. It is in our 
interest, across parties and ideology, to ensure we move forward and 
approve TPA and the pending agreements for many reasons, but promoting 
the preservation and growth of global communications and the open 
Internet is one of the strongest.

Senator Ron Wyden, the ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee, 
has made the argument well, stating, "America’s trade negotiating 
objectives must reflect the fact that the Internet represents /the 
shipping lane/ for 21st Century goods and services… Trade in digital 
goods and services is growing and driving economic growth and job 
creation all around the country. U.S digital exports are beating imports 
by large margins, but outdated trade rules threaten this growth by 
providing opportunities for protectionist policies overseas. The U.S. 
has the opportunity to establish new trade rules that preserve the 
Internet as a platform to share ideas and for expanding commerce..."

Senator Wyden is absolutely correct. Our pending agreements with nations 
in the Pacific community will establish rules for the preservation of 
those virtual shipping lanes as enablers of the transport of services 
and ideas, allowing startups and the voices of everyday people to 
challenge incumbent power in markets and ideas.

If we are successful, the partnership of nations across the 
Trans-Pacific Partnership and Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment 
Partnership regions coming behind agreements to preserve the free flow 
of information will serve as a powerful counterweight to authoritarian 
governments around the globe that have demonstrated a clear willingness 
to interfere with open markets and an open Internet. And make no mistake 
about it, if we do not seize every opportunity at our disposal to win 
commitments to an open, global Internet, we risk letting others set the 
rules of the road.

Authoritarian regimes view the Internet’s openness as a threatening and 
destabilizing influence. The Russian government, just last month, 
pressured social media companies to block access to pages used to 
organize peaceful political protests. In China, authorities have blocked 
Gmail and Google’s search engine. In addition to ongoing and systematic 
efforts to control content and punish Chinese citizens who run afoul of 
political sensitivities, such measures are an effort to further diminish 
the Chinese people’s access to information, while effectively favoring 
Chinese Internet companies by blocking other providers from accessing 
its market. And we know they are urging others to take similar action. 
These trade barriers harm commerce and slow economic growth, and they 
produce socially oppressive policies that inhibit freedom.

The rules of the road for commerce, and Internet-enabled trade and 
e-commerce, are up for grabs in Asia. We’re working harder than ever to 
bring home trade agreements that will unlock opportunities by 
eliminating barriers to U.S. exports, trade, and investment while 
raising labor, environment, and other important standards across the 
board. Right now, China and others are negotiating their own trade 
agreements and seeking to influence the rules of commerce in the region 
and beyond. These trade agreements fail to meet the high standards that 
we strive for in our free trade agreements, including protection for 
workers’ rights and the environment. And they don’t protect intellectual 
property rights or maintain a free and open Internet. This will put our 
workers and our businesses at a disadvantage.

We know that both old and new American businesses, small and large 
alike, are dependent on the global Internet as the enabler of access to 
previously unreachable consumers. In the U.S. alone, American Internet 
companies and their global community of users contribute over $141 
billion in annual revenue to the overall U.S. GDP, simultaneously 
employing 6.6 million people. And the Internet is not simply about the 
World Wide Web, it is the communications platform for managing global 
supply chains, distributing services, and acquiring the market 
information necessary to succeed anywhere.

Many countries no longer primarily produce products. Rather, businesses 
produce product components and provide services, many of which are 
delivered digitally. In order to remain competitive globally and promote 
the capacity of businesses to innovate, the United States and our 
partners in the Western Hemisphere must build the Americas into a 
shared, digitally connected, integrated platform for global success. By 
working with our trade partners in Latin America and Asia to conclude 
the Trans-Pacific Partnership we are advancing this vision and making it 
a reality. We will set the standards with twenty-first century trade 
agreements.

We know that not everyone is convinced of the merits of open markets. 
And to win their hearts and minds, we have to demonstrate and 
communicate how these two values – open markets and the open Internet - 
are interconnected. And we have to show that Trade Promotion Authority 
and our agreements embrace the values that underpin the Internet today.

As Ambassador Froman has said, “Trade, done right, is part of the 
solution, not part of the problem.” And, because it is true, our 
progressive friends should recognize that the fight for open markets is 
the position most consistent with our progressive tradition and values.

It was Woodrow Wilson who said, “The program of the world's peace, 
therefore, is our program; and that program, the only possible program, 
as we see it, is this” and he listed his fourteen points. Among them was 
number three: “The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers 
and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the 
nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its 
maintenance.”

It was Franklin Roosevelt who asked the New Deal Congress for the first 
grant of trade negotiating authority.

In his remarks at the signing of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, it was 
JFK who said, “Increased economic activity resulting from increased 
trade will provide more job opportunities for our workers. Our industry, 
our agriculture, our mining will benefit from increased export 
opportunities as other nations agree to lower their tariffs. Increased 
exports and imports will benefit our ports, steamship lines, and 
airlines as they handle an increased amount of trade. Lowering of our 
tariffs will provide an increased flow of goods for our American 
consumers. Our industries will be stimulated by increased export 
opportunities and by freer competition with the industries of other 
nations for an even greater effort to develop an efficient, economic, 
and productive system. The results can bring a dynamic new era of growth.”

And it is consistent with the sentiments of these giants in our 
tradition, our progressive tradition, that President Obama most recently 
stated, “Twenty-first century businesses, including small businesses, 
need to sell more American products overseas. Today, our businesses 
export more than ever, and exporters tend to pay their workers higher 
wages. But as we speak, China wants to write the rules for the world’s 
fastest-growing region. That would put our workers and our businesses at 
a disadvantage. Why would we let that happen? We should write those 
rules. We should level the playing field. That’s why I’m asking both 
parties to give me trade promotion authority to protect American 
workers, with strong new trade deals from Asia to Europe that aren’t 
just free, but are also fair. It’s the right thing to do.”

Friends, we have both a political and economic interest in promoting 
open markets and an open Internet. Preservation of these ideals is and 
should remain a bipartisan, and broadly held goal. It is critical to our 
future and contained within the language we are asking Congress to approve.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150215/045965a6/attachment.htm>

From nashton at consensus.pro  Sun Feb 15 11:04:43 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 17:04:43 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Draft joint statement on European Parliament IGF
 resolution
In-Reply-To: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A435728EF@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>
References: <54D90624.5030400@eff.org> <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43570613@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu> <CAK-FJAfRGF-B9_JUVKf9B4ZOxKRMf_tO=HhA+8nBtFEDs3dKqw@mail.gmail.com> <54DCEF85.50506@eff.org>,<54DEC8EA.2060503@itforchange.net> <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A435727D7@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>, <54DF0EAE.50605@itforchange.net> <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A435727F0@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>,<08260621-7015-414D-99CE-E90C5EACB3D6@consensus.pro> <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A435728EF@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>
Message-ID: <521ECE8A-D85F-45D5-B69C-E465C0C85E31@consensus.pro>

Inline...

On 14 Feb 2015, at 22:26, JOSEFSSON Erik <erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu> wrote:

> Hi Nick,
> 
> I cannot make sense out of your first paragraph if you mean to say that most stakeholders who participate in the core Internet Governance policy discussions don't cover most processes where Internet policy is being discussed :-)

That is in fact what I'm saying: the overwhelming majority of those who attend IGF, ICANN, some ITU, CSTD don't attend HRC, HR and Business Forum - and basically none participate in WTO policy on a continuing basis - just to name three.

Is this bad? Perhaps; depends upon your point of view. 

> 
> Unless "core Internet Governance policy discussions" actually are disjunct from "processes where Internet policy is being discussed", in the sense that processes like this one (on this very mailing list) have no impact whatsoever on the "core" :-(

Not sure what you mean here. By 'Core IG processes' I'm speaking of the policies related to the network, separate from policy activities that relate to the data that traverses the network. 

> 
> That in turn unfortunately maps perfectly on the classic perception that there are stakeholders on the inside/core and powerless citizens on the outside/periphery.

Ah - well, that's certainly not what I mean (see above).

> 
> Which in turn maps again on mainframe<->terminal, client<->server, clouds<->apps.
> 
> Hope you all already saw this keunote:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOcpDsDSWY0
> 
> Best regards.
> 
> //Erik
> 
> 
> 
> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Nick Ashton-Hart [nashton at consensus.pro]
> Sent: Saturday 14 February 2015 13:36
> To: JOSEFSSON Erik
> Cc: parminder; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Draft joint statement on European Parliament IGF resolution
> 
> Dear Erik,
> 
> I understand your surprise that many didn't know that the EP was dealing with this, but the reality is: most of the processes where Internet policy is being discussed are not covered by the overwhelming majority of the stakeholders who participate in the core Internet Governance policy discussions.
> 
> Below is a note I prepared for a few of the organisations I work with which just focusses on Geneva; there are many more.
> 
> ---
> 
> In 2015, Geneva will be the home of key processes that will have profound impacts on the Internet as a whole - and almost none of them are covered by the existing Internet
>  Governance focussed policy community. Here’s a short overview:
> 
> 
>>> ---
>>> 
>>> In 2015, Geneva will be the home of key processes that will have profound impacts on the Internet as a whole - and almost none of them are covered by the existing Internet
>>>  Governance focussed policy community. Here’s a short overview:
>>> 
>>> Privacy and Data Protection
>>> 
>>> 18 months ago there were few to no discussions of online privacy in Geneva. Post-Snowden more significant discussions began in the Human Rights Council but were focussed
>>>  on state surveillance practices. Now the discussions increasingly involve the private sector’s use of PII as well as state use and Western governments are increasingly (and inaccurately) conflating the use of PII by companies and governments - to try and get
>>>  the latter ‘off the hook'.
>>> 
>>> In the World Trade Organisation (“WTO”) the
>>> US
>>>  proposed a three-pronged discussion of online commerce in November 2014, one element being data protection and privacy. Discussions are currently underway about how to discuss these subjects,
>>>  and particularly how they will be treated by the WTO Ministerial in Nairobi in December; that in turn will determine how they will be incorporated into the work of the WTO over the following two years. The ‘spade work’ being done this year in Geneva will be
>>>  critical to the way the entire discussion dynamic is constructed and whether it creates the possibility of constructive discussion - or simply more conflict - and whether or not linkages will exist with other public policy environments on the subjects in the
>>>  proposal, like human rights.
>>> The negotiators for the
>>> Trade
>>>  in Services Agreement (“TiSA”), representing 50 countries and the overwhelming majority of online services trade continue to discuss how to deal
>>>  with privacy issues in a trading context; this agreement, given its scope of countries, could have a very significant precedential impact on how transboundary privacy issues are dealt with - as well as so many other features of Internet activity (for more
>>>  on these issues see my CircleID post “Are
>>>  the TISA Trade Talks a Threat to Net Neutrality, Data Protection, or Privacy?”)
>>> At it’s March meeting the Human Rights Council (“HRC”) is expected to appoint a new Special Rapporteur on Privacy as a follow-up to
>>>  the UNGA Resolution of December 2014 (A/RES/69/166).
>>>  This is important because the terms of reference will directly influence the scope of the new SR’s work and reporting. This is one of two SRs dealing with Internet issues - both at the direction of the UN General Assembly - so they will and are having a significant
>>>  impact in NY and as a consequence travel far beyond Geneva - especially in a WSIS decennial review year.
>>> A host of other meetings will address privacy and data protection - including at UNCTAD (UNCTAD is to developing countries
>>>  as the OECD is to the developed world) in March (see below).
>>> 
>>> Online Trade
>>> 
>>> The US’
>>> WTO
>>>  proposal on electronic commerce’s non privacy elements are cross-border information flows and localisation requirements for hardware and services.  These two elements are at the heart of
>>>  the global Internet, and any understanding of how they should work in a trading environment will have profound impacts on the way the Internet works for everyone. This is particularly true for those concerned with routing, interconnection and basic Internet
>>>  infrastructure like IXPs as well as human rights. This year will be the defining year for how these will be discussed over the subsequent two years.
>>> As mentioned the TISA talks on services are far larger than either TTIP or TPP as regards the Internet as they represent many more countries
>>>  and a larger proportion of services trade (which is how most consumer-facing online services are classified in the global trading system, for example). The negotiations take place exclusively in Geneva.
>>> UNCTAD hosts the
>>> Expert Meeting on Cyberlaws
>>>  and Regulations for Enhancing E-commerce 25-27 March. It provides a largely informal forum where developing countries can compare their legal developments in various areas of online activity
>>>  including security, consumer protection, privacy, and a host of others. There’s a strong focus on legal harmonization; several studies on the event website are salutary. There will be several other meetings and major publications related to electronic commerce.
>>> 
>>> Human Rights
>>> 
>>> The work of the Human Rights Council and its related bodies all takes place in Geneva. While in the past the HRC’s work has been seen as having perhaps less impact on the
>>>  world outside of its remit than might be desirable this is increasingly changing: where it relates to the Internet the UNGA is increasingly referring work to the HRC and then acting upon that work once it is concluded and inserting references to its products
>>>  in other resolutions.
>>> 
>>> At the Human Rights Council the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression is preparing a report on the legal framework governing the
>>>  relationship between freedom of expression and the use of encryption to be released in June 2015. The report, and the debate which follows in the autumn HRC session, will undoubtedly have ripple
>>>  effects far beyond the HRC itself - expect to see this percolate into the UNGA in the autumn, likely including in the WSIS+10 negotiations and summit in December as it relates directly to surveillance and calls for ‘backdoors’ in encryption for state security
>>>  agencies.
>>> The next instalment of the “United
>>>  Nations Forum on Business and Human Rights” Forum will take place in November; these routinely gather more than 2,000 delegates and very senior ministers and CEOs of some of the world’s
>>>  largest corporations attend and speak. Internet issues will continue to grow in importance due to the work of the HRC on Internet-related subjects increasing and a resolution calling for a treaty on the subject being passed by the HRC in 2013. Note that one
>>>  of the five foci of the conference is ‘Strengthening multi-stakeholder dialogue and engagement.” Worth reviewing is the foundational document for the conference and related work, the
>>> Guiding
>>>  Principles on Business and Human Rights.
>>> 
>>> WSIS+10
>>> 
>>> ECOSOC’s
>>> UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development
>>>  (“CSTD”) May 4-8 Meeting:
>>>  This meeting will be devoted largely to the WSIS+10 review. Much of the positioning of countries will happen in advance; it is essential to influence positions of member-states in the lead up to the May meeting through bilateral meetings in Geneva.
>>> The annual
>>> WSIS Forum
>>>  in May will be the last before the WSIS+10 Review; it will be composed of a high-level speaking segment and a series of senior-level roundtable discussions and at the end a series of seminars and workshops organised by stakeholders.
>>> 
>>> ITU
>>> 
>>> The ITU always has a busy calendar of meetings with some nexus with Internet policy, from study groups to Council Working Groups to seminars. Below are only a few:
>>> 
>>> ITU
>>>  Council’s 2015 Session (12-22 May) will tackle various Internet issues, including the modalities of the open consultations of it’s CWG Internet (see below). Influencing member-states in
>>>  advance of the session through bilateral meetings in Geneva is key to getting constructive outcomes.
>>> Council
>>>  Working Group on International Internet Public Policy Issues (“CWG-Internet”) May or October meetings will be preceded by an open consultation on the subject of IXPs as agreed at the CWG-Internet
>>>  meeting 3-4 February. It will be important that the discussion is preceded by dissemination of information about IXPs to member-states - ideally some face-to-face learning / educational sessions
>>>  - as well as active participation in the open forum and on government delegations at the CWG-Internet meeting itself.
>>> 
> 
> 
> On 14 Feb 2015, at 10:34, JOSEFSSON Erik <erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu> wrote:
> 
>> Dear parminder,
>> 
>> The amendment was tabled by MEPs Michel Ramon and Julia Reda on behalf of Greens/EFA (see attachment at the bottom of the mail in the mail archive):
>> 
>> http://icg.greens-efa.eu/pipermail/hub/2015-February/000209.html
>> 
>> I am happy that you find it sane.
>> 
>> 
>> I do appreciate your points on 'post democratic ideologies'. Actually, if it would not have been for the exchange of views on these matters on this list and others, I believe that AM3 to Paragraph 6 would not have been tabled at all. Would there have been more time than 5 days for you and others who find AM3 sane to give it more public support, it could maybe have received more votes, and, also, the votes could maybe even have been recorded per individual MEP (a so called Roll Call Vote could have been requested).
>> 
>> 
>> Maybe you would find it useful to have a look at the possible strategic advantage of being more in sync with the mechanics of the EP through tools like AT4AM? Please then have a look at the this video:
>> 
>> https://vimeo.com/17598642
>> 
>> and the first instance of AT4AM running on a standalone server, here with two examples of documents (the first one is hand made, second is probably scripted) that it could be relevant to amend (not only directives and resolutions need patches):
>> 
>> http://ghajini.dfri.se:8080/at4am/editor.html?documentID=http://erikjosefsson.eu/sites/default/files/proposal-for-an-update-of-the-rules-of-procedure-for-the-greens-efa-staff-association.xml
>> http://ghajini.dfri.se:8080/at4am/editor.html?documentID=6
>> 
>> Further exchange on this is welcome at https://at4am.eu
>> 
>> 
>> Best regards.
>> 
>> //Erik
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: parminder [parminder at itforchange.net]
>> Sent: Saturday 14 February 2015 10:00
>> To: JOSEFSSON Erik; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Draft joint statement on European Parliament IGF resolution
>> 
>> Hi Erik
>> 
>> I can fully understand and appreciate your particular point and focus, from the vantage you are looking it from.
>> 
>> On my part, I just used a particular element of the process to make a rather different point, which remains a very important one in international IG discourse. 
>> 
>> Please also see inline.
>> 
>> On Saturday 14 February 2015 02:17 PM, JOSEFSSON Erik wrote:
>>> Dear parminder,
>>> 
>>> It does not mean much in terms of content that an amendment tabled by a political group with ~7% of the seats in the EP does not get a majority.
>> 
>> Just eager; which political group is this, becuase I do consider the amendment proposal to be very sane.
>> 
>>> Happens all the time.
>> 
>> Maybe it happens. Nonetheless I am concerned that the majority actually rejected a proposal for explicitly making MS models democratically accountable. It says something to me, which I am troubled with.
>> 
>> parminder 
>> 
>> 
>>> One has to be aware of, and work with, the EP internal processes to get Good Stuff through. So, I would not worry much about the rejection of the amendment.
>>> 
>>> What I do worry about though is that it seems nobody on this list even knew about it until Carolina pinged on 7 February, 4 days before the vote.
>>> 
>>> Were there no public processes in the IG space preparing for the EP resolution before that ping?
>>> 
>>> Why?
>>> 
>>> //Erik
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net]
>>> Sent: Saturday 14 February 2015 05:02
>>> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Draft joint statement on European Parliament IGF resolution
>>> 
>>> 
>>> It is rather unfortunate, and perhaps ominous, that "democratically accountable mutlistakeholder model of IG' is dismissed in favour of just 'mutlistakeholder model of IG'.
>>> 
>>> Does it mean that it is considered unnecessary for 'multistakeholder model(s) of IG' to be democratically accountable?
>>> 
>>> This is a very important question that must be addressed.
>>> 
>>> It is in this background that the Just Net Coalition has been making a distinction between an explicitly democratic multistakeholder (MS) models and those MS models that do not just avoid mentioning the term 'democratic' but often actively avoid it - as this particular amendment exercise seems to suggest. (A distinction that some people here have considered superfluous, and perhaps self serving!)
>>> 
>>> When I said 'ominous' above, I meant how the post democratic sentiment that took root at the 'global' 'IG' space has begun to spread downwards to spaces where the democratic tradition is otherwise rather well entrenched (and will also spread to non IG areas as well, such are the powerful forces backing the post democratic ideologies). One is so disappointed that this kind of thing should happen at a forum like the EU. But perhaps a good indicator and a warning, if we can use it as one, that we may be playing with fire in the unthinking promoting of some very problematic governance models in the global IG space, unmindful of their impact on democratic traditions. 
>>> 
>>> parminder 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thursday 12 February 2015 11:53 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>>> The final resolution did not contain the amendment:
>>>> 
>>>> www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=P8-RC-2015-0099&language=EN
>>>> 
>>>> The relevant passage: " Stresses that it is firmly committed to the multistakeholder model of internet governance; calls upon the Member States, the Commission and all relevant stakeholders to further strengthen the sustainability of this model by making actors and processes at national, regional and international levels more inclusive, transparent and accountable;"
>>>> 
>>>> On 10/02/2015 12:49 pm, Carolina Rossini wrote:
>>>>> +1 on Erik suggestion 
>>>>> Jeremy, is this still possible?
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 2:54 PM, JOSEFSSON Erik <erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu> wrote:
>>>>> Please consider explicitly supporting the following amendment too:
>>>>> 
>>>>> AM 2 (to point 6):
>>>>> 
>>>>> "Stresses that it is firmly committed to a democratically accountable multistakeholder model of Internet governance; calls upon the Member States, the European Commission and all relevant stakeholders to further strengthen the sustainability of the multi-stakeholder model by making actors and processes at national, regional and international levels more inclusive, transparent and accountable;"
>>>>> 
>>>>> It should have been tabled less than an hour ago!
>>>>> 
>>>>> //Erik
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as 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/20150215/af4a682a/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/20150215/af4a682a/attachment.sig>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Sun Feb 15 14:59:35 2015
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 11:59:35 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] US gets frank on its vision for the Internet
In-Reply-To: <54E06D6D.4060506@itforchange.net>
References: <54E06D6D.4060506@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <01f601d04959$ecc98090$c65c81b0$@gmail.com>

Yes, if “open trade” (as per the US position) equals the “open Internet” does a commitment to the “open Internet” also mean a commitment to “open trade”—a question that CS in IG needs to address.  Remembering that after the initial running period, “open”ness more or less automatically favours the incumbents (first mover advantage) since it raises the minimum requirements for success to the level of the current status quo while eliminating the possibility of introducing means for positive discrimination (affirmative action).

 

Not too surprising that the US Secretary of Commerce and the Chinese Minister of Telecommunications along with the head of Alibaba should be helping to “coordinate” the NMI.

 

M

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 1:57 AM
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: [bestbits] US gets frank on its vision for the Internet

 

http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/rm/2015/237436.htm

How US sees trade rules  being basically the rules for the Internet, because the Internet is the 'new shipping lanes' for global trade, and so on.

And of course, the rival model is China's and how, and see the blunt shift here, it is bad for human rights and the open Internet.

Open trade and open Internet are basically one - and so you choose the side you want to be on (So much for the Seattle protesters, and the World Social Forum and 'Occupy' kinds, who stand against unbridled 'open' trade!)   

Also, since the US is on the right side, it is clear that it is the US who will make the international trade rules, and thus, by derivation, the Internet rules.

And when they call the Internet as the new shipping lanes, to many of us the connection to colonialism comes through strongly, and somewhat chillingly. But then the US now has the global 1 percent across the world supporting new forms of hegemonies, of which the WEF is a good symbol. 

The US establishment's case is rather clear and precise. The rest of the world, or people in general (including of the US), need to state theirs. 

parminder 
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Remarks 

Ambassador Daniel A. Sepulveda
Deputy Assistant Secretary and U.S. Coordinator for International Communications and Information Policy, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs

U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Association of American Chambers of Commerce in Latin America

Los Angeles, CA

February 11, 2015


Trade Promotion and the Fight to Preserve the Open Internet


 

*	original  <http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/rm/2015/237436.htm> 

Three billion people are connected to the Internet today. And trillions of devices are set to join them in the Internet of Things. Together, the connectivity of people and machines is enabling economic and social development around the world on a revolutionary scale.

But it will take open markets, the cooperation of leaders around the world, the participation of a vibrant and diverse range of stakeholders, and strong trade agreements, with language preserving the free flow of information, to protect the Internet’s potential as the world’s engine for future growth, both at home and abroad.

As the number of Internet users worldwide has ballooned from 2 to 3 billion, the increase in Internet use creates significant economic potential. The Obama Administration is working to unlock the promise of e-commerce, keep the Internet free and open, promote competitive access for telecommunications suppliers, and set digital trade rules-of-the-road by negotiating new trade agreements. Trade Promotion Authority legislation and the pending trade agreements we expect Congress to consider over the coming months and years will provide that kind of protection. These agreements aim to ensure that the free flow of information and data are the default setting for nations. This will preserve the architecture that has empowered the Internet and global communications to fuel economic growth at home and abroad. It is in our interest, across parties and ideology, to ensure we move forward and approve TPA and the pending agreements for many reasons, but promoting the preservation and growth of global communications and the open Internet is one of the strongest.

Senator Ron Wyden, the ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee, has made the argument well, stating, "America’s trade negotiating objectives must reflect the fact that the Internet represents the shipping lane for 21st Century goods and services… Trade in digital goods and services is growing and driving economic growth and job creation all around the country. U.S digital exports are beating imports by large margins, but outdated trade rules threaten this growth by providing opportunities for protectionist policies overseas. The U.S. has the opportunity to establish new trade rules that preserve the Internet as a platform to share ideas and for expanding commerce..."

Senator Wyden is absolutely correct. Our pending agreements with nations in the Pacific community will establish rules for the preservation of those virtual shipping lanes as enablers of the transport of services and ideas, allowing startups and the voices of everyday people to challenge incumbent power in markets and ideas.

If we are successful, the partnership of nations across the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership regions coming behind agreements to preserve the free flow of information will serve as a powerful counterweight to authoritarian governments around the globe that have demonstrated a clear willingness to interfere with open markets and an open Internet. And make no mistake about it, if we do not seize every opportunity at our disposal to win commitments to an open, global Internet, we risk letting others set the rules of the road.

Authoritarian regimes view the Internet’s openness as a threatening and destabilizing influence. The Russian government, just last month, pressured social media companies to block access to pages used to organize peaceful political protests. In China, authorities have blocked Gmail and Google’s search engine. In addition to ongoing and systematic efforts to control content and punish Chinese citizens who run afoul of political sensitivities, such measures are an effort to further diminish the Chinese people’s access to information, while effectively favoring Chinese Internet companies by blocking other providers from accessing its market. And we know they are urging others to take similar action. These trade barriers harm commerce and slow economic growth, and they produce socially oppressive policies that inhibit freedom.

The rules of the road for commerce, and Internet-enabled trade and e-commerce, are up for grabs in Asia. We’re working harder than ever to bring home trade agreements that will unlock opportunities by eliminating barriers to U.S. exports, trade, and investment while raising labor, environment, and other important standards across the board. Right now, China and others are negotiating their own trade agreements and seeking to influence the rules of commerce in the region and beyond. These trade agreements fail to meet the high standards that we strive for in our free trade agreements, including protection for workers’ rights and the environment. And they don’t protect intellectual property rights or maintain a free and open Internet. This will put our workers and our businesses at a disadvantage.

We know that both old and new American businesses, small and large alike, are dependent on the global Internet as the enabler of access to previously unreachable consumers. In the U.S. alone, American Internet companies and their global community of users contribute over $141 billion in annual revenue to the overall U.S. GDP, simultaneously employing 6.6 million people. And the Internet is not simply about the World Wide Web, it is the communications platform for managing global supply chains, distributing services, and acquiring the market information necessary to succeed anywhere.

Many countries no longer primarily produce products. Rather, businesses produce product components and provide services, many of which are delivered digitally. In order to remain competitive globally and promote the capacity of businesses to innovate, the United States and our partners in the Western Hemisphere must build the Americas into a shared, digitally connected, integrated platform for global success. By working with our trade partners in Latin America and Asia to conclude the Trans-Pacific Partnership we are advancing this vision and making it a reality. We will set the standards with twenty-first century trade agreements.

We know that not everyone is convinced of the merits of open markets. And to win their hearts and minds, we have to demonstrate and communicate how these two values – open markets and the open Internet - are interconnected. And we have to show that Trade Promotion Authority and our agreements embrace the values that underpin the Internet today.

As Ambassador Froman has said, “Trade, done right, is part of the solution, not part of the problem.” And, because it is true, our progressive friends should recognize that the fight for open markets is the position most consistent with our progressive tradition and values.

It was Woodrow Wilson who said, “The program of the world's peace, therefore, is our program; and that program, the only possible program, as we see it, is this” and he listed his fourteen points. Among them was number three: “The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance.”

It was Franklin Roosevelt who asked the New Deal Congress for the first grant of trade negotiating authority.

In his remarks at the signing of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, it was JFK who said, “Increased economic activity resulting from increased trade will provide more job opportunities for our workers. Our industry, our agriculture, our mining will benefit from increased export opportunities as other nations agree to lower their tariffs. Increased exports and imports will benefit our ports, steamship lines, and airlines as they handle an increased amount of trade. Lowering of our tariffs will provide an increased flow of goods for our American consumers. Our industries will be stimulated by increased export opportunities and by freer competition with the industries of other nations for an even greater effort to develop an efficient, economic, and productive system. The results can bring a dynamic new era of growth.”

And it is consistent with the sentiments of these giants in our tradition, our progressive tradition, that President Obama most recently stated, “Twenty-first century businesses, including small businesses, need to sell more American products overseas. Today, our businesses export more than ever, and exporters tend to pay their workers higher wages. But as we speak, China wants to write the rules for the world’s fastest-growing region. That would put our workers and our businesses at a disadvantage. Why would we let that happen? We should write those rules. We should level the playing field. That’s why I’m asking both parties to give me trade promotion authority to protect American workers, with strong new trade deals from Asia to Europe that aren’t just free, but are also fair. It’s the right thing to do.”

Friends, we have both a political and economic interest in promoting open markets and an open Internet. Preservation of these ideals is and should remain a bipartisan, and broadly held goal. It is critical to our future and contained within the language we are asking Congress to approve.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150215/0cd539e0/attachment.htm>

From lea at gp-digital.org  Mon Feb  2 13:12:49 2015
From: lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 18:12:49 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] [GCCS2015] Call for Civil Society Expressions of
 Interest
In-Reply-To: <54CFBD87.1000608@digitaldissidents.org>
References: <CAJTVAjyK=VaSJXCz961Hq6wAAhw+ppVnaH6J6ntWTgh=0Ax=Mg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJTVAjxuPLPHPYEF3CuDJVgj0TKaQ8zQBNJzLMQdyUTGz9jqnQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<54CFBD87.1000608@digitaldissidents.org>
Message-ID: <CAJTVAjxiXC8y+QCbM71O4P6=4j-ChRs4t5ooBoG-FrGQ4v=2BQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Niels, thanks for the heads up! We've just written to the organisers to
check why it's down. Hopefully they manage to get it back online soon.

Best,
Lea

On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 6:10 PM, Niels ten Oever <lists at digitaldissidents.org
> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi Lea,
>
> Was about to tweet this, but the form on the website does not seem to
> be working, or is it just a glitch?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Niels
>
> On 02/02/2015 05:50 PM, Lea Kaspar wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > In case of interest - the deadline for civil society expressions
> > of interest to participate in the upcoming Global Conference on
> > Cyberspace has been extended *_until Wednesday, Feb 4_*.
> >
> > Funding for civil society from developing countries available.
> > Details below.
> >
> > Best, Lea
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Lea Kaspar <lea at gp-digital.org
> > <mailto:lea at gp-digital.org>> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Friends,
> >
> >
> >
> > [Apologies for possible duplications]
> >
> >
> >
> > We would like to bring to your attention the civil society call
> > for expressions of interest to participate in the Global Conference
> > on Cyberspace 2015
> > <https://www.gccs2015.com/gccs/all-about-gccs2015> (GCCS 2015) and
> > a civil society pre-event, hosted by the government of the Kingdom
> > of the Netherlands, and taking place in The Hague on 16 and 17
> > April 2015.
> >
> >
> >
> > Following on from the London (2011), Budapest (2012), and Seoul
> > (2013) Conferences, the 2015 event in The Hague will provide an
> > opportunity for strategic level discussion of key cyberspace
> > issues. The Conference aims to examine core issues
> > <https://www.gccs2015.com/gccs/all-about-gccs2015> related to the
> > cyber domain, structured around the three main themes of Freedom
> > <https://www.gccs2015.com/themes/freedom>, Security
> > <https://www.gccs2015.com/themes/security-0> and Growth
> > <https://www.gccs2015.com/themes/growth>. Focus will be placed on
> > exchange of knowledge and ideas on these issues and the
> > development of concrete solutions. The Conference will encourage
> > multi-stakeholder participation from the worlds of business,
> > academia as well as civil society.
> >
> >
> >
> > A day and a half civil society pre-event will take place in the
> > run-up to the Conference (14-15 April) to facilitate civil society
> > coordination and input into the main Conference. An in-depth
> > training on cyber security issues will be offered as part of this
> > pre-event. In addition, an online training curriculum will be made
> > available to the wider public. The Conference organisers are
> > interested in a balanced and diverse participation and in
> > supporting those who will find a practical use for the training and
> > attendance offered.
> >
> >
> >
> > The Expression of Interest Form, in addition to logging interest
> > in attending the Conference and the civil society pre-event, will
> > also serve as a platform to capture requests for financial
> > support. Limited financial support is available for a number of
> > civil society participants.
> >
> >
> >
> > In order to be considered as a Conference/pre-event participant
> > and/or a candidate for financial support, please fill in the
> > Expression of Interest Form via the following link by *January 30*:
> > _https://www.gccs2015.com/civil-society-participation-form_
> >
> >
> >
> > Expressions of interest and requests for funding received will be
> > evaluated by an ad hoc Advisory Board
> > <
> https://www.gccs2015.com/sites/default/files/attachments/AdvisoryBoardProfiles.pdf
> >
> > set up to assist the organizers of the Conference in selecting
> > civil society participants to receive funding and to attend the
> > GCCS2015 and the civil society pre-event, to help ensure that the
> > Conference is as inclusive and representative as possible.
> >
> >
> >
> > Criteria for financial support are designed to ensure a diverse
> > spread of applicants is achieved, focussing on global south
> > applicants and aimed at securing a balance of gender, regional
> > diversity and level of experience in cyber security issues.
> >
> >
> >
> > Please feel free to share this information with your networks.
> >
> >
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> >
> >
> > On behalf of:
> >
> > Andrew Puddephatt, Evelien Wijkstra, Tim Maurer
> >
> > Advisory Board Co-chairs
> >
> > * *
> >
> > *---*
> >
> > * *
> >
> > *Lea Kaspar*
> >
> > Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
> >
> > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
> >
> > T: +44 (0)20 7549 033_7_ | M: +44 (0)7583 929216
> > <tel:%2B44%20%280%297583%20929216> | Skype: l.kaspar
> >
> > 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
> >
>
> - --
> Niels ten Oever
> Head of Digital
>
> Article 19
> www.article19.org
>
> PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
>                    678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUz72HAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjp6wQH/3kAa7gSZpL9ZILI6kHekwLA
> XxO5e5YdL9v4JQrsbOV/8zEbqf3MhDLamYpRm+BNWBgTf1DaP63QMBLB+O5tKqQt
> Abx972UVxBmqZW3xTgb4gJigyaQmUM9QpHG5l0uoTXzgI5mMVQo1yw4OnyAxyCEb
> dYA2verxH9D+lSZwu5uKk5LqPBn/z0w72JvALPMEmHHf+6X/No7g1zbrm6LtnNqu
> bXDzMv1yYiCSymXOX3KWzkUSCREj7Q6hj563XEBhrXor6q9vi3BseWKVp1GOD/2C
> n2Q/cc5c0WtB9f2FUsbpaosXiIr38nSDju/0YvyvWES+oqNpyWk9Gk2XSQbqIEs=
> =O2sT
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as 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/20150202/3db1b434/attachment.htm>

From erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu  Sun Feb 15 16:16:54 2015
From: erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu (JOSEFSSON Erik)
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 21:16:54 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Draft joint statement on European Parliament IGF
 resolution
In-Reply-To: <521ECE8A-D85F-45D5-B69C-E465C0C85E31@consensus.pro>
References: <54D90624.5030400@eff.org>
      <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43570613@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>
      <CAK-FJAfRGF-B9_JUVKf9B4ZOxKRMf_tO=HhA+8nBtFEDs3dKqw@mail.gmail.com>
      <54DCEF85.50506@eff.org>,<54DEC8EA.2060503@itforchange.net>
      <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A435727D7@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>,
     <54DF0EAE.50605@itforchange.net>
      <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A435727F0@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>,
     <08260621-7015-414D-99CE-E90C5EACB3D6@consensus.pro>
      <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A435728EF@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>,<521ECE8A-D85F-45D5-B69C-E465C0C85E31@consensus.pro>
Message-ID: <4B654B63C9A4614EA1F088B2490E8F3A43572A64@UCEXBWP009.ep.parl.union.eu>

Thanks for clarifying Nick. It was very helpful to understand how you separate "policy activities that relate to the data that traverses the network" and "policies related to the network" (the latter being 'Core IG processes').

Apologies for the polemic tone in my previous mail.

Best regards.

//Erik

________________________________
From: Nick Ashton-Hart [nashton at consensus.pro]
Sent: Sunday 15 February 2015 17:04
To: JOSEFSSON Erik
Cc: parminder; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Draft joint statement on European Parliament IGF resolution

Inline...

On 14 Feb 2015, at 22:26, JOSEFSSON Erik <erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu<mailto:erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu>> wrote:

Hi Nick,

I cannot make sense out of your first paragraph if you mean to say that most stakeholders who participate in the core Internet Governance policy discussions don't cover most processes where Internet policy is being discussed :-)

That is in fact what I'm saying: the overwhelming majority of those who attend IGF, ICANN, some ITU, CSTD don't attend HRC, HR and Business Forum - and basically none participate in WTO policy on a continuing basis - just to name three.

Is this bad? Perhaps; depends upon your point of view.


Unless "core Internet Governance policy discussions" actually are disjunct from "processes where Internet policy is being discussed", in the sense that processes like this one (on this very mailing list) have no impact whatsoever on the "core" :-(

Not sure what you mean here. By 'Core IG processes' I'm speaking of the policies related to the network, separate from policy activities that relate to the data that traverses the network.


That in turn unfortunately maps perfectly on the classic perception that there are stakeholders on the inside/core and powerless citizens on the outside/periphery.

Ah - well, that's certainly not what I mean (see above).


Which in turn maps again on mainframe<->terminal, client<->server, clouds<->apps.

Hope you all already saw this keunote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOcpDsDSWY0

Best regards.

//Erik



________________________________
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>] on behalf of Nick Ashton-Hart [nashton at consensus.pro<mailto:nashton at consensus.pro>]
Sent: Saturday 14 February 2015 13:36
To: JOSEFSSON Erik
Cc: parminder; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Draft joint statement on European Parliament IGF resolution

Dear Erik,

I understand your surprise that many didn't know that the EP was dealing with this, but the reality is: most of the processes where Internet policy is being discussed are not covered by the overwhelming majority of the stakeholders who participate in the core Internet Governance policy discussions.

Below is a note I prepared for a few of the organisations I work with which just focusses on Geneva; there are many more.

---

In 2015, Geneva will be the home of key processes that will have profound impacts on the Internet as a whole - and almost none of them are covered by the existing Internet Governance focussed policy community. Here’s a short overview:

---


In 2015, Geneva will be the home of key processes that will have profound impacts on the Internet as a whole - and almost none of them are covered by the existing Internet Governance focussed policy community. Here’s a short overview:

Privacy and Data Protection

18 months ago there were few to no discussions of online privacy in Geneva. Post-Snowden more significant discussions began in the Human Rights Council but were focussed on state surveillance practices. Now the discussions increasingly involve the private sector’s use of PII as well as state use and Western governments are increasingly (and inaccurately) conflating the use of PII by companies and governments - to try and get the latter ‘off the hook'.

  *
In the World Trade Organisation (“WTO”) the US proposed a three-pronged discussion of online commerce<https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S009-DP.aspx?language=E&CatalogueIdList=129292,128589,127204,126879,126078,124972,124185,119666,77941,92922&CurrentCatalogueIdIndex=0&FullTextSearch=> in November 2014, one element being data protection and privacy. Discussions are currently underway about how to discuss these subjects, and particularly how they will be treated by the WTO Ministerial in Nairobi in December; that in turn will determine how they will be incorporated into the work of the WTO over the following two years. The ‘spade work’ being done this year in Geneva will be critical to the way the entire discussion dynamic is constructed and whether it creates the possibility of constructive discussion - or simply more conflict - and whether or not linkages will exist with other public policy environments on the subjects in the proposal, like human rights.
  *
The negotiators for the Trade in Services Agreement<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_in_Services_Agreement> (“TiSA”), representing 50 countries and the overwhelming majority of online services trade continue to discuss how to deal with privacy issues in a trading context; this agreement, given its scope of countries, could have a very significant precedential impact on how transboundary privacy issues are dealt with - as well as so many other features of Internet activity (for more on these issues see my CircleID post “Are the TISA Trade Talks a Threat to Net Neutrality, Data Protection, or Privacy?<http://www.circleid.com/posts/20141230_are_tisa_trade_talks_threat_to_net_neutrality_data_protection/>”)
  *
At it’s March meeting the Human Rights Council (“HRC”) is expected to appoint a new Special Rapporteur on Privacy as a follow-up to the UNGA Resolution of December 2014 (A/RES/69/166<http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N14/599/15/PDF/N1459915.pdf?OpenElement>). This is important because the terms of reference will directly influence the scope of the new SR’s work and reporting. This is one of two SRs dealing with Internet issues - both at the direction of the UN General Assembly - so they will and are having a significant impact in NY and as a consequence travel far beyond Geneva - especially in a WSIS decennial review year.
  *   A host of other meetings will address privacy and data protection - including at UNCTAD (UNCTAD is to developing countries as the OECD is to the developed world) in March (see below).

Online Trade

  *
The US’ WTO proposal on electronic commerce<https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S009-DP.aspx?language=E&CatalogueIdList=129292,128589,127204,126879,126078,124972,124185,119666,77941,92922&CurrentCatalogueIdIndex=0&FullTextSearch=>’s non privacy elements are cross-border information flows and localisation requirements for hardware and services.  These two elements are at the heart of the global Internet, and any understanding of how they should work in a trading environment will have profound impacts on the way the Internet works for everyone. This is particularly true for those concerned with routing, interconnection and basic Internet infrastructure like IXPs as well as human rights. This year will be the defining year for how these will be discussed over the subsequent two years.
  *
As mentioned the TISA talks on services are far larger than either TTIP or TPP as regards the Internet as they represent many more countries and a larger proportion of services trade (which is how most consumer-facing online services are classified in the global trading system, for example). The negotiations take place exclusively in Geneva.
  *   UNCTAD hosts the Expert Meeting on Cyberlaws and Regulations for Enhancing E-commerce<http://unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=644> 25-27 March. It provides a largely informal forum where developing countries can compare their legal developments in various areas of online activity including security, consumer protection, privacy, and a host of others. There’s a strong focus on legal harmonization; several studies on the event website are salutary. There will be several other meetings and major publications related to electronic commerce.

Human Rights

The work of the Human Rights Council and its related bodies all takes place in Geneva. While in the past the HRC’s work has been seen as having perhaps less impact on the world outside of its remit than might be desirable this is increasingly changing: where it relates to the Internet the UNGA is increasingly referring work to the HRC and then acting upon that work once it is concluded and inserting references to its products in other resolutions.

  *
At the Human Rights Council the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression is preparing a report on the legal framework governing the relationship between freedom of expression and the use of encryption to be released in June 2015. The report, and the debate which follows in the autumn HRC session, will undoubtedly have ripple effects far beyond the HRC itself - expect to see this percolate into the UNGA in the autumn, likely including in the WSIS+10 negotiations and summit in December as it relates directly to surveillance and calls for ‘backdoors’ in encryption for state security agencies.
  *   The next instalment of the “United Nations Forum on Business and Human Rights<http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Business/Forum/Pages/2015ForumBHR.aspx>” Forum will take place in November; these routinely gather more than 2,000 delegates and very senior ministers and CEOs of some of the world’s largest corporations attend and speak. Internet issues will continue to grow in importance due to the work of the HRC on Internet-related subjects increasing and a resolution calling for a treaty on the subject being passed by the HRC in 2013. Note that one of the five foci of the conference is ‘Strengthening multi-stakeholder dialogue and engagement.” Worth reviewing is the foundational document for the conference and related work, the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights<http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf>.

WSIS+10

  *
ECOSOC’s UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development<http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD.aspx> (“CSTD”) May 4-8 Meeting<http://unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=606>: This meeting will be devoted largely to the WSIS+10 review. Much of the positioning of countries will happen in advance; it is essential to influence positions of member-states in the lead up to the May meeting through bilateral meetings in Geneva.
  *   The annual WSIS Forum<http://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2015/OCP/> in May will be the last before the WSIS+10 Review; it will be composed of a high-level speaking segment and a series of senior-level roundtable discussions and at the end a series of seminars and workshops organised by stakeholders.

ITU

The ITU always has a busy calendar of meetings with some nexus with Internet policy, from study groups to Council Working Groups to seminars. Below are only a few:

  *
ITU Council<http://www.itu.int/en/council/Pages/default.aspx>’s 2015 Session (12-22 May) will tackle various Internet issues, including the modalities of the open consultations of it’s CWG Internet (see below). Influencing member-states in advance of the session through bilateral meetings in Geneva is key to getting constructive outcomes.
  *   Council Working Group on International Internet Public Policy Issues<https://www.itu.int/en/council/cwg-internet/Pages/default.aspx> (“CWG-Internet”) May or October meetings will be preceded by an open consultation on the subject of IXPs as agreed at the CWG-Internet meeting 3-4 February. It will be important that the discussion is preceded by dissemination of information about IXPs to member-states - ideally some face-to-face learning / educational sessions - as well as active participation in the open forum and on government delegations at the CWG-Internet meeting itself.


On 14 Feb 2015, at 10:34, JOSEFSSON Erik <erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu<mailto:erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu>> wrote:

Dear parminder,

The amendment was tabled by MEPs Michel Ramon and Julia Reda on behalf of Greens/EFA (see attachment at the bottom of the mail in the mail archive):

http://icg.greens-efa.eu/pipermail/hub/2015-February/000209.html

I am happy that you find it sane.


I do appreciate your points on 'post democratic ideologies'. Actually, if it would not have been for the exchange of views on these matters on this list and others, I believe that AM3 to Paragraph 6 would not have been tabled at all. Would there have been more time than 5 days for you and others who find AM3 sane to give it more public support, it could maybe have received more votes, and, also, the votes could maybe even have been recorded per individual MEP (a so called Roll Call Vote could have been requested).


Maybe you would find it useful to have a look at the possible strategic advantage of being more in sync with the mechanics of the EP through tools like AT4AM? Please then have a look at the this video:

https://vimeo.com/17598642

and the first instance of AT4AM running on a standalone server, here with two examples of documents (the first one is hand made, second is probably scripted) that it could be relevant to amend (not only directives and resolutions need patches):

http://ghajini.dfri.se:8080/at4am/editor.html?documentID=http://erikjosefsson.eu/sites/default/files/proposal-for-an-update-of-the-rules-of-procedure-for-the-greens-efa-staff-association.xml
http://ghajini.dfri.se:8080/at4am/editor.html?documentID=6

Further exchange on this is welcome at https://at4am.eu<https://at4am.eu/>


Best regards.

//Erik



________________________________
From: parminder [parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>]
Sent: Saturday 14 February 2015 10:00
To: JOSEFSSON Erik; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Draft joint statement on European Parliament IGF resolution

Hi Erik

I can fully understand and appreciate your particular point and focus, from the vantage you are looking it from.

On my part, I just used a particular element of the process to make a rather different point, which remains a very important one in international IG discourse.

Please also see inline.

On Saturday 14 February 2015 02:17 PM, JOSEFSSON Erik wrote:
Dear parminder,

It does not mean much in terms of content that an amendment tabled by a political group with ~7% of the seats in the EP does not get a majority.

Just eager; which political group is this, becuase I do consider the amendment proposal to be very sane.

Happens all the time.

Maybe it happens. Nonetheless I am concerned that the majority actually rejected a proposal for explicitly making MS models democratically accountable. It says something to me, which I am troubled with.

parminder


One has to be aware of, and work with, the EP internal processes to get Good Stuff through. So, I would not worry much about the rejection of the amendment.

What I do worry about though is that it seems nobody on this list even knew about it until Carolina pinged on 7 February, 4 days before the vote.

Were there no public processes in the IG space preparing for the EP resolution before that ping?

Why?

//Erik


________________________________
From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net> [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net>] on behalf of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>]
Sent: Saturday 14 February 2015 05:02
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Draft joint statement on European Parliament IGF resolution


It is rather unfortunate, and perhaps ominous, that "democratically accountable mutlistakeholder model of IG' is dismissed in favour of just 'mutlistakeholder model of IG'.

Does it mean that it is considered unnecessary for 'multistakeholder model(s) of IG' to be democratically accountable?

This is a very important question that must be addressed.

It is in this background that the Just Net Coalition has been making a distinction between an explicitly democratic multistakeholder (MS) models and those MS models that do not just avoid mentioning the term 'democratic' but often actively avoid it - as this particular amendment exercise seems to suggest. (A distinction that some people here have considered superfluous, and perhaps self serving!)

When I said 'ominous' above, I meant how the post democratic sentiment that took root at the 'global' 'IG' space has begun to spread downwards to spaces where the democratic tradition is otherwise rather well entrenched (and will also spread to non IG areas as well, such are the powerful forces backing the post democratic ideologies). One is so disappointed that this kind of thing should happen at a forum like the EU. But perhaps a good indicator and a warning, if we can use it as one, that we may be playing with fire in the unthinking promoting of some very problematic governance models in the global IG space, unmindful of their impact on democratic traditions.

parminder


On Thursday 12 February 2015 11:53 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
The final resolution did not contain the amendment:

www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=P8-RC-2015-0099&language=EN<http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=P8-RC-2015-0099&language=EN>

The relevant passage: " Stresses that it is firmly committed to the multistakeholder model of internet governance; calls upon the Member States, the Commission and all relevant stakeholders to further strengthen the sustainability of this model by making actors and processes at national, regional and international levels more inclusive, transparent and accountable;"

On 10/02/2015 12:49 pm, Carolina Rossini wrote:
+1 on Erik suggestion
Jeremy, is this still possible?

On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 2:54 PM, JOSEFSSON Erik <erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu<mailto:erik.josefsson at europarl.europa.eu>> wrote:
Please consider explicitly supporting the following amendment too:

AM 2 (to point 6):

"Stresses that it is firmly committed to a democratically accountable multistakeholder model of Internet governance; calls upon the Member States, the European Commission and all relevant stakeholders to further strengthen the sustainability of the multi-stakeholder model by making actors and processes at national, regional and international levels more inclusive, transparent and accountable;"

It should have been tabled less than an hour ago!

//Erik


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



____________________________________________________________
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150215/f6e01a1d/attachment.htm>

From steve at openmedia.ca  Mon Feb 16 03:16:35 2015
From: steve at openmedia.ca (Steve Anderson)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 00:16:35 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: #InternetCountdown JUMBOTRON update; new launch
 (Feb 18), momentum and materials
In-Reply-To: <CAEiPw9Y12JN4YEPkBUk0no7RQaNn2g4LyQufmi+yn+u55gxnEA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEiPw9Y12JN4YEPkBUk0no7RQaNn2g4LyQufmi+yn+u55gxnEA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJOr_J6CFn-t63qCF=qJEB3U1e37dD4gda4H-8pHsm5Jwr0itw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all, I just wanted to share this call for participation in an
international action to ensure the US FCC pushes forward with Net
Neutrality rules. This ruling will have global implication as I'm sure many
of you know.

Learn more and Sign on using this webform here
<https://docs.google.com/a/openmedia.ca/forms/d/11zEbeCpE_V-QUF-7cTZUwrHMHBoagbNGZ3wQKIAB5CE/viewform>.


More from the email below

Steve
OpenMedai.org


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Josh Tabish <josh at openmedia.ca>
Date: Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 3:04 PM
Subject: #InternetCountdown JUMBOTRON update; new launch (Feb 18), momentum
and materials


More and more groups are reaching out to help support the
#InternetCountdown jumbotron action
<https://openmedia.org/blog/openmedia-crowdsourcing-jumbotron-fcc-final-net-neutrality-push>!
Hooray! In addition to all the great groups I listed yesterday, we’re
talking with groups like Twitter, Tumblr, Namecheap, Cheezburger,
Hootsuite, ServInt, the i2Coaliton, and many others to make this thing
huge.

If you haven’t joined on, please do! Sign on using this webform here
<https://docs.google.com/a/openmedia.ca/forms/d/11zEbeCpE_V-QUF-7cTZUwrHMHBoagbNGZ3wQKIAB5CE/viewform>.


To accommodate all the interest in the project and help ensure it’s as big
as possible, we are changing the launch date to Wednesday, February 18.
This will give us one full week to push the tool before the jumbotron sets
up at the FCC on Wednesday, February 25, as part of #InternetCountdown.

And, as promised, we’ve taken a first crack at building a package of
outreach materials
<https://docs.google.com/a/openmedia.ca/document/d/1pzbtvIEXbe4lgwajhGKZCZtpz6E8a1DayhKL28uD7Hg/edit#heading=h.31mdpet82i2r>
to help you email your community, embed the tool on your own site, and
reach out to your social media communities. You can find it here
<https://docs.google.com/a/openmedia.ca/document/d/1pzbtvIEXbe4lgwajhGKZCZtpz6E8a1DayhKL28uD7Hg/edit#heading=h.31mdpet82i2r>.
We’ll be adding more in the days leading up to launch and will keep you
posted as they emerge.

Please note that the action platform is not live yet, but will be found at
https://stoptheslowdown.net/ <https://stoptheslowdown.net./> once it does.
Our global petition currently lives there, and we will let you know when
the new tool is live.

Thank you to everybody who has gotten in touch with us to find out how they
can help. We're really appreciative of all the constructive feedback we
received, and for all the thought that has been brought to the discussion.

We'll be in touch with updates over the next few days leading up to the
launch. And reach out to me if you have any questions.
–Josh

-- 
--
*Josh Tabish*
Campaigns Manager, OpenMedia
778-990-1218
http://openmedia.ca <http://www.openmedia.ca/>
josh at openmedia.ca <steve at openmedia.ca>

Follow me on Twitter <http://www.twitter.com/jdtabish>
Friend me on Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/josh.tabish>

 --
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Big Telecom vs The World" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to big-telecom-vs-the-world+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to
big-telecom-vs-the-world at googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/big-telecom-vs-the-world/CAEiPw9Y12JN4YEPkBUk0no7RQaNn2g4LyQufmi%2Byn%2Bu55gxnEA%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/big-telecom-vs-the-world/CAEiPw9Y12JN4YEPkBUk0no7RQaNn2g4LyQufmi%2Byn%2Bu55gxnEA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150216/bdb5767b/attachment.htm>

From lea at gp-digital.org  Mon Feb 16 13:24:04 2015
From: lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 18:24:04 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] =?UTF-8?Q?REMINDER=3A_WSIS+10_Overall_Review_=E2=80=93?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?_Information_sharing_and_CS_coordination_event?=
Message-ID: <CAJTVAjwMb660ZfvXgOM79oWXWsF8tk71UpuXKjhj5BSC=XeJYw@mail.gmail.com>

Dear friends,

Thank you to all who have expressed interest in participating in the
WSIS+10 Review information-sharing and CS coordination event taking place
in Paris on March 2. This is to share a logistical update and a rough
agenda, and to encourage anyone else interested in attending on-site to *RSVP
via the BestBits event webpage
<http://bestbits.net/events/wsis10-coordination/>* as soon as possible and *no
later than this Friday, February 20*. (If you have RSVPd already, you don't
need to do this again)

*Aim*
The purpose of the event is to raise awareness of the review process and to
facilitate coordination and strategy development for effective engagement,
both within the civil society community, as well as across stakeholder
groups. The event will be divided into a civil society segment and a
cross-community segment as outlined below.

*Agenda*
A rough agenda for the day is as follows:
TimeSession09:00-12:00Civil society awareness raising and coordination
session 112:00-13:00Lunch13:00-14:00Cross-community session 1: Setting the
scene for the WSIS process in 2015: what is at stake?14:00-15:00Cross-community
session 2: Sharing strategies and finding synergies15:00-15:30Break
15:30-17:30Civil society awareness raising and coordination session 2

A detailed agenda for the civil society sessions as well as info on
speakers for the cross-community sessions will be shared closer to the date.

*Logistics*
The event will be held on *Monday, March 2*, at the ICC headquarters in
Paris at *33 Avenue President Wilson
<https://www.google.com/maps/place/43+Avenue+du+Pr%C3%A9sident+Wilson/@48.8637172,2.2919371,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x47e66fe45e593d83:0x1c15e15e4905b267>,
75116 Paris*.

Please note that *only registered participants will be able to attend*, so
make sure to* RSVP by COB Friday, Feb 20*. Further, due to the limited room
capacity for on-site participation, places will be allocated on a first
come first served basis (in case necessary).

For the cross-community sessions (13:00-15:00), depending on the number of
RSVPs from other communities, places for this session might need to be
balanced out across stakeholder groups. Remote participation will be made
available for this segment of the event and details on how to join will
follow shortly.

*Financial support*
There is limited financial support available for participants from
developing countries which is being allocated on a first come first served
basis. At this stage, only applicants who do not require a visa (or are
able to obtain the visa through an expedited process) can be considered for
funding.

*Supporting organisations*
This event is being organised by a group of civil society organisations
including Global Partners Digital (GPD), Association for Progressive
Communications (APC), Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT),
International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA),
Internet Democracy Project, KICTANet, Centre for Communication Governance
at National Law University Delhi, and the Internet Rights and Principles
(IRP) Coalition – in collaboration with the Internet Society (ISOC) and the
International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) – who are co-organising the
cross-community sessions.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

*Lea Kaspar*

Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL

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

T: +44 (0)20 7549 033*7* | M: +44 (0)7583 929216 | Skype: l.kaspar

gp-digital.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150216/7ceac952/attachment.htm>

From Guru at ITforChange.net  Tue Feb 17 02:57:44 2015
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (Guru)
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 13:27:44 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] US gets frank on its vision for the
 Internet
In-Reply-To: <CAK-FJAfGtnANo6Y7pS4Nt6X2V8UJQws3gJ1JT18BtG8oLY4m9w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <54E06CA8.50102@itforchange.net> <CAK-FJAfGtnANo6Y7pS4Nt6X2V8UJQws3gJ1JT18BtG8oLY4m9w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54E2F478.4080008@ITforChange.net>

On Sunday 15 February 2015 11:50 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote:
> I do agree with you parminder. Burcu and I have been saying for a long 
> time - years - this community should pay more attention to trade. The 
> problem is where the rules are actually made and are biding (=trade 
> negotiations, such TPP and TTIP) there is no multistakhoderism and 
> even worts no transparency or means of real accountability.
> We are losing in TPP (which has provisions worst than Acta, and where 
> internet is impacted in at least 3 of the agreement chapters) and we 
> lost Wyden in the fight against fast track - so it is done there...
> TTIP is a tiny better since is begging and EU has been publishing its 
> position documents.
> But another interesting thing is that India, Brazil and Russia are not 
> part of this trade efforts ....
> US don't want the ITU to take over the Internet, but then US make 
> rules trough trade with countries that have less bargain power and 
> need access on commodities
> It is a joke
>

The ITU is a convenient bogey raised by USG (supported by US based 
transnationals and some 'civil society' members') to prevent other 
countries from having any role in IG democratisation. Accepting that ITU 
need not be the institution to 'take over the Internet' (bogey 
statement), the USG game needs to be firmly resisted.  And global CS 
needs to firmly be with such resistance (read WEF v/s WSF)

Guru

>
> On Sunday, February 15, 2015, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net 
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>     http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/rm/2015/237436.htm
>
>     How US sees trade rules being basically the rules for the
>     Internet, because the Internet is the 'new shipping lanes' for
>     global trade, and so on.
>
>     And of course, the rival model is China's and how, and see the
>     blunt shift here, it is bad for human rights and the open Internet.
>
>     Open trade and open Internet are basically one - and so you choose
>     the side you want to be on (So much for the Seattle protesters,
>     and the World Social Forum and 'Occupy' kinds, who stand against
>     unbridled 'open' trade!)
>
>     Also, since the US is on the right side, it is clear that it is
>     the US who will make the international trade rules, and thus, by
>     derivation, the Internet rules.
>
>     And when they call the Internet as the new shipping lanes, to many
>     of us the connection to colonialism comes through strongly, and
>     somewhat chillingly. But then the US now has the global 1 percent
>     across the world supporting new forms of hegemonies, of which the
>     WEF is a good symbol.
>
>     The US establishment's case is rather clear and precise. The rest
>     of the world, or people in general (including of the US), need to
>     state theirs.
>
>     parminder
>     ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
>     Remarks
>     Ambassador Daniel A. Sepulveda
>     Deputy Assistant Secretary and U.S. Coordinator for International
>     Communications and Information Policy, Bureau of Economic and
>     Business Affairs
>     U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Association of American Chambers of
>     Commerce in Latin America
>     Los Angeles, CA
>     February 11, 2015
>
>
>       Trade Promotion and the Fight to Preserve the Open Internet
>
>
>       * original <http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/rm/2015/237436.htm>
>
>     Three billion people are connected to the Internet today. And
>     trillions of devices are set to join them in the Internet of
>     Things. Together, the connectivity of people and machines is
>     enabling economic and social development around the world on a
>     revolutionary scale.
>
>     But it will take open markets, the cooperation of leaders around
>     the world, the participation of a vibrant and diverse range of
>     stakeholders, and strong trade agreements, with language
>     preserving the free flow of information, to protect the Internet’s
>     potential as the world’s engine for future growth, both at home
>     and abroad.
>
>     As the number of Internet users worldwide has ballooned from 2 to
>     3 billion, the increase in Internet use creates significant
>     economic potential. The Obama Administration is working to unlock
>     the promise of e-commerce, keep the Internet free and open,
>     promote competitive access for telecommunications suppliers, and
>     set digital trade rules-of-the-road by negotiating new trade
>     agreements. Trade Promotion Authority legislation and the pending
>     trade agreements we expect Congress to consider over the coming
>     months and years will provide that kind of protection. These
>     agreements aim to ensure that the free flow of information and
>     data are the default setting for nations. This will preserve the
>     architecture that has empowered the Internet and global
>     communications to fuel economic growth at home and abroad. It is
>     in our interest, across parties and ideology, to ensure we move
>     forward and approve TPA and the pending agreements for many
>     reasons, but promoting the preservation and growth of global
>     communications and the open Internet is one of the strongest.
>
>     Senator Ron Wyden, the ranking member on the Senate Finance
>     Committee, has made the argument well, stating, "America’s trade
>     negotiating objectives must reflect the fact that the Internet
>     represents /the shipping lane/ for 21st Century goods and
>     services… Trade in digital goods and services is growing and
>     driving economic growth and job creation all around the country.
>     U.S digital exports are beating imports by large margins, but
>     outdated trade rules threaten this growth by providing
>     opportunities for protectionist policies overseas. The U.S. has
>     the opportunity to establish new trade rules that preserve the
>     Internet as a platform to share ideas and for expanding commerce..."
>
>     Senator Wyden is absolutely correct. Our pending agreements with
>     nations in the Pacific community will establish rules for the
>     preservation of those virtual shipping lanes as enablers of the
>     transport of services and ideas, allowing startups and the voices
>     of everyday people to challenge incumbent power in markets and ideas.
>
>     If we are successful, the partnership of nations across the
>     Trans-Pacific Partnership and Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment
>     Partnership regions coming behind agreements to preserve the free
>     flow of information will serve as a powerful counterweight to
>     authoritarian governments around the globe that have demonstrated
>     a clear willingness to interfere with open markets and an open
>     Internet. And make no mistake about it, if we do not seize every
>     opportunity at our disposal to win commitments to an open, global
>     Internet, we risk letting others set the rules of the road.
>
>     Authoritarian regimes view the Internet’s openness as a
>     threatening and destabilizing influence. The Russian government,
>     just last month, pressured social media companies to block access
>     to pages used to organize peaceful political protests. In China,
>     authorities have blocked Gmail and Google’s search engine. In
>     addition to ongoing and systematic efforts to control content and
>     punish Chinese citizens who run afoul of political sensitivities,
>     such measures are an effort to further diminish the Chinese
>     people’s access to information, while effectively favoring Chinese
>     Internet companies by blocking other providers from accessing its
>     market. And we know they are urging others to take similar action.
>     These trade barriers harm commerce and slow economic growth, and
>     they produce socially oppressive policies that inhibit freedom.
>
>     The rules of the road for commerce, and Internet-enabled trade and
>     e-commerce, are up for grabs in Asia. We’re working harder than
>     ever to bring home trade agreements that will unlock opportunities
>     by eliminating barriers to U.S. exports, trade, and investment
>     while raising labor, environment, and other important standards
>     across the board. Right now, China and others are negotiating
>     their own trade agreements and seeking to influence the rules of
>     commerce in the region and beyond. These trade agreements fail to
>     meet the high standards that we strive for in our free trade
>     agreements, including protection for workers’ rights and the
>     environment. And they don’t protect intellectual property rights
>     or maintain a free and open Internet. This will put our workers
>     and our businesses at a disadvantage.
>
>     We know that both old and new American businesses, small and large
>     alike, are dependent on the global Internet as the enabler of
>     access to previously unreachable consumers. In the U.S. alone,
>     American Internet companies and their global community of users
>     contribute over $141 billion in annual revenue to the overall U.S.
>     GDP, simultaneously employing 6.6 million people. And the Internet
>     is not simply about the World Wide Web, it is the communications
>     platform for managing global supply chains, distributing services,
>     and acquiring the market information necessary to succeed anywhere.
>
>     Many countries no longer primarily produce products. Rather,
>     businesses produce product components and provide services, many
>     of which are delivered digitally. In order to remain competitive
>     globally and promote the capacity of businesses to innovate, the
>     United States and our partners in the Western Hemisphere must
>     build the Americas into a shared, digitally connected, integrated
>     platform for global success. By working with our trade partners in
>     Latin America and Asia to conclude the Trans-Pacific Partnership
>     we are advancing this vision and making it a reality. We will set
>     the standards with twenty-first century trade agreements.
>
>     We know that not everyone is convinced of the merits of open
>     markets. And to win their hearts and minds, we have to demonstrate
>     and communicate how these two values – open markets and the open
>     Internet - are interconnected. And we have to show that Trade
>     Promotion Authority and our agreements embrace the values that
>     underpin the Internet today.
>
>     As Ambassador Froman has said, “Trade, done right, is part of the
>     solution, not part of the problem.” And, because it is true, our
>     progressive friends should recognize that the fight for open
>     markets is the position most consistent with our progressive
>     tradition and values.
>
>     It was Woodrow Wilson who said, “The program of the world's peace,
>     therefore, is our program; and that program, the only possible
>     program, as we see it, is this” and he listed his fourteen points.
>     Among them was number three: “The removal, so far as possible, of
>     all economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of
>     trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and
>     associating themselves for its maintenance.”
>
>     It was Franklin Roosevelt who asked the New Deal Congress for the
>     first grant of trade negotiating authority.
>
>     In his remarks at the signing of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962,
>     it was JFK who said, “Increased economic activity resulting from
>     increased trade will provide more job opportunities for our
>     workers. Our industry, our agriculture, our mining will benefit
>     from increased export opportunities as other nations agree to
>     lower their tariffs. Increased exports and imports will benefit
>     our ports, steamship lines, and airlines as they handle an
>     increased amount of trade. Lowering of our tariffs will provide an
>     increased flow of goods for our American consumers. Our industries
>     will be stimulated by increased export opportunities and by freer
>     competition with the industries of other nations for an even
>     greater effort to develop an efficient, economic, and productive
>     system. The results can bring a dynamic new era of growth.”
>
>     And it is consistent with the sentiments of these giants in our
>     tradition, our progressive tradition, that President Obama most
>     recently stated, “Twenty-first century businesses, including small
>     businesses, need to sell more American products overseas. Today,
>     our businesses export more than ever, and exporters tend to pay
>     their workers higher wages. But as we speak, China wants to write
>     the rules for the world’s fastest-growing region. That would put
>     our workers and our businesses at a disadvantage. Why would we let
>     that happen? We should write those rules. We should level the
>     playing field. That’s why I’m asking both parties to give me trade
>     promotion authority to protect American workers, with strong new
>     trade deals from Asia to Europe that aren’t just free, but are
>     also fair. It’s the right thing to do.”
>
>     Friends, we have both a political and economic interest in
>     promoting open markets and an open Internet. Preservation of these
>     ideals is and should remain a bipartisan, and broadly held goal.
>     It is critical to our future and contained within the language we
>     are asking Congress to approve.
>
>
>
> -- 
> -- 
> /Carolina Rossini /
> /Vice President, International Policy/
> *Public Knowledge*
> _http://www.publicknowledge.org/_
> + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>       http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150217/857060a1/attachment.htm>

From jefsey at jefsey.com  Tue Feb 17 03:45:59 2015
From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin)
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 09:45:59 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] [governance] US gets frank on its vision for the
 Internet
In-Reply-To: <54E2F478.4080008@ITforChange.net>
References: <54E06CA8.50102@itforchange.net>
 <CAK-FJAfGtnANo6Y7pS4Nt6X2V8UJQws3gJ1JT18BtG8oLY4m9w@mail.gmail.com>
 <54E2F478.4080008@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <mailman.148.1642081891.12520.bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org>

At 08:57 17/02/2015, Guru wrote:
>>US don't want the ITU to take over the 
>>Internet, but then US make rules trough trade 
>>with countries that have less bargain power and need access on commoditiesÂ
>>It is a joke
>
>The ITU is a convenient bogey raised by USG 
>(supported by US based transnationals and some 
>'civil society' members') to prevent other 
>countries from having any role in IG 
>democratisation. Accepting that ITU need not be 
>the institution to 'take over the Internet' 
>(bogey statement), the USG game needs to be 
>firmly resisted.  And global CS needs to firmly 
>be with such resistance (read WEF v/s WSF)

I am afraid you are confusing the internet and 
the catenet. Keeping with the maritime metaphor, 
the catenet is the sea and the internet is the 
interactive shipping mostly used for 
distribution. Other kinds of more adequate 
specialized shippings are under development. This 
confusion between "smart hardware" we 
collectively own, and multiple networking 
software+operations add-ons (such as the 
internet) is the first source of confusion. The 
second main source of confusion is that we are 
neither interested in hardware nor software, but 
in brainware intercomprehension/knowledge.

There are three levels is the USG game :

- the correct metaphor of digital lanes.
- the whish to impose an advantageous rule for 
that game (multistakeholderism, v.s. omnistakeholderism)
- the regular national policy to develop a national interest strategy.

jfc



From jmalcolm at eff.org  Wed Feb 18 00:03:29 2015
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 21:03:29 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] 2013 Best Bits annual report
Message-ID: <54E41D21.5050008@eff.org>

Dear all,

Please find attached the 2013 annual report of the steering committee of
Best Bits, which was a collective effort and represents the continuation
of our ongoing efforts to operate transparently and accountably.

Any of the steering committee members (who are listed in the document)
will be happy to answer your questions.  Unless anyone notices any
errors that we need to correct, we will shortly also be uploading it to
the website as a permanent record.

Thanks to all for their participation in 2013.

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

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Best Bits 2014 steering committee report.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 137775 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150217/f4871139/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 244 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150217/f4871139/attachment.sig>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Feb 18 01:37:00 2015
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 12:07:00 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Monetising socialisation
Message-ID: <54E4330C.3000401@itforchange.net>

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/face-how-facebook-drove-us-away-dave-pilcher
(Also reproduced below this email)

It is bad, even if here it is monetising social connect between a 
business and a 'follower' group that 'it' has created. Smacks of public 
street pay-off rackets involving petty businesses that most police 
forces in developing countries live off.

It is unthinkable that when every small and big business segment with 
direct public interest implication - whether it be banks or cab services 
- is so highly regulated, Internet monopolies that have captured whole 
online utility sections, social networking being an important one, 
should be left completely unregulated. And they can at their will tweak 
their algorithms that involves shifting the very terms of online social 
discourse and interaction. Absolutely unthinkable!!

But to make the unthinkable possible, these business actors and their 
political backers - chiefly the US gov - has invested huge amount of 
resources, and cunning, including aimed at cultivating civil society in 
the global IG space. And it is a measure of their great success that 
these most important of global governance issues never reach the key 
global IG spaces!

In fact, my organisation, IT for Change, proposed a workshop on 
"Regulating global Internet businesses", for IGF 2013. It was rejected 
as irrelevant or not appropriate by the IGF's Multistakeholder Advisory 
Group. Which only shows how much the IGF and the MAG is captured, and 
has begun to act as a filter against, rather than a facilitator for, 
meaningful global IG discussions. Actually it is ready to act even more 
loyal than the king, given that the WEF 2015 had a workshop on a very 
similar topic, which was rejected as irrelevant/ inappropriate by the 
MAG of the IGF.

parminder


  About Face: How Facebook Drove Us Away

  * Feb. 15, 2015
  * 3 min read
  * original
    <https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/face-how-facebook-drove-us-away-dave-pilcher>


Two weeks ago we made the decision to delete our Facebook presence.

Unlike some companies that have left the social network in a huff, we 
aren't angry. We aren’t bitter or resentful. No angst.

We approached our decision from a business-like perspective, carefully 
analyzing the return on investment. The same way we do for other forms 
of marketing and advertising; you know, the way any company should 
evaluate the channels it uses. We saw it just wasn’t worth it.

Like many companies, we fell into the category of those who feel that 
time and money spent on Facebook is a waste. 
<http://www.freeportpress.com/dollars-spent-on-facebook-is-a-waste-for-most-brands-says-new-research/> 
It wasn’t that we didn’t like connecting with our fans and friends 
there; rather it was recent changes in Facebook’s promotional policies 
<http://newsroom.fb.com/news/2014/11/news-feed-fyi-reducing-overly-promotional-page-posts-in-news-feed/> 
that made the likelihood of our fans even seeing our posts slim to none.

We gave it a good three years. We paid FB to advertise our company’s 
page; we added our FB page link to every employee’s e-mail signature, 
noted the URL in our advertising, linked our page on every page of our 
website. . . and over those three years we built up 6,000+ followers. We 
posted regularly, often two posts per day, and were careful to avoid 
promotional content and ad pitches – our posts, like our blog, centered 
on industry news and insights that our followers could likely use in 
their own work.

As Facebook began to limit newsfeed exposure for brands 
<http://newsroom.fb.com/news/2014/11/news-feed-fyi-reducing-overly-promotional-page-posts-in-news-feed/> 
like ours, our daily posts might reach between 30 and 70 followers . . . 
out of 6,000+. Let’s call that around 1% on a good day. If we wanted to 
reach more folks (around 20%) that would cost us $5 for each “promoted” 
post.

So let’s say we paid $5 per post for 8 posts per week. That’s $2080 per 
year to reach the AUDIENCE THAT WE BUILT WITH OUR OWN CONTENT. And 
that’s only reaching around 1,200 people. Want to reach them all? You’re 
talking 4 times that or more.

Okay, so maybe we are a little miffed that Facebook has decided for us – 
and our followers – who we should be allowed to talk to each day. That’s 
the opposite of what socializing is all about. But that’s their business 
model, and we get to take it or leave it. We left it.

We don’t object to paying for promoted posts that reach NEW followers; 
nothing is free in this big old world and we get that every company has 
to make money. The magazine industry exists thanks to paid advertising, 
with brands seeking to engage via media. But organic reach – that 
carefully built engagement of followers that took so long to build – is 
now a thing of the past. You cultivated the relationship, but Facebook 
decides how often you get to connect with them. They have become the 
social chaperones of the digital age.

We join many other companies who have grown frustrated with Facebook 
<http://www.forbes.com/sites/work-in-progress/2013/04/22/should-you-leave-facebook-edgerank-confusion-promoted-posts-and-why-small-business-owners-are-exceedingly-frustrated/>, 
some leaving in rather spectacular flameouts like Eat24’s infamous exit 
<http://www.freeportpress.com/facebook-youre-not-yourself-when-youre-hungry/>. 
Facebook’s snarky reply 
<http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/facebook-exec-snarkily-confirms-brands-big-fear-their-content-isnt-important-156662> 
to made it clear that they couldn’t care less what businesses thought of 
their new algorithms, asserting that organic brand content was not 
something that their users want to see -- even when they’ve indicated 
that, yes, indeed, they do.

Will we be back? Never say never. As any marketing or media channel 
evolves, they’ll offer advertisers and marketers options that might or 
might not make sense. If it looks good, we’ll try it. If not, we do not 
feel compelled to be on Facebook because “everyone has to be,” which has 
been the breathless mantra repeated by tech-savvy digital marketers in 
the past few years.

In this age of data driven marketing, it should be up to the brand, not 
the platform, to decide who sees their messages. That is the crux of 
effective marketing.

Late last year Facebook announced some new targeting tools 
<http://media.fb.com/2014/12/10/new-tools-and-insights-for-publishers-2/> that 
should “allow publishers to serve content to specific subsets of people 
who like their pages, pull down time sensitive posts to avoid displaying 
outdated content and, optionally, allow Facebook to automatically post 
articles that are already popular on the social network,” according to 
Martin Beck in MarketingLand 
<http://www.freeportpress.com/is-facebook-trying-to-save-face-with-publishers/>. 
Those tools are only available (at this point) to the big media 
organizations with, we imagine, robust marketing budgets to match. It’s 
on them to decide if their investment is worth it, and if they want to 
let Facebook make these critical marketing decisions on their behalf.

Meanwhile, we will continue to engage with our followers and fans on 
Twitter <http://www.twitter.com/FreeportPress> and LinkedIn 
<https://twitter.com/freeportpress>, where our content is not filtered 
out and we aren’t charged to reach the audience that we’ve built. We 
share many of our posts on LinkedIn with specific groups based around 
industry interests, and often engage in some great discussions there. We 
will also reach many of you with our Weekly Newsletter 
<http://www.freeportpress.com/newsletter/> via Constant Contact.

/We look forward to seeing you there./ See ya ‘round, Mark.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150218/0dfb58b2/attachment.htm>

From ca at cafonso.ca  Wed Feb 18 04:35:50 2015
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 07:35:50 -0200
Subject: [bestbits] 2013 Best Bits annual report
In-Reply-To: <54E41D21.5050008@eff.org>
References: <54E41D21.5050008@eff.org>
Message-ID: <DAF8B309-25CF-416B-B46A-E4369A84CFF2@cafonso.ca>

2014, right?

sent from a dumbphone

> On 18/02/2015, at 03:03, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> Please find attached the 2013 annual report of the steering committee of
> Best Bits, which was a collective effort and represents the continuation
> of our ongoing efforts to operate transparently and accountably.
> 
> Any of the steering committee members (who are listed in the document)
> will be happy to answer your questions.  Unless anyone notices any
> errors that we need to correct, we will shortly also be uploading it to
> the website as a permanent record.
> 
> Thanks to all for their participation in 2013.
> 
> -- 
> 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
> 
> <Best Bits 2014 steering committee report.pdf>

From jmalcolm at eff.org  Wed Feb 18 12:54:28 2015
From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 09:54:28 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] 2013 Best Bits annual report
In-Reply-To: <DAF8B309-25CF-416B-B46A-E4369A84CFF2@cafonso.ca>
References: <54E41D21.5050008@eff.org> <DAF8B309-25CF-416B-B46A-E4369A84CFF2@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <54E4D1D4.8060104@eff.org>

On 18/02/2015 1:35 am, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
> 2014, right?

Sorry—this teaches me not to send email when I'm tired. :-)

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

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

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

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


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 244 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150218/7030ee97/attachment.sig>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Wed Feb 18 13:24:56 2015
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 13:24:56 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [noc-announce] Governance of Online Intermediaries:
 New Study by the Global Network of Internet and Society Centers
In-Reply-To: <CAJcqmO6Xa5=bzABmmfDBMx7kRuUo61z6hsfzCwHCGDQrFeFh8A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJcqmO6Xa5=bzABmmfDBMx7kRuUo61z6hsfzCwHCGDQrFeFh8A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAepyDkQHAXymcJiLOd358U_xW0Sqifk4qYhaF7phU05YA@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Giuseppe Futia <giuseppe.futia at polito.it>
Date: Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 12:22 PM
Subject: [noc-announce] Governance of Online Intermediaries: New Study by
the Global Network of Internet and Society Centers
To: noc-announce at lists.networkofcenters.net





*Governance of Online Intermediaries: *
*New Study by the Global Network of Internet and Society Centers*
February 2015

The Global Network of Internet and Society Research Centers
<http://networkofcenters.net/> (NoC) and the Berkman Center for Internet &
Society <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/> at Harvard University are pleased
to announce the release of a new report
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2566364>, which
examines the rapidly changing landscape of online intermediary liability at
the intersection of law, technology, norms, and markets, and is aimed at
informing and improving Internet policy-making globally.

This report is a first output of a larger initiative on the governance of
online intermediaries and consists of a case study series
<https://publixphere.net/i/noc/page/Online_Intermediaries_Research_Project_Case_Studies>
exploring
online intermediary liability frameworks and issues in Brazil, the European
Union, India, South Korea, the United States, Thailand, Turkey, and
Vietnam, and a synthesis paper
<https://publixphere.net/i/noc/page/NoC_Online_Intermediaries_Research_Project_Synthesis>
that
seeks to distill key observations and provide a high-level analysis of some
of the structural elements that characterize varying governance frameworks,
with a focus on intermediary liability regimes and their evolution. In
particular the synthesis highlights the importance of cultural and
political context, as reflected in both the legal norms aimed at regulating
intermediaries and the perception of intermediaries’ social function within
the countries studied.

The research effort is grounded in a diversity of global perspectives and
collaborative research techniques, committed to objective and independent
academic standards, and aspires to be useful, actionable, and timely for
policymakers and stakeholders. More broadly, the Network of Centers seeks
to contribute to a more generalized vision and longer-term strategy
regarding the role of academic research, facilitation and convening, and
education and communication in the Internet age.
The full text of the case studies
<https://publixphere.net/i/noc/page/Online_Intermediaries_Research_Project_Case_Studies>
and
the synthesis paper
<https://publixphere.net/i/noc/page/NoC_Online_Intermediaries_Research_Project_Synthesis>
are
available on the Publixphere website, where the authors welcome comments
and feedback. The series and individual papers are also available for
download from SSRN
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2566364>.

--

*About the Global Network of Internet and Society Research Centers*
The Global Network of Internet and Society Research Centers (NoC) was
launched by a group of academic centers in 2012 in recognition of the lack
of internationally coordinated research and engagement activities in issues
concerning the Internet and related technologies. The NoC is a
collaborative initiative among academic institutions with a focus on
interdisciplinary research on the development, social impact, policy
implications, and legal issues concerning the Internet. This collective
aims to increase interoperability between participating centers in order to
stimulate the creation of new cross-national, cross-disciplinary
conversation, debate, teaching, learning, and engagement regarding the most
pressing questions around new technologies, social change, and related
policy and regulatory developments. More information can be found at
http://networkofcenters.net/get-involved.


-- 
-------------------------------------------------
Giuseppe Futia
Communication Manager

Nexa Center for Internet & Society
Politecnico di Torino - DAUIN
Corso Duca degli Abruzzi, 24 - 10129 Torino

web: http://nexa.polito.it
mail: giuseppe.futia at polito.it
tel.  +39 011 090 7219

_______________________________________________
noc-announce mailing list
noc-announce at lists.networkofcenters.net
https://lists.networkofcenters.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/noc-announce




-- 
-- 
*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/20150218/9b22913a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 121964 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150218/9b22913a/attachment.png>

From renata.avila at webfoundation.org  Mon Feb  2 13:17:08 2015
From: renata.avila at webfoundation.org (Renata Avila)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 19:17:08 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] [GCCS2015] Call for Civil Society Expressions of
 Interest
In-Reply-To: <CAJTVAjxiXC8y+QCbM71O4P6=4j-ChRs4t5ooBoG-FrGQ4v=2BQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJTVAjyK=VaSJXCz961Hq6wAAhw+ppVnaH6J6ntWTgh=0Ax=Mg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJTVAjxuPLPHPYEF3CuDJVgj0TKaQ8zQBNJzLMQdyUTGz9jqnQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <54CFBD87.1000608@digitaldissidents.org> <CAJTVAjxiXC8y+QCbM71O4P6=4j-ChRs4t5ooBoG-FrGQ4v=2BQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOa=Yc0gLbepZXac7jAWvbxKqFP0yvdHEaisPS8=Zh_F-LnTrw@mail.gmail.com>

It works for me. Already tweeted in English and Spanish from Web We Want
account. Maybe blocked.org?

On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 7:12 PM, Lea Kaspar <lea at gp-digital.org> wrote:

> Hi Niels, thanks for the heads up! We've just written to the organisers to
> check why it's down. Hopefully they manage to get it back online soon.
>
> Best,
> Lea
>
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 6:10 PM, Niels ten Oever <
> lists at digitaldissidents.org> wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Hi Lea,
>>
>> Was about to tweet this, but the form on the website does not seem to
>> be working, or is it just a glitch?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Niels
>>
>> On 02/02/2015 05:50 PM, Lea Kaspar wrote:
>> > Dear all,
>> >
>> > In case of interest - the deadline for civil society expressions
>> > of interest to participate in the upcoming Global Conference on
>> > Cyberspace has been extended *_until Wednesday, Feb 4_*.
>> >
>> > Funding for civil society from developing countries available.
>> > Details below.
>> >
>> > Best, Lea
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Lea Kaspar <lea at gp-digital.org
>> > <mailto:lea at gp-digital.org>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Dear Friends,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > [Apologies for possible duplications]
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > We would like to bring to your attention the civil society call
>> > for expressions of interest to participate in the Global Conference
>> > on Cyberspace 2015
>> > <https://www.gccs2015.com/gccs/all-about-gccs2015> (GCCS 2015) and
>> > a civil society pre-event, hosted by the government of the Kingdom
>> > of the Netherlands, and taking place in The Hague on 16 and 17
>> > April 2015.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Following on from the London (2011), Budapest (2012), and Seoul
>> > (2013) Conferences, the 2015 event in The Hague will provide an
>> > opportunity for strategic level discussion of key cyberspace
>> > issues. The Conference aims to examine core issues
>> > <https://www.gccs2015.com/gccs/all-about-gccs2015> related to the
>> > cyber domain, structured around the three main themes of Freedom
>> > <https://www.gccs2015.com/themes/freedom>, Security
>> > <https://www.gccs2015.com/themes/security-0> and Growth
>> > <https://www.gccs2015.com/themes/growth>. Focus will be placed on
>> > exchange of knowledge and ideas on these issues and the
>> > development of concrete solutions. The Conference will encourage
>> > multi-stakeholder participation from the worlds of business,
>> > academia as well as civil society.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > A day and a half civil society pre-event will take place in the
>> > run-up to the Conference (14-15 April) to facilitate civil society
>> > coordination and input into the main Conference. An in-depth
>> > training on cyber security issues will be offered as part of this
>> > pre-event. In addition, an online training curriculum will be made
>> > available to the wider public. The Conference organisers are
>> > interested in a balanced and diverse participation and in
>> > supporting those who will find a practical use for the training and
>> > attendance offered.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > The Expression of Interest Form, in addition to logging interest
>> > in attending the Conference and the civil society pre-event, will
>> > also serve as a platform to capture requests for financial
>> > support. Limited financial support is available for a number of
>> > civil society participants.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > In order to be considered as a Conference/pre-event participant
>> > and/or a candidate for financial support, please fill in the
>> > Expression of Interest Form via the following link by *January 30*:
>> > _https://www.gccs2015.com/civil-society-participation-form_
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Expressions of interest and requests for funding received will be
>> > evaluated by an ad hoc Advisory Board
>> > <
>> https://www.gccs2015.com/sites/default/files/attachments/AdvisoryBoardProfiles.pdf
>> >
>> > set up to assist the organizers of the Conference in selecting
>> > civil society participants to receive funding and to attend the
>> > GCCS2015 and the civil society pre-event, to help ensure that the
>> > Conference is as inclusive and representative as possible.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Criteria for financial support are designed to ensure a diverse
>> > spread of applicants is achieved, focussing on global south
>> > applicants and aimed at securing a balance of gender, regional
>> > diversity and level of experience in cyber security issues.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Please feel free to share this information with your networks.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Best wishes,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On behalf of:
>> >
>> > Andrew Puddephatt, Evelien Wijkstra, Tim Maurer
>> >
>> > Advisory Board Co-chairs
>> >
>> > * *
>> >
>> > *---*
>> >
>> > * *
>> >
>> > *Lea Kaspar*
>> >
>> > Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
>> >
>> > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>> >
>> > T: +44 (0)20 7549 033_7_ | M: +44 (0)7583 929216
>> > <tel:%2B44%20%280%297583%20929216> | Skype: l.kaspar
>> >
>> > 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
>> >
>>
>> - --
>> Niels ten Oever
>> Head of Digital
>>
>> Article 19
>> www.article19.org
>>
>> PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
>>                    678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
>>
>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUz72HAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjp6wQH/3kAa7gSZpL9ZILI6kHekwLA
>> XxO5e5YdL9v4JQrsbOV/8zEbqf3MhDLamYpRm+BNWBgTf1DaP63QMBLB+O5tKqQt
>> Abx972UVxBmqZW3xTgb4gJigyaQmUM9QpHG5l0uoTXzgI5mMVQo1yw4OnyAxyCEb
>> dYA2verxH9D+lSZwu5uKk5LqPBn/z0w72JvALPMEmHHf+6X/No7g1zbrm6LtnNqu
>> bXDzMv1yYiCSymXOX3KWzkUSCREj7Q6hj563XEBhrXor6q9vi3BseWKVp1GOD/2C
>> n2Q/cc5c0WtB9f2FUsbpaosXiIr38nSDju/0YvyvWES+oqNpyWk9Gk2XSQbqIEs=
>> =O2sT
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as 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/20150202/e0bc7cae/attachment.htm>

From amalia at deloney.net  Fri Feb 20 12:19:28 2015
From: amalia at deloney.net (amalia deloney)
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 12:19:28 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Call for proposals: Examining the Consequences of
 Algorithmic Decision Making for Open Societies
Message-ID: <C5D06583-863C-4D65-83FA-3A5BE1879DD4@deloney.net>

Examining the Consequences of Algorithmic Decision Making for Open Societies


Media Democracy Fund, Ford Foundation and Open Society Foundations are pleased to announce an inceptive study of Big Data and the practices around large scale data collection, analysis and use: “Quantified Society: Examining the Consequences of Algorithmic Decision Making for Open Societies”. <http://mediademocracyfund.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=7c408a3f033e02fb502950f34&id=75fd7576c1&e=95c4384242>

This international Call for Proposals invites submissions from researchers, academicians, journalists, human rights defenders, civil society organizations, and professionals. Successful proposals will help synthesize an understanding of how technologies and policies around Big Data collection, analysis and use are driving changes in innovation, human rights, and relevant regulations.

We have followed your work in the field of human rights and technology with great interest and believe you can further the debate and clarify concerns and opportunities around Big Data.

We are pleased to invite a proposal from you and encourage you to circulate this Call for Proposals to others in your network who may be interested. The details of this Call for Proposals, including application instructions and timeline, may be downloaded here <http://mediademocracyfund.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=7c408a3f033e02fb502950f34&id=52018479fc&e=95c4384242>. Concept notes must be received by 27 March 2015. Full proposals from semi-finalists will be due 22 May 2015. Research awards will range from $10,000-25,000.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150220/5c8a698b/attachment.htm>

From shahzad at bytesforall.pk  Mon Feb 23 05:28:44 2015
From: shahzad at bytesforall.pk (Shahzad Ahmad)
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 15:28:44 +0500
Subject: [bestbits] Pakistan Cyberspace Conference 2015
Message-ID: <54EB00DC.2080100@bytesforall.pk>


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Dear Colleagues,

Bytes for All (B4A), Pakistan is a human rights organization and a
research think tank with a focus on Information and Communication
Technologies (ICTs). It experiments with and organizes debate on the
relevance of ICTs for sustainable development and strengthening human
rights movement in the country. Its strategic plan delivers in four key
result areas. More information is accessible at www.bytesforall.pk.

This is just to share the information about Pakistan Cyberspace
Conference to be held on 26 - 27 February, 2015 at Marriott Hotel,
Islamabad, Pakistan.

In April 2015, the Netherlands will host the fourth Global Cyberspace
Conference, where government ministers, industry leaders and civil
society organizations from around the world will converge to discuss
issues related to cyberspace governance, cyber security and freedom on
the Internet. In preparation for the Global Cyberspace Conference in the
Netherlands, Bytes For All is organizing a national cyberspace
conference to raise awareness about the importance of issues related to
cyberspace governance among Pakistani parliamentarians, government
officials, business leaders, civil society, media and the general public.

Several national and international experts on Internet rights,
governance and policy will be joining us at this event. Foreign experts
include globally renowned Professor Ronald Deibert (Citizen Lab,
University of Toronto), Dr. Ben Wagner (University of Viadrina), Mr.
Byoung-il (Jinbonet, South Korea) and Ms. Sahar Habib Ghazi (Managing
Editor, Global Voices). Pakistani parliamentarians include Senator
Mushahid Hussain Sayed, Dr. Arif Alvi and Ms. Maiza Hameed.

More information about the event is accessible at www.cyberspace.pk.

If you know of people, who will have interest and can join us, please
forward this invitation to them. While the event is open but
registration is requested for logistical reasons. Registration is at
https://www.cyberspace.pk/registration.html


Yours sincerely


Shahzad

- -- 
Shahzad Ahmad
Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan
IM: shahzad at jit.si | Google Talk: bytesforall
Twitter: @bytesforall | @sirkup
Office Direct Landline: +92 51 8437981

PGP Fingerprint: 1004 8FDD 7E64 A127 B880 7A67 2D37 5ABF 4871 D92F
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJU6wDcAAoJEKVOI9utV3a+S7wP/2rFnB+2TKMK2MI8tYC0BOsQ
taibzShIkIWzpbYHGSshvoJxET1B9KOOz0HRLg40r0TJP2I8P4hE4QAJirvvKLkx
WH2/BQZDViaySOWqUbniPiOesqq4gVXpu1VKCriGlycswJwooCFafu/kGqfp7ayo
Ih//m7MnzBDCnFYvGCHrFcdaKSgYC/FJ1efePXx1UOYfIUKgrLikS8iBXTmMgw1X
skK0jaWqigjGmzk/F2fvEslclXFpz80f70kC2Vcav+jchccOIIaJaLTDwsx1GXo1
T9ZQ2fLz5aKS1GvkXK07U8b4UV3URIkFyqGjgiQzjdfNj7r75JMs5Y7WJ3COSDJy
z07MstiB5RCeUvXxGa9u24gyE3UgQF57H77syowjRYQaEQQY7fh9+Y3v3wDe5Uor
qaHFhEeL5JrDiaRf9J9BCwOWbRzAF/KEH5fuIgRhGe9lRYTf9mBzqKJDkWdXvd2e
lA4TLErrgYhczetpIhHxngCNAJIFYP/scXsZBD1ZHu+oYA8HdIP6VrqV+bc0tJag
6FdLn4wFIBfNrJYyHSQsryETVIgQWMJ54t+vZLMwJLmIEGYKz9LS5RtpF8yn6g3K
IlcDRK0GkTcjvn0f2oc3tXrJY3AyYUkFxPO9hJ173d3eyOeV/zjsdSGHw39CJAiR
HbhxLpNAsejDBFap3tGK
=480W
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Mon Feb 23 12:24:31 2015
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 12:24:31 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] CALL FOR PARTICIPANTS FOR SPANISH-LANGUAGE ONLINE COURSE
 ON OPEN INTERNET
Message-ID: <CAK-FJActU58LxM2kuqDLU1n8Zy0tZH0aLpvWuXv-DuiUO+SuAw@mail.gmail.com>

(English followed by Spanish)

Dear colleagues,

I hope this email finds you well.

I am writing to you as part of the International Policy team at the
Washington-based digital rights group, Public Knowledge, to alert you to a
free and open Spanish-language online course called "Open Internet”
<http://open-internet-p2pcourse.org/> (Internet Abierto Y Libre) that we
are launching early March 2015. This course may be of interest to you, your
students, or grantees as an opportunity to build a deeper understanding of
the intersection of human rights and the Internet, and we'd love if you
could share this information throughout your networks. The call for
participants is open from today, February 23rd to March 6th, as you can see
in the call for applicants:
https://www.publicknowledge.org/call-for-students-for-online-course/. It
would be greatly appreciated if you could send this alert to interested
partners,  including young professionals, human rights advocates, your
grantees, lawyers, and others that might benefit from a course like this.

The course is made up of 12 modules. The first six weeks of the twelve week
course will focus on building basic advocacy skills, such as strategic
planning, while the second half of the course will give an introduction to
the most current issues related to Open Internet. Each module will take
approximately 2-5 hours of study time (week 1 starts with Module 0),
including reading and completing assignments:

Module 0: Introduction to the Open Internet

Module 1: The “What” and “Why” of Advocacy

Module 2: “Who” of Advocacy

Module 3: “When” and “Where” of Advocacy

Module 4: “How”: Tactics and Tools for Successful Campaigns

Module 5: Definitions of Internet Governance

Module 6: Human Rights and the Internet

Module 7: Access to Internet

Module 8: Net Neutrality

Module 9: The Right to Privacy

Module 10: Impact of Trade Agreements on Open Internet

Module 11: Cybersecurity (TBD)

Through a series of interactive materials, thought-provoking activities,
expert video interviews, and an instructor-facilitated online discussion
board, this course will train a new generation of thinkers and actors to
advocate for positive Open Internet policies. Right now, this course is
only available in Spanish, but the English version will be up in the future.

For a quick overview of the course, please see our website:
https://www.publicknowledge.org/open-internet-course and our our blog post
in Spanish and English:
https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/training-the-next-generation-of-digital-rights-advocates.
We are hosting this course on the Peer 2 Peer University
<http://schoolofopen.p2pu.org/> platforms, a platform that allows for
innovative course design and mediated and non-mediated classes. Here is the
link to our course page: http://open-internet-p2pcourse.org/. Some sections
are still under development but will be ready before the launch.

If you have any questions or need further information, we would be happy to
schedule a call with you or answer your questions by email.

Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to any future
collaboration.

Best,


Carolina


CALL FOR PARTICIPANTS FOR SPANISH-LANGUAGE ONLINE COURSE ON OPEN INTERNET


https://www.publicknowledge.org/call-for-students-for-online-course/

The International team at Public Knowledge, in collaboration with Peer 2
Peer University (P2PU) <https://p2pu.org/en/>, is launching a free and open
Spanish-language online course <http://open-internet-p2pcourse.org/> called
“Open Internet,” and is calling for participants. The course will consist
of 12 weekly modules with readings, assignments, facilitated online
discussion and multimedia videos, primarily in Spanish (some videos and
readings are only available in English, but non-English speakers can work
without them).

The course is targeted towards new activists, advocates, young
professionals, young policy makers, and others who are interested in
learning the basics of topics related to the intersection of advocacy and
Internet-related issues. Topics to be covered in the course include
strategic planning, developing SMART goals, Internet governance, human
rights online, net neutrality, and the impact of trade agreements on open
Internet. The primary goal of the course is to help train a new generation
of advocates to work on creating and maintaining an open Internet for all.

The online course will begin on March 15, 2015 and the course will run 12
weeks. The class requires approximately 2 to 5 hours per week for
instructor-led learning (thus, 2 to 5 hours per module for self-facilitated
learning).

This unique program gives current and future Internet advocates a solid
foundation in skills and techniques necessary to engage effectively in
international and regional advocacy efforts and global policy processes and
debates around the Open Internet.

Application and Deadline

To apply to participate in the instructor-facilitated course, please fill
in the application
<https://www.publicknowledge.org/call-for-students-for-online-course/>
between Monday, February 23 and Friday, March 6, 2015. The course
organizers will select 20 participants for the first moderated interaction
of the course. The successful applicants will be notified of their
selection with instructions on how to use the P2PU platform and engage with
the course one week prior to the start of class. If you have any questions,
email opencourse at publicknowledge.org.

What do I do if I am not selected or cannot take the course at this point?

While only those in the facilitated course can participate in real-time
interaction with the instructor and certain group activities, we have
developed the Open Internet course in a way that you can take it without a
course moderator and at your own pace. Feel free to invite colleagues and
friends, and organize your own peer learning experience.

Learn more about the course:
https://www.publicknowledge.org/open-internet-course

Course page: http://open-internet-p2pcourse.org/




========== SPANISH ==========




Estimados colegas,


Espero que se encuentren bien.


En nombre del equipo de Política Internacional de Public Knowledge
–organización con sede en Washington D.C que aboga por los derechos
digitales – me dirijo a usted, para comunicarle sobre nuestro próximo curso
a lanzar a principios de marzo, denominado “Internet Libre y Abierto”, el
cual es libre y gratuito, totalmente en español y diseñado para ser tomado
en línea. Este curso puede ser de su interés o puede interesarle a sus
beneficiarios como una oportunidad para construir un entendimiento más
profundo sobre la intersección entre Derechos Humanos e Internet, en este
sentido, nos encantaría si usted pudiera compartir esta información a
través de sus redes de contactos. La convocatoria a los participantes esta
abierta a partir de hoy 23 de febrero hasta el 6 de marzo, como puede
observar en la convocatoria a los participantes (véase  en:
https://www.publicknowledge.org/call-for-students-for-online-course/).
Apreciaríamos
muchísimo si usted podría enviar este comunicado (incluyendo la
convocatoria a los participantes) a todos sus aliados y colegas, incluyendo
jóvenes profesionales, defensores de derechos humanos, sus beneficiarios,
abogados y cualquier otra persona que usted considere que se podría
beneficiar de tomar un curso de esta naturaleza.


El curso consiste en 12 módulos. Las primeras seis semanas del curso buscan
que el estudiante construya habilidades básicas de promoción y defensa,
como por ejemplo que el estudiante sea capaz de ejecutar planeación
estratégica, mientras que la segunda mitad del curso brindará un panorama
completo de los temas y problemáticas actuales para un Internet Libre y
Abierto. Cada módulo requiere aproximadamente de 2 a 5 horas de estudio (la
semana 1 inicia con el Módulo 0), incluyendo la realización lecturas y
tareas. A continuación una lista con los temas a tratar en cada módulo:


Módulo 0: Introducción al concepto de Internet Abierto

Módulo 1: Los “qué” y “por qué” de la defesa y promoción de un Internet
Libre y Abierto

Módulo 2: Los “quiénes” de la promoción y defensa

Módulo 3: El “cuándo” y el “dónde” de la promoción y defensa

Módulo 4: “Cómo”: Tácticas y herramientas para campañas exitosas

Módulo 5: Conceptos básicos sobre gobernanza de Internet

Módulo 6: Derechos humanos e Internet

Módulo 7: Acceso a Internet

Módulo 8: Neutralidad de la red

Módulo 9: El derecho a la privacidad en línea

Módulo 10: Impacto de los acuerdos de libre comercio en el Internet Libre y
Abierto

Módulo 11: Ciberseguridad


A través de una serie de materiales interactivos, actividades que promueven
la reflexión y el pensamiento crítico y la discusión en línea en foros
dirigidos por un instructor, este curso entrenará una nueva generación de
pensadores y actores para el diseño e implementación de política públicas
que promuevan un Internet Libre y Abierto. Por el momento, este curso solo
se encuentra disponible en español, pero una versión del mismo en inglés
estará disponible próximamente.


Si desea consultar más sobre esta invitación, por favor visite nuestra
página web: https://www.publicknowledge.org/open-internet-course, y para la
entrada de blog en español y en inglés por favor remítase al siguiente
link:
https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/training-the-next-generation-of-digital-rights-advocates.
Este curso lo hemos desarrollado en la plataforma de Peer 2 Peer University
<http://schoolofopen.p2pu.org/>, la cual permite diseñar cursos de manera
innovadora para clases moderadas por un instructor o no moderadas. Por
favor encuentre acá el link para la página del curso:
http://open-internet-p2pcourse.org/. Le rogamos tener en cuenta que algunas
secciones están por desarrollarse pero estarán listas antes del lanzamiento
del curso.


En caso de que tenga alguna duda o pregunta, estaremos disponibles para
resolverla a través de correo electrónico o una llamada telefónica, si así
usted lo prefiere.


De antemano agradecemos su atención y colaboración.


Saludos cordiales,

Carolina









INVITACIÓN PARA PATIRCIPAR EN EL CURSO EN LÍNEA ¨INTERNET LIBRE Y ABIERTO¨
PARA HISPANOHABLANTES

https://www.publicknowledge.org/call-for-students-for-online-course/

El Equipo Internacional de Public Knowledge (PK), en colaboración con Peer
2 Peer University (P2PU) <https://p2pu.org/en/>,  tienen el gusto de lanzar
el curso gratuito, abierto y en español “Internet Libre y Abierto
<http://open-internet-p2pcourse.org/>”, el cual se desarrollará enteramente
en línea. PK y P2PU convocan a todos los interesados mediante esta
invitación. Esta convocatoria estará abierta del 23 de febrero hasta el 6
de marzo.

El curso consiste en doce módulos, uno por semana, y cada módulo incluye
lecturas, tareas, videos multimedia, y debates facilitados por un tutor. El
contenido didáctico está principalmente en español y aunque existen
contenidos en inglés, los estudiantes pueden prescindir de estos sin que
afecte el desarrollo del curso.

El objetivo principal de este curso es comenzar a formar una nueva
generación de defensores y activistas para que trabajen en crear y mantener
un Internet Libre y Abierto. Por eso, el curso está dirigido a activistas
emergentes, abogados, jóvenes profesionales, jóvenes  del sector público y
otras personas que estén interesadas en aprender los fundamentos de los
temas relacionados con la intersección entre la promoción y la defensa de
los derechos humanos e Internet. Los temas que se desarrollarán en el curso
incluyen la planeación estratégica, el desarrollo de objetivos con el uso
de la metodología SMART, gobernanza de Internet, derechos digitales,
neutralidad de la red y el impacto de acuerdos de libre comercio en el
Internet Libre y Abierto, entre otros.

El curso en línea comenzará el próximo 15 de marzo del 2015, y durará 12
semanas. La clase exige aproximadamente de 2 a 5 horas por semana para el
aprendizaje liderado por un facilitador experto.

Este programa, único en su especie, brinda a los defensores del Internet -
actuales y futuros - una base sólida en habilidades y técnicas necesarias
para trabajar eficazmente como activistas en el ámbito internacional y/o
regional, y los ayudará a participar en los procesos globales y regionales
de debate y políticas para un Internet Libre y Abierto.

Aplicación y  fecha límite

Para postularse y ser elegido como participante en el curso liderado por un
instructor, por favor diligencie la aplicación
<https://www.publicknowledge.org/call-for-students-for-online-course/> a
más tardar el 6 de marzo de 2015. Los organizadores del curso seleccionarán
20 participantes para la primera versión moderada de este. Los candidatos
elegidos serán notificados de su selección como participantes y recibirán
las instrucciones sobre cómo utilizar la plataforma P2PU y cómo
involucrarse con el curso una semana antes de comenzar las clases. En caso
de cualquier duda por favor contáctenos al opencourse at publicknowledge.org.

Utilice este formulario electrónico
<https://www.publicknowledge.org/call-for-students-for-online-course/> para
aplicar para la primera clase del curso.

¿Qué puedo hacer en caso de no ser seleccionado?

Esta invitación es para la primera versión del curso moderada por un tutor,
 pero dependiendo de su habilidad e interés, usted  podrá tomar el curso a
su propio ritmo como curso auto-dirigido. Aunque usted esta más que
bienvenido en tomar el curso de manera individual, recuerde que uno de los
beneficios de tomar  la primera versión de la clase dirigida por un tutor
es que tendrá la valiosa oportunidad de interactuar de primera mano con
expertos en este campo alrededor del mundo, además le servirá para comenzar
a construir su base de contactos y una nueva red de colegas. Es por eso que
lo incentivamos a llamar a  sus  colegas y a tomar el curso con sus pares.
Para este caso, siga las instrucciones de los cursos auto-dirigidos de P2P
University, como por ejemplo, abra su propia sala de discusión. El tutor -
en la  medida de lo posible - responderá sus dudas  a través del siguiente
correo  opencourse at publicknowledge.org.

Puede aprender más de este curso en:


https://www.publicknowledge.org/open-internet-course y en la página
principal del curso en http://open-internet-p2pcourse.org/.





-- 
*Carolina Rossini *
*Vice President, International Policy*
*Public Knowledge*
*http://www.publicknowledge.org/ <http://www.publicknowledge.org/>*
+ 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150223/f0e4014f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CallforStudentsEnglish.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 52361 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150223/f0e4014f/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CallforStudentsSpanish.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 75267 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150223/f0e4014f/attachment-0001.pdf>

From joly at punkcast.com  Mon Feb 23 17:00:03 2015
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 17:00:03 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] WEBCAST 6pm TODAY: Overhead and Online: Technological
 Change and Gaps in Global Governance
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk3e-sc8QieAHBTqNZ4BVBQ-LHKA-KZTud9rWSpuiYR+PA@mail.gmail.com>

Another great IG session from the IIEP. Starts 6pm today, archive will be
available after.  Esther Brimmer has been described as "Foggy Bottom’s
maven of International Organization Affairs"
<http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/06/07/esther-brimmer-exits-state-department-for-ivory-tower/>,
for
more see her Wikipedia entry <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esther_Brimmer>


 joly posted: "Today, Monday 23 February 2015 the Institute of
International Economic Policy (IIEP) present Overhead and Online:
Technological Change and Gaps in Global Governance. Esther Brimmer, former
assistant secretary for international organization affairs at the "

[image: Webcast]
<https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/overheadandonline>Today,*
Monday 23 February 2015* the *Institute of International Economic Policy
<http://www.gwu.edu/~iiep/> *(IIEP) present *Overhead and Online:
Technological Change and Gaps in Global Governance
<http://elliott.gwu.edu/events-calendar?trumbaEmbed=view%3Devent%26eventid%3D113773489>*.
*Esther Brimmer*, former assistant secretary for international organization
affairs at the U.S. Department of State, will discuss ways in which new
technologies interact with global governance. Innovation and technological
change are hallmarks of modern life. Aviation and telecommunications enable
people and ideas to cross borders rapidly. Over the course of the last
century, governments and other stakeholders developed procedures to manage
the flow of these international contacts. Now innovations in aviation and
in the reach of the Internet expose gaps in two very different
long-standing international arrangements. This year policymakers and
shapers will make important choices in these areas. In the *2015 Shapiro
Lecture*, Professor Brimmer will highlight ways in which new technologies
stretch two global governance regimes and suggest steps to bridge the gaps.
The event will be webcast live on the *Internet Society Livestream
<https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/overheadandonline>* channel.





*What: Overhead and Online: Technological Change and Gaps in Global
Governance
<http://elliott.gwu.edu/events-calendar?trumbaEmbed=view%3Devent%26eventid%3D113773489>
Where: Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington
University, Washington DC When: Monday 23 February 2015 6pm-7:30pm EST |
23:00-00:30 UTC Webcast:
https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/overheadandonline
<https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/overheadandonline> Twitter:
@iiepgw <https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&q=iiepgw&src=typd>*


Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7566#respond>   See all comments
<http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7566#comments>




*​Permalink*

http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7566




-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150223/837cc7f0/attachment.htm>

From mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Tue Feb 24 09:23:38 2015
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 11:23:38 -0300
Subject: [bestbits] Your views: Public consultation on NETmundial initiative
 ToR - deadline 27/02
Message-ID: <CACpVkK1TGbf0TaSek-11Fv6sAN8OwqzV1FmpmbKRoHGV85-ZXw@mail.gmail.com>

Hello all,


Sorry for any duplication of this message.



I would like to invite you to participate in the public consultation that
aims to gather the views from all stakeholders about the shaping and the
future of the NETmundial Initiative. The multistakeholder Inaugural
Coordination Council (in which I serve as one of the members, together with
others on this list) will develop the Terms of Reference for the NMI based
on these contributions, inspired by the bottom-up consultation process of
NETmundial. Your inputs really count!


<https://www.netmundial.org/community-consultation-terms-reference>



The deadline is Friday, *February 27* and it will take about 5-10 minutes.
The official call follows below.



Thanks so much in advance for your time.



Best wishes!

Marília





As announced in late December 2014, the NETmundial Initiative's first order
of business in 2015 is to develop its Terms of Reference through an
inclusive, bottom-up, and consultative process, open to the global
community <
https://www.netmundial.org/blog/secretariat/netmundial-initiative-announces-formation-its-inaugural-coordination-council-and
<https://www.netmundial.org/blog/secretariat/netmundial-initiative-announces-formation-its-inaugural-coordination-council-and%3E>>


Important headway has been made in getting the process under way.



On 12 January 2015, the Initiative’s Secretariat issued a call to the
23-member Inaugural Coordination Council, asking for volunteers to form a
subgroup that would coordinate all activities related to this effort. The
call was answered with strong interest, with the number of subgroup members
now at 18. Of these, 11 are Council members, with the remaining 7
participating in their capacity as representatives of Council members. All
sectors are represented. There are no size restrictions or time limits for
joining the subgroup, offering all involved an opportunity to contribute.

Following three virtual meetings and mailing list discussions on both
process and substantive matters, the subgroup issued a call for public
comments  to help inform a first draft of the Terms of Reference. The
deadline for comments is 27 February 2015 at 23:59 UTC. The announcement
and questionnaire can be found here <
https://www.netmundial.org/community-consultation-terms-reference>, while
all comments received to date are publicly available here <
https://www.netmundial.org/tor-feedback
<https://www.netmundial.org/tor-feedback%3E>>



We encourage you to participate, as well as share the opportunity for
comment with your respective communities and contacts so that they can also
make their views known. It takes about 5 minutes the complete the
questionnaire.

The first draft document will be made available for public comment and
further discussion, using the same open and transparent interface as the
one used to collect community input during the NETmundial São Paulo
meeting. The Council will discuss the document at its first face-to-face
gathering on 31 March 2015, which will take place in San José, Costa Rica.



The next few weeks will be crucial in ensuring that the Initiative’s way
forward is informed and shaped by the community. In this context, I’d like
to once again underline the importance of community participation in the
development of the Terms of Reference and appreciate your help and support
in sharing the call for comments with all those who might be interested in
participating <
https://www.netmundial.org/community-consultation-terms-reference>.



-- 
*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/20150224/fc57444b/attachment.htm>

From joly at punkcast.com  Wed Feb 25 09:59:03 2015
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 09:59:03 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] WEBCAST TODAY: Senate hearing on IANA transition
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk3kdnyemDjUfCx2oCc2A-TigTLDfWQSnSUv050ZRkiiYg@mail.gmail.com>

 *JUST ABOUT TO BEGIN*

[image: US Senate]
<http://i1.wp.com/isoc-ny.org/p2/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/US-Senate.gif>
Today *Wednesday February 25 2015* the *U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation* <http://www.commerce.senate.gov/> will convene
a hearing – *Preserving the Multistakeholder Model of Internet Governance
<http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=683924ae-83d7-4bf4-922a-cdecb9556ba9&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a>*
–
in Washington DC. As the U.S. government considers relinquishing control
over certain aspects of Internet governance to the private sector, concerns
remain that the loss of U.S. involvement over the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority (IANA) could empower foreign powers – acting through
intergovernmental institutions or other surrogates – to gain increased
control over critical Internet functions. Featuring testimony from the U.S.
government official assessing the threat to the Internet and the CEO of
ICANN, the hearing will examine the potential benefits and preparedness of
non-governmental actors to protect Internet governance functions from
attempted interference by foreign governments. Witnesses: *Fadi Chehadé*,
CEO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN);
Ambassador *David Gross*, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP, and former U.S.
Coordinator for International Communications and Information Policy, U.S.
Department of State; and *Lawrence Strickling*, Assistant Secretary for
Communications and Information and Administrator, National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), U.S. Department
of Commerce.

*What: Preserving the Multistakeholder Model of Internet Governance
<http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=683924ae-83d7-4bf4-922a-cdecb9556ba9&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a>*
*Where: Washington DC*
*When: Wednesday February 25 2015 10am-11:30am EST | 15:00-16:30 UTC*
*Webcast: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/hclive01
<http://www.ustream.tv/channel/hclive01>*

*Twitter: #iana + #senate
<https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&q=%23iana%20%2B%20senate&src=typd>
| #netgov
<https://twitter.com/hashtag/netgov?f=realtime&src=hash>*




-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150225/ec0b02a9/attachment.htm>

From joly at punkcast.com  Wed Feb 25 10:06:40 2015
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 10:06:40 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] WEBCAST TODAY: Senate hearing on IANA transition
In-Reply-To: <CAM9VJk3kdnyemDjUfCx2oCc2A-TigTLDfWQSnSUv050ZRkiiYg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAM9VJk3kdnyemDjUfCx2oCc2A-TigTLDfWQSnSUv050ZRkiiYg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk30fvzFBzoz3=RE8821HsbV3uY+ZzjiGn9JX_acmbD7-Q@mail.gmail.com>

​Correction: the webcast is on
http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=683924ae-83d7-4bf4-922a-cdecb9556ba9&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a&MonthDisplay=2&YearDisplay=2015
​

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Joly MacFie <joly at punkcast.com> wrote:

>  *JUST ABOUT TO BEGIN*
>
> [image: US Senate]
> <http://i1.wp.com/isoc-ny.org/p2/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/US-Senate.gif>
> Today *Wednesday February 25 2015* the *U.S. Senate Committee on
> Commerce, Science, and Transportation* <http://www.commerce.senate.gov/> will
> convene a hearing – *Preserving the Multistakeholder Model of Internet
> Governance
> <http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=683924ae-83d7-4bf4-922a-cdecb9556ba9&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a>* –
> in Washington DC. As the U.S. government considers relinquishing control
> over certain aspects of Internet governance to the private sector, concerns
> remain that the loss of U.S. involvement over the Internet Assigned Numbers
> Authority (IANA) could empower foreign powers – acting through
> intergovernmental institutions or other surrogates – to gain increased
> control over critical Internet functions. Featuring testimony from the U.S.
> government official assessing the threat to the Internet and the CEO of
> ICANN, the hearing will examine the potential benefits and preparedness of
> non-governmental actors to protect Internet governance functions from
> attempted interference by foreign governments. Witnesses: *Fadi Chehadé*,
> CEO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN);
> Ambassador *David Gross*, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP, and former U.S.
> Coordinator for International Communications and Information Policy, U.S.
> Department of State; and *Lawrence Strickling*, Assistant Secretary for
> Communications and Information and Administrator, National
> Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), U.S. Department
> of Commerce.
>
> *What: Preserving the Multistakeholder Model of Internet Governance
> <http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=683924ae-83d7-4bf4-922a-cdecb9556ba9&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a>*
> *Where: Washington DC*
> *When: Wednesday February 25 2015 10am-11:30am EST | 15:00-16:30 UTC*
> *Webcast: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/hclive01
> <http://www.ustream.tv/channel/hclive01>*
>
> *Twitter: #iana + #senate
> <https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&q=%23iana%20%2B%20senate&src=typd> | #netgov
> <https://twitter.com/hashtag/netgov?f=realtime&src=hash>*
>
>
>
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
> WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
>  http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
>  VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -
>



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150225/9193c188/attachment.htm>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Wed Feb 25 13:29:19 2015
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 13:29:19 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Now open: Knight News Challenge on Elections
In-Reply-To: <44a06e103b99cf80e07a2eaad61e5d1f18c.20150225144753@mail220.atl81.rsgsv.net>
References: <44a06e103b99cf80e07a2eaad61e5d1f18c.20150225144753@mail220.atl81.rsgsv.net>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAdEUEDvkedw-cs4Wr8qyE_dvVKq1UxCz6fb5H3Hg4f0dw@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jennifer Preston, Knight Foundation <web at knightfoundation.org>
Date: Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:48 AM
Subject: Now open: Knight News Challenge on Elections
To: Carolina <carolina.rossini at gmail.com>


            View this email in your browser
<http://us5.campaign-archive2.com/?u=44a06e103b99cf80e07a2eaad&id=504bfb0f88&e=61e5d1f18c>
           [image:
Knight News Challenge]
<http://knightfoundation.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=44a06e103b99cf80e07a2eaad&id=e64e3d28ea&e=61e5d1f18c>


Dear Carolina,

The Knight News Challenge on Elections is now open for applications
<http://knightfoundation.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=44a06e103b99cf80e07a2eaad&id=7f8969e380&e=61e5d1f18c>,
asking people to submit ideas that address the question: *How might we
better inform voters and increase civic participation before, during and
after elections?* A collaboration between Knight, the Democracy Fund, the
Hewlett Foundation and the Rita Allen Foundation, the challenge is offering
more than $3 million for innovative ideas.

If you have questions about the application, you can join us for virtual
office hours or in-person events in cities across the country to learn more
about the News Challenge. The schedule, which is regularly updated, can be
accessed here
<http://knightfoundation.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=44a06e103b99cf80e07a2eaad&id=4bfff56394&e=61e5d1f18c>
.

To enter and for more information, go to newschallenge.org
<http://knightfoundation.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=44a06e103b99cf80e07a2eaad&id=27a5565a13&e=61e5d1f18c>
and answer a few questions by March 19. For more information take a look at
this press release
<http://knightfoundation.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=44a06e103b99cf80e07a2eaad&id=33638249f1&e=61e5d1f18c>
and blog post
<http://knightfoundation.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=44a06e103b99cf80e07a2eaad&id=fe1b6051f3&e=61e5d1f18c>.
Follow #newschallenge
<http://knightfoundation.us5.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=44a06e103b99cf80e07a2eaad&id=a8c23f0ddf&e=61e5d1f18c>
on Twitter for updates and please spread the word through your networks.

Best,
Jennifer Preston
Knight Foundation
Vice President for Journalism








You registered for this email list by joining at
www.knightfoundation.org/signup, or by registering to attend an event
sponsored by Knight Foundation.

*Our mailing address is:*
John S. and James L. Knight Foundation
200 South Biscayne Blvd. Suite 3300
Miami, FL 33131-2349

Add us to your address book
<http://knightfoundation.us5.list-manage.com/vcard?u=44a06e103b99cf80e07a2eaad&id=8abdf7d3d4>


unsubscribe from this list
<http://knightfoundation.us5.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=44a06e103b99cf80e07a2eaad&id=8abdf7d3d4&e=61e5d1f18c&c=504bfb0f88>
update subscription preferences
<http://knightfoundation.us5.list-manage.com/profile?u=44a06e103b99cf80e07a2eaad&id=8abdf7d3d4&e=61e5d1f18c>





-- 
-- 
*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/20150225/48d08775/attachment.htm>

From joly at punkcast.com  Wed Feb 25 13:59:27 2015
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 13:59:27 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] WEBCAST TODAY: Senate hearing on IANA transition
In-Reply-To: <CAM9VJk30fvzFBzoz3=RE8821HsbV3uY+ZzjiGn9JX_acmbD7-Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAM9VJk3kdnyemDjUfCx2oCc2A-TigTLDfWQSnSUv050ZRkiiYg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM9VJk30fvzFBzoz3=RE8821HsbV3uY+ZzjiGn9JX_acmbD7-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk0zLMEe4kyHuA5P=ijoiUixK+QTocQ8MrcyBsmckLhVcg@mail.gmail.com>

Apologies for the mistep earlier. I did miss the first couple of minutes
myself, essentially Thune reading the majority statement. What I got is
available below. Perhaps the Senate will post a full version.

View online: http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7580
Download video:
http://isoc-ny.org/misc/us_senate_iana_hearing_feb-25-2015.mp4
Download audio:
http://isoc-ny.org/misc/us_senate_iana_hearing_feb-25-2015.mp3
​also:


   - Thune : Majority Statement
   <http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=683924ae-83d7-4bf4-922a-cdecb9556ba9&Statement_id=525b8a90-a9b5-4ec4-9a6b-fbd7a99e160a&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a&MonthDisplay=2&YearDisplay=2015>
   - Fadi Chehade prepared statement
   <http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=e1c78908-c5d1-4658-9cc7-aa64d0289f7a>
   - David Gross prepared statement
   <http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=eb7d2a85-31b5-45f5-8284-2b193a24edd3>
   - Lawrence Strickling prepared statement
   <http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=3abbe751-4440-4c5f-83bd-382b38cbdc05>
   - July 2014 Thune & Rubio letter to ICANN
   <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/thune-rubio-to-crocker-31jul14-en.pdf>


On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Joly MacFie <joly at punkcast.com> wrote:

>
> ​Correction: the webcast is on
> http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=683924ae-83d7-4bf4-922a-cdecb9556ba9&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a&MonthDisplay=2&YearDisplay=2015
> ​
>
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Joly MacFie <joly at punkcast.com> wrote:
>
>>  *JUST ABOUT TO BEGIN*
>>
>> [image: US Senate]
>> <http://i1.wp.com/isoc-ny.org/p2/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/US-Senate.gif>
>> Today *Wednesday February 25 2015* the *U.S. Senate Committee on
>> Commerce, Science, and Transportation* <http://www.commerce.senate.gov/> will
>> convene a hearing – *Preserving the Multistakeholder Model of Internet
>> Governance
>> <http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=683924ae-83d7-4bf4-922a-cdecb9556ba9&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a>* –
>> in Washington DC. As the U.S. government considers relinquishing control
>> over certain aspects of Internet governance to the private sector, concerns
>> remain that the loss of U.S. involvement over the Internet Assigned Numbers
>> Authority (IANA) could empower foreign powers – acting through
>> intergovernmental institutions or other surrogates – to gain increased
>> control over critical Internet functions. Featuring testimony from the U.S.
>> government official assessing the threat to the Internet and the CEO of
>> ICANN, the hearing will examine the potential benefits and preparedness of
>> non-governmental actors to protect Internet governance functions from
>> attempted interference by foreign governments. Witnesses: *Fadi Chehadé*,
>> CEO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN);
>> Ambassador *David Gross*, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP, and former U.S.
>> Coordinator for International Communications and Information Policy, U.S.
>> Department of State; and *Lawrence Strickling*, Assistant Secretary for
>> Communications and Information and Administrator, National
>> Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), U.S. Department
>> of Commerce.
>>
>> *What: Preserving the Multistakeholder Model of Internet Governance
>> <http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=683924ae-83d7-4bf4-922a-cdecb9556ba9&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a>*
>> *Where: Washington DC*
>> *When: Wednesday February 25 2015 10am-11:30am EST | 15:00-16:30 UTC*
>> *Webcast: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/hclive01
>> <http://www.ustream.tv/channel/hclive01>*
>>
>> *Twitter: #iana + #senate
>> <https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&q=%23iana%20%2B%20senate&src=typd> | #netgov
>> <https://twitter.com/hashtag/netgov?f=realtime&src=hash>*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
>> WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
>>  http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
>>  VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> -
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
> WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
>  http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
>  VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -
>



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150225/9f89f821/attachment.htm>

From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com  Wed Feb 25 17:22:59 2015
From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson)
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 17:22:59 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Important Followup on the Broadcasters Treaty --
 Fwd: Question for today's debrief on the SCCR
Message-ID: <CAJkfFBxV_gfrrmHc3_9TvHqDs4nrZ3ojXQapYSmYtuLJY0W3kQ@mail.gmail.com>

Important note, though somewhat dense, to Richard Johns of the US
Mission to the UN and Shira Perlmutter, head of the US delegation to
the SCCR -- regarding how copyright policy is being implemented in the
context of the Information Society.  Also important for understanding
how policy-making works in the international arena, try as we might to
get it on track.  :-)


Seth

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:43 PM
Subject: Important Followup on the Broadcasters Treaty -- Fwd:
Question for today's debrief on the SCCR
To: "Johns, Richard B (Geneva)" <JohnsRB at state.gov>, "Perlmutter,
Shira" <shira.perlmutter at uspto.gov>, "Schlegelmilch, Kristine
(Geneva)" <SchlegK at state.gov>, "Zoller, Julie N" <zollerjn at state.gov>
Cc: Manon Anne Ress <manon.ress at keionline.org>, Jamie Love
<james.love at keionline.org>, "Reves, Todd" <Todd.Reves at uspto.gov>,
"Shapiro, Michael" <Michael.Shapiro at uspto.gov>, "Gordon, Marian R"
<gordonmr at state.gov>, "Holiday, Cecily C" <holidaycc at state.gov>,
Doreen McGirr <mcgirrdf at state.gov>, Justin Hughes <hughes at yu.edu>


Hello Richard,

I am forwarding your note to me with the following reply to Shira
Perlmutter and others who were originally included in this query, now
adding Julie Zoller and other contacts at the State Department.  I am
also cc'ing Justin Hughes, who coordinated an informal Round Table
discussion on the broadcasters treaty at the US PTO some time back.

I apologize for the duration of time you will need to read this.  As I
state below, I have tried to be succinct.  I am drawing some very
important connections among several elements that are presently moving
into place at the same time.

Your comments are stated in general terms regarding the CSTD/ECOSOC
WSIS+10 and Internet Governance Forum (IGF) proceedings, and they are
not responsive to the concerns I raised with Shira, which have to do
specifically with the broadcasters treaty, and international
copyright-related policymaking as it affects the Internet in general,
particularly in relation to the WSIS+10 Review and the
intergovernmental framework for the Information Society being
deliberated at the United Nations this year.

Will we have the opportunity to engage on the topic of the
broadcasters treaty and retransmission consent, by an open and
participatory process, before the UN General Assembly's
intergovernmental negotiations addressing the status and future of the
Information Society project in the latter half of this year?

To my recollection, Shira's note to me of December 10 is the first
mention I have seen of the US using retransmission consent as a
regulatory "national implementing legislation" basis for the
broadcaster's treaty.  Has this specific notion, of applying
retransmission consent under the Communications Act to the Internet
and using that as the implementing legislation for the broadcaster's
treaty, been subject to any kind of appropriate public disclosure and
discussion?  I believe there would have been far more concern
expressed if this had been the case, and the connection had been
explicitly understood.

When we see the connection between retransmission consent, applied to
the Internet domestically, and the broadcaster's treaty, to be
established internationally, we see that this arrangement reflects a
separation between content creation and telecommunications that is
built into the Information Society project's foundations. This
separates copyright established by international processes from
aspects of domestic telecommunications policy that have assured that
online innovation would not be impaired by liability for copyright.

This is a very different relationship to copyright than we have long
had on the Internet, hooked to an international framework that may
more readily support the types of processes we have already long seen
pursuing the enactment of excessive modes of copyright policy in
numerous international fora.

As you know, under the DMCA in the United States, anybody can become a
peer on the network of networks, without liability for transmitting
packets that happen to make up copyrighted works, so long as they
comply with the DMCA's notice and takedown provisions.

The broadcasters treaty proposes to establish a limited right related
only to signals retransmission (Shira calls this a "single-right
approach" in her email below), and retransmission consent establishes
liability only for retransmitting broadcasts.  Each of these is hard
to address on its own, and indeed they are hard to fully understand
when they are taken in isolation.

However, we see the overall schema clearly when we examine the
framework being set up by the Information Society project, and the
approach the US is presently promoting in relation to the network.

Among the rationales we have regularly heard voiced in the policy
discussions surrounding the Information Society project is a stance
opposing regulation of content -- typically phrased to identify this
stance with an opposition to regulating the Internet.  However, the
Internet is already separated from content creation in the
foundational elements of the Information Society project.  The
Internet is a subcategory of telecom and explicitly separated from
content creation in the performance measures the project uses to
measure its progress, and in the industry categories that underly the
Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement, the international instrument
that is to serve as the basis for the conformance and interoperability
assessment regime being set up as a key function within the
Information Society.  These definitions are foundational, underlying
all aspects of the project.

This separation means that within the framework for the Information
Society, international processes for copyright policy are freed up to
be pursued independently of telecom and the Internet.

This framework is also consistent with the approach the US is taking
to domestic policy, set to be revealed by the FCC tomorrow morning --
which is to all accounts focused on interconnection policy,
particularly with edge providers such as Netflix, and not on
reestablishing under Title II the permissionless and flexible platform
for innovation that originally arose within a context enabling anybody
to become a peer in the network of networks and interoperate freely
among themselves based on an open physical layer -- and protection
from liability for copyright under the DMCA.

What this separation means in practical terms is that despite the
Information Society's frequent appeals to convergence as the dynamic
that drives our need to engage in international policy processes for
the Internet, it is not a dynamic that will apply to copyright.  At a
time when many have been struggling for years to get policymakers to
adapt copyright to the Internet, the broadcaster's treaty, when
considered in light of the Information Society project and the present
approach to the network being promoted by the United States, is
apparently about adapting the Internet to international copyright in
all of the outlandish forms it has taken on.

The United States' legal tradition has long been founded on a basic
understanding that post-Enlightenment, democratic society is an
expression of the power of published information.   Thomas Jefferson
described this perfectly in his famous letter to Isaac McPherson on
August 13, 1813, which applies just as much to copyright as it does to
the patent policy he discusses:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html

The US telecommunications tradition understands that the airwaves are
free.  The US tradition understands that factual elements of
published, copyrighted works are free for the taking. There's a reason
why the US understood the need to empower independent providers and
end users to take part in the new online medium of the Internet with
the protections of the DMCA, and it has to do with how the US
tradition understands how shared information promotes the advancement
of humankind, by its very nature.

This is why Aereo thought its model made sense.  This is why Grokster
(and many others) thought that the long-honored Betamax ruling would
empower us to innovate online and create new decentralized,
collaborative and interconnected modes of using and sharing
information, that we would adapt copyright to the Internet and not the
other way around.  Instead of adapting copyright to the new capacities
brought by the Internet, instead of working to making Aereo possible,
and instead of correcting the corrosive force of new conceptions,
including new theories of secondary liability or of the supposed
necessity for ridiculous copyright terms, or the instituting of
anti-circumvention policies that allow others to assert a kind of
private right of prior restraint on our own devices, and many others
that have arisen in response to the profoundly dynamic platform the
Internet has brought to all of us -- and which actively dishonor the
greatest traditions of enlightened copyright policy -- we appear to be
recalibrating our tradition to render it subject to a new
international framework that empowers the very types of processes we
have already seen repeatedly attempting to exploit the unique nature
of the international policymaking arena to empower the enactment of
misguided conceptions of copyright.

Aside from that last bit on the US tradition, I have tried to draw
these concerns somewhat briefly to focus the commentary properly, and
have provided no clarifying citations.  I trust that I will be able to
clarify and support these points in follow-up.

I ask that you please address my concerns so that we can take up the
implications of the broadcaster's treaty prior to the fulfillment of
the WSIS+10 Review, in light of the Information Society framework, and
in light of the redefinition of the network and of how copyright
applies there as well as in the approach to the network that the US is
promoting both domestically and abroad.  The broadcaster's treaty
should be taken up fully and frankly, with all the pieces before us,
especially at this stage of international processes related to the
Internet.

These matters should be taken up preferably before ECOSOC's mid-year
meeting, at which it will hand off their final WSIS+10 Review outputs
for the UN General Assembly's intergovernmental negotiations in the
latter half of the year.

If you are willing to take up these concerns at the Internet
Governance Forum in September, that would imply that the
implementation of the broadcaster's treaty on the basis of
retransmission consent will not be a conclusion already built into the
framework for the Information Society prior to that point, and so that
would certainly be deeply appreciated.  However, if we address it "in
form," based on what the WSIS+10 Review supposedly represents in a
process of which the US is apparently in support, then the appropriate
period for the question in relation to the Information Society would
be prior to ECOSOC's final contributions from the WSIS+10 Review in
July.


Regards,


Seth Johnson

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Johns, Richard B (Geneva)" <JohnsRB at state.gov>
Date: Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:00 AM
Subject: RE: Question for today's debrief on the SCCR
To: "seth.p.johnson at gmail.com" <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com>
Cc: "Schlegelmilch, Kristine (Geneva)" <SchlegK at state.gov>


Hi Mr. Johnson,

Kristine Schlegelmilch forwarded your email to me, as I am responsible
for the U.S. Mission’s participation at IGF and CSTD, and general
Internet governance engagement.  I wanted to provide a response to
your question about whether the U.S. Government will “be taking part
in these forums to provide the opportunity for broader
multistakeholder discussion of and engagement on the US's
activities…prior to the conclusion of the Information Society
project's 10-year review.”   The U.S. Government has been extremely
active in engaging in all of the meetings that you mentioned.  In
fact, at the most recent IGF meeting in Istanbul, we had approximately
40 U.S. Government participants engaged in the discussions, including
the State Department Undersecretary of Economic Affairs and two U.S.
Ambassadors.  We plan on being similarly engaged at the 2015 IGF in
Brazil.

We have also been active participants in the CSTD WSIS 10-year review.
The U.S. held the CSTD Chairmanship last year and holds a
Vice-Chairmanship this year.  The Intercessional was held in Geneva
two weeks ago, where the 200 page WSIS Review document was presented
and discussed.  Yesterday, we held a broad, multistakeholder meeting
to discuss our collective input into the WSIS Review report.  We
highly value and strongly encourage contributions to these processes
from the private sector, academia, individuals, and NGSOs and look
forward to continuing these discussions in the lead up to the
High-level WSIS meeting which will be held in New York next year.
While Kristine is our specialist in IPR issues, don’t hesitate to
contact me if you have any specific concerns that you would like to
raise or questions about our engagement related to the World Summit on
the Information Society, CSTD or IGF.

Best regards,

Richard


Richard Johns
Economic and Science Affairs
U.S. Mission to the United Nations
+41 (0)22 749 4647 Office
+41 (0)22 749 4883 Fax


-----Original Message-----
From: Seth Johnson [mailto:seth.p.johnson at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 2:56 AM
To: Perlmutter, Shira
Cc: Jamie Love; Manon Anne Ress; Schlegelmilch, Kristine (Geneva);
Reves, Todd; Shapiro, Michael
Subject: Re: Question for today's debrief on the SCCR

Thank you Shira, I will await further word.


Seth

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 6:55 AM, Perlmutter, Shira
<Shira.Perlmutter at uspto.gov> wrote:
> Thanks Seth.  Within the USG, the State Dept has the lead on this.  I'm copying Kristine, who can give you more information on this.  But please be assured that the positions we are taking at WIPO, including on the proposed broadcast treaty, are the product of extensive interagency discussion, including the State Dept.  And our single-right approach is intended to be consistent with existing US law, primarily through the retransmission consent provisions of the Communications Act.   In our view, it would not require any new form of government regulation.
>
> Best,
> Shira
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 12:33:47 PM
> To: Perlmutter, Shira
> Cc: James Love; Manon Ress
> Subject: Question for today's debrief on the SCCR
>
> Dear Ms. Perlmutter:
>
> You are doubtless aware of the activities presently underway taking up
> numerous policy areas related to the Internet and developing of some
> form of "Internet Governance" in relation to the Information Society
> project, represented most prominently by the outcomes of the 2003 and
> 2005 Geneva and Tunis World Summits for the Information Society
> (WSIS).
>
> The US has generally promoted a multistakeholder approach and avoided
> a predominantly intergovernmental approach to Internet-related policy
> areas in these processes.
>
> The US has also generally asserted an opposition to expanding the
> ITU's scope to the Internet through proposals that would amount to
> regulating of content, rather than telecommunications as such.  We
> might see this distinction reflected in the Information Society
> project's performance measures, which are based on ISIC (International
> Standard Industrial Classification) categories which distinguish
> content-related industries from telecommunications.
>
> However, while the project's performance measures do not include
> content creation, policies that the US is pursuing related to
> copyright, including the broadcasters right, are intergovernmental
> policies related to content that can easily affect the nature of the
> Internet platform.
>
> The Information Society project will be completing a 10-year
> assessment of its progress in 2015, beginning with a review by the
> Commission on Science and Technology in Development in the first half
> of the year, followed by an intergovernmental process conducted by the
> President of the General Assembly to determine the project's status
> and how it will proceed after 2015.  This period of review of
> implementation and followup represents the last opportunity before the
> UN GA's intergovernmental negotiations to address how well the project
> is addressing the relationship between the project and the Internet.
> The Internet Governance Forum will also provide a forum for
> multistakeholder engagement in Internet-related policy.
>
> Will the US be taking part in these forums to provide the opportunity
> for broader multistakeholder discussion of and engagement on the US's
> activities on copyright and other related exclusive rights policies,
> prior to the conclusion of the Information Society project's 10-year
> review?
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Seth Johnson
>



This email is UNCLASSIFIED.





SBU

This email is UNCLASSIFIED.

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Wed Feb  4 10:02:22 2015
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 10:02:22 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] UNESCO conference registration OPEN
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAdn8oe5q5mJooW3XvGFyLHMTFBScWFJMas-7DoKL6z0LA@mail.gmail.com>

those who intend to attend the UNESCO conference on March 3rd and 4th, need
to register. Link can be found here:
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/events/calendar-of-events/events-websites/connecting-the-dots/home/

more:

UNESCO will organize from 3 - 4 March 2015, an international
multistakeholder conference to discuss the first draft of the Comprehensive
Study on Internet-related issues. This major global study will capture and
explore global perspectives on the new and emerging trends that are shaping
the Internet space and our future. The meeting will propose recommendations
for responses to Internet-related issues in UNESCO’s fields of competence.

The conference will be a multistakeholder event attracting participants
from governments, civil society, academia, private sector, the technical
community, inter-governmental and thought leaders in the Internet
Governance space.

Due to logistical constraints only 460 participants can be physically
present at this event, so we invite you to register early to secure a place.
-- 
-- 
*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/20150204/8919a212/attachment.htm>

From nashton at consensus.pro  Wed Feb 25 18:20:19 2015
From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart)
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 00:20:19 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] Important Followup on the Broadcasters Treaty --
 Fwd: Question for today's debrief on the SCCR
In-Reply-To: <CAJkfFBxV_gfrrmHc3_9TvHqDs4nrZ3ojXQapYSmYtuLJY0W3kQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJkfFBxV_gfrrmHc3_9TvHqDs4nrZ3ojXQapYSmYtuLJY0W3kQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C0596BB8-4676-4088-9428-2E5BBA809B21@consensus.pro>

FWIW, I've been an active participant in the work of WIPO's SCCR for 15 years now and the broadcasting treaty discussions there have changed very little since at least 2006.

There's little prospect of any movement on broadcasting for political reasons in any reasonable timeframe at WIPO - in fact, there's little prospect of any movement on any copyright subject at WIPO in any reasonable timeframe. I won't bore you all with the details (if you are interested contact me offlist).

On 25 Feb 2015, at 23:22, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at GMAIL.COM> wrote:

> Important note, though somewhat dense, to Richard Johns of the US
> Mission to the UN and Shira Perlmutter, head of the US delegation to
> the SCCR -- regarding how copyright policy is being implemented in the
> context of the Information Society.  Also important for understanding
> how policy-making works in the international arena, try as we might to
> get it on track.  :-)
> 
> 
> Seth
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:43 PM
> Subject: Important Followup on the Broadcasters Treaty -- Fwd:
> Question for today's debrief on the SCCR
> To: "Johns, Richard B (Geneva)" <JohnsRB at state.gov>, "Perlmutter,
> Shira" <shira.perlmutter at uspto.gov>, "Schlegelmilch, Kristine
> (Geneva)" <SchlegK at state.gov>, "Zoller, Julie N" <zollerjn at state.gov>
> Cc: Manon Anne Ress <manon.ress at keionline.org>, Jamie Love
> <james.love at keionline.org>, "Reves, Todd" <Todd.Reves at uspto.gov>,
> "Shapiro, Michael" <Michael.Shapiro at uspto.gov>, "Gordon, Marian R"
> <gordonmr at state.gov>, "Holiday, Cecily C" <holidaycc at state.gov>,
> Doreen McGirr <mcgirrdf at state.gov>, Justin Hughes <hughes at yu.edu>
> 
> 
> Hello Richard,
> 
> I am forwarding your note to me with the following reply to Shira
> Perlmutter and others who were originally included in this query, now
> adding Julie Zoller and other contacts at the State Department.  I am
> also cc'ing Justin Hughes, who coordinated an informal Round Table
> discussion on the broadcasters treaty at the US PTO some time back.
> 
> I apologize for the duration of time you will need to read this.  As I
> state below, I have tried to be succinct.  I am drawing some very
> important connections among several elements that are presently moving
> into place at the same time.
> 
> Your comments are stated in general terms regarding the CSTD/ECOSOC
> WSIS+10 and Internet Governance Forum (IGF) proceedings, and they are
> not responsive to the concerns I raised with Shira, which have to do
> specifically with the broadcasters treaty, and international
> copyright-related policymaking as it affects the Internet in general,
> particularly in relation to the WSIS+10 Review and the
> intergovernmental framework for the Information Society being
> deliberated at the United Nations this year.
> 
> Will we have the opportunity to engage on the topic of the
> broadcasters treaty and retransmission consent, by an open and
> participatory process, before the UN General Assembly's
> intergovernmental negotiations addressing the status and future of the
> Information Society project in the latter half of this year?
> 
> To my recollection, Shira's note to me of December 10 is the first
> mention I have seen of the US using retransmission consent as a
> regulatory "national implementing legislation" basis for the
> broadcaster's treaty.  Has this specific notion, of applying
> retransmission consent under the Communications Act to the Internet
> and using that as the implementing legislation for the broadcaster's
> treaty, been subject to any kind of appropriate public disclosure and
> discussion?  I believe there would have been far more concern
> expressed if this had been the case, and the connection had been
> explicitly understood.
> 
> When we see the connection between retransmission consent, applied to
> the Internet domestically, and the broadcaster's treaty, to be
> established internationally, we see that this arrangement reflects a
> separation between content creation and telecommunications that is
> built into the Information Society project's foundations. This
> separates copyright established by international processes from
> aspects of domestic telecommunications policy that have assured that
> online innovation would not be impaired by liability for copyright.
> 
> This is a very different relationship to copyright than we have long
> had on the Internet, hooked to an international framework that may
> more readily support the types of processes we have already long seen
> pursuing the enactment of excessive modes of copyright policy in
> numerous international fora.
> 
> As you know, under the DMCA in the United States, anybody can become a
> peer on the network of networks, without liability for transmitting
> packets that happen to make up copyrighted works, so long as they
> comply with the DMCA's notice and takedown provisions.
> 
> The broadcasters treaty proposes to establish a limited right related
> only to signals retransmission (Shira calls this a "single-right
> approach" in her email below), and retransmission consent establishes
> liability only for retransmitting broadcasts.  Each of these is hard
> to address on its own, and indeed they are hard to fully understand
> when they are taken in isolation.
> 
> However, we see the overall schema clearly when we examine the
> framework being set up by the Information Society project, and the
> approach the US is presently promoting in relation to the network.
> 
> Among the rationales we have regularly heard voiced in the policy
> discussions surrounding the Information Society project is a stance
> opposing regulation of content -- typically phrased to identify this
> stance with an opposition to regulating the Internet.  However, the
> Internet is already separated from content creation in the
> foundational elements of the Information Society project.  The
> Internet is a subcategory of telecom and explicitly separated from
> content creation in the performance measures the project uses to
> measure its progress, and in the industry categories that underly the
> Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement, the international instrument
> that is to serve as the basis for the conformance and interoperability
> assessment regime being set up as a key function within the
> Information Society.  These definitions are foundational, underlying
> all aspects of the project.
> 
> This separation means that within the framework for the Information
> Society, international processes for copyright policy are freed up to
> be pursued independently of telecom and the Internet.
> 
> This framework is also consistent with the approach the US is taking
> to domestic policy, set to be revealed by the FCC tomorrow morning --
> which is to all accounts focused on interconnection policy,
> particularly with edge providers such as Netflix, and not on
> reestablishing under Title II the permissionless and flexible platform
> for innovation that originally arose within a context enabling anybody
> to become a peer in the network of networks and interoperate freely
> among themselves based on an open physical layer -- and protection
> from liability for copyright under the DMCA.
> 
> What this separation means in practical terms is that despite the
> Information Society's frequent appeals to convergence as the dynamic
> that drives our need to engage in international policy processes for
> the Internet, it is not a dynamic that will apply to copyright.  At a
> time when many have been struggling for years to get policymakers to
> adapt copyright to the Internet, the broadcaster's treaty, when
> considered in light of the Information Society project and the present
> approach to the network being promoted by the United States, is
> apparently about adapting the Internet to international copyright in
> all of the outlandish forms it has taken on.
> 
> The United States' legal tradition has long been founded on a basic
> understanding that post-Enlightenment, democratic society is an
> expression of the power of published information.   Thomas Jefferson
> described this perfectly in his famous letter to Isaac McPherson on
> August 13, 1813, which applies just as much to copyright as it does to
> the patent policy he discusses:
> http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html
> 
> The US telecommunications tradition understands that the airwaves are
> free.  The US tradition understands that factual elements of
> published, copyrighted works are free for the taking. There's a reason
> why the US understood the need to empower independent providers and
> end users to take part in the new online medium of the Internet with
> the protections of the DMCA, and it has to do with how the US
> tradition understands how shared information promotes the advancement
> of humankind, by its very nature.
> 
> This is why Aereo thought its model made sense.  This is why Grokster
> (and many others) thought that the long-honored Betamax ruling would
> empower us to innovate online and create new decentralized,
> collaborative and interconnected modes of using and sharing
> information, that we would adapt copyright to the Internet and not the
> other way around.  Instead of adapting copyright to the new capacities
> brought by the Internet, instead of working to making Aereo possible,
> and instead of correcting the corrosive force of new conceptions,
> including new theories of secondary liability or of the supposed
> necessity for ridiculous copyright terms, or the instituting of
> anti-circumvention policies that allow others to assert a kind of
> private right of prior restraint on our own devices, and many others
> that have arisen in response to the profoundly dynamic platform the
> Internet has brought to all of us -- and which actively dishonor the
> greatest traditions of enlightened copyright policy -- we appear to be
> recalibrating our tradition to render it subject to a new
> international framework that empowers the very types of processes we
> have already seen repeatedly attempting to exploit the unique nature
> of the international policymaking arena to empower the enactment of
> misguided conceptions of copyright.
> 
> Aside from that last bit on the US tradition, I have tried to draw
> these concerns somewhat briefly to focus the commentary properly, and
> have provided no clarifying citations.  I trust that I will be able to
> clarify and support these points in follow-up.
> 
> I ask that you please address my concerns so that we can take up the
> implications of the broadcaster's treaty prior to the fulfillment of
> the WSIS+10 Review, in light of the Information Society framework, and
> in light of the redefinition of the network and of how copyright
> applies there as well as in the approach to the network that the US is
> promoting both domestically and abroad.  The broadcaster's treaty
> should be taken up fully and frankly, with all the pieces before us,
> especially at this stage of international processes related to the
> Internet.
> 
> These matters should be taken up preferably before ECOSOC's mid-year
> meeting, at which it will hand off their final WSIS+10 Review outputs
> for the UN General Assembly's intergovernmental negotiations in the
> latter half of the year.
> 
> If you are willing to take up these concerns at the Internet
> Governance Forum in September, that would imply that the
> implementation of the broadcaster's treaty on the basis of
> retransmission consent will not be a conclusion already built into the
> framework for the Information Society prior to that point, and so that
> would certainly be deeply appreciated.  However, if we address it "in
> form," based on what the WSIS+10 Review supposedly represents in a
> process of which the US is apparently in support, then the appropriate
> period for the question in relation to the Information Society would
> be prior to ECOSOC's final contributions from the WSIS+10 Review in
> July.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> Seth Johnson
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Johns, Richard B (Geneva)" <JohnsRB at state.gov>
> Date: Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:00 AM
> Subject: RE: Question for today's debrief on the SCCR
> To: "seth.p.johnson at gmail.com" <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com>
> Cc: "Schlegelmilch, Kristine (Geneva)" <SchlegK at state.gov>
> 
> 
> Hi Mr. Johnson,
> 
> Kristine Schlegelmilch forwarded your email to me, as I am responsible
> for the U.S. Mission’s participation at IGF and CSTD, and general
> Internet governance engagement.  I wanted to provide a response to
> your question about whether the U.S. Government will “be taking part
> in these forums to provide the opportunity for broader
> multistakeholder discussion of and engagement on the US's
> activities…prior to the conclusion of the Information Society
> project's 10-year review.”   The U.S. Government has been extremely
> active in engaging in all of the meetings that you mentioned.  In
> fact, at the most recent IGF meeting in Istanbul, we had approximately
> 40 U.S. Government participants engaged in the discussions, including
> the State Department Undersecretary of Economic Affairs and two U.S.
> Ambassadors.  We plan on being similarly engaged at the 2015 IGF in
> Brazil.
> 
> We have also been active participants in the CSTD WSIS 10-year review.
> The U.S. held the CSTD Chairmanship last year and holds a
> Vice-Chairmanship this year.  The Intercessional was held in Geneva
> two weeks ago, where the 200 page WSIS Review document was presented
> and discussed.  Yesterday, we held a broad, multistakeholder meeting
> to discuss our collective input into the WSIS Review report.  We
> highly value and strongly encourage contributions to these processes
> from the private sector, academia, individuals, and NGSOs and look
> forward to continuing these discussions in the lead up to the
> High-level WSIS meeting which will be held in New York next year.
> While Kristine is our specialist in IPR issues, don’t hesitate to
> contact me if you have any specific concerns that you would like to
> raise or questions about our engagement related to the World Summit on
> the Information Society, CSTD or IGF.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
> Richard Johns
> Economic and Science Affairs
> U.S. Mission to the United Nations
> +41 (0)22 749 4647 Office
> +41 (0)22 749 4883 Fax
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Seth Johnson [mailto:seth.p.johnson at gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 2:56 AM
> To: Perlmutter, Shira
> Cc: Jamie Love; Manon Anne Ress; Schlegelmilch, Kristine (Geneva);
> Reves, Todd; Shapiro, Michael
> Subject: Re: Question for today's debrief on the SCCR
> 
> Thank you Shira, I will await further word.
> 
> 
> Seth
> 
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 6:55 AM, Perlmutter, Shira
> <Shira.Perlmutter at uspto.gov> wrote:
>> Thanks Seth.  Within the USG, the State Dept has the lead on this.  I'm copying Kristine, who can give you more information on this.  But please be assured that the positions we are taking at WIPO, including on the proposed broadcast treaty, are the product of extensive interagency discussion, including the State Dept.  And our single-right approach is intended to be consistent with existing US law, primarily through the retransmission consent provisions of the Communications Act.   In our view, it would not require any new form of government regulation.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Shira
>> 
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 12:33:47 PM
>> To: Perlmutter, Shira
>> Cc: James Love; Manon Ress
>> Subject: Question for today's debrief on the SCCR
>> 
>> Dear Ms. Perlmutter:
>> 
>> You are doubtless aware of the activities presently underway taking up
>> numerous policy areas related to the Internet and developing of some
>> form of "Internet Governance" in relation to the Information Society
>> project, represented most prominently by the outcomes of the 2003 and
>> 2005 Geneva and Tunis World Summits for the Information Society
>> (WSIS).
>> 
>> The US has generally promoted a multistakeholder approach and avoided
>> a predominantly intergovernmental approach to Internet-related policy
>> areas in these processes.
>> 
>> The US has also generally asserted an opposition to expanding the
>> ITU's scope to the Internet through proposals that would amount to
>> regulating of content, rather than telecommunications as such.  We
>> might see this distinction reflected in the Information Society
>> project's performance measures, which are based on ISIC (International
>> Standard Industrial Classification) categories which distinguish
>> content-related industries from telecommunications.
>> 
>> However, while the project's performance measures do not include
>> content creation, policies that the US is pursuing related to
>> copyright, including the broadcasters right, are intergovernmental
>> policies related to content that can easily affect the nature of the
>> Internet platform.
>> 
>> The Information Society project will be completing a 10-year
>> assessment of its progress in 2015, beginning with a review by the
>> Commission on Science and Technology in Development in the first half
>> of the year, followed by an intergovernmental process conducted by the
>> President of the General Assembly to determine the project's status
>> and how it will proceed after 2015.  This period of review of
>> implementation and followup represents the last opportunity before the
>> UN GA's intergovernmental negotiations to address how well the project
>> is addressing the relationship between the project and the Internet.
>> The Internet Governance Forum will also provide a forum for
>> multistakeholder engagement in Internet-related policy.
>> 
>> Will the US be taking part in these forums to provide the opportunity
>> for broader multistakeholder discussion of and engagement on the US's
>> activities on copyright and other related exclusive rights policies,
>> prior to the conclusion of the Information Society project's 10-year
>> review?
>> 
>> 
>> Sincerely,
>> 
>> Seth Johnson
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> This email is UNCLASSIFIED.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SBU
> 
> This email is UNCLASSIFIED.
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150226/348d93b5/attachment.sig>

From steve at openmedia.ca  Thu Feb 26 13:22:01 2015
From: steve at openmedia.ca (Steve Anderson)
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 10:22:01 -0800
Subject: [bestbits] Celebrate the Net Neutrality victory online!
Message-ID: <CAJOr_J5MtSoRHi-NYCUosgVGj8OM2EkA4kC=1nNM4DrzBYQpEQ@mail.gmail.com>

I know many are in DC (wish I could be there), but as promised we turned
our internet voice tool into a  platform for celebration. Find it here:
https://stoptheslowdown.net/

Below the fold you'll see comments rolling in and I hope everyone will add
there bit.

Thanks for everyone's effort -- very inspiring to be a part of this!
--
*Steve Anderson*
Executive Director, OpenMedia.ca
604-837-5730
http://openmedia.ca <http://www.openmedia.ca/>
steve at openmedia.ca

Follow me on Twitter <http://twitter.com/Steve_Media>
Friend me on Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/Steve.Media>


* *Let's have access to affordable phone and Internet rates.
<http://demandchoice.ca>*

**Do you think we deserve a fair deal in our digital future? -->>
OurFairDeal.org <http://OurFairDeal.org>*



*Confidentiality Warning:*

* This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the
intended recipient(s), are confidential, and may be privileged. If you are
not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review,
retransmission, conversion to hard copy, copying, circulation or other use
of this message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you are not
the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return
e-mail, and delete this message and any attachments from your system. Thank
you.Information confidentielle:** Le présent message, ainsi que tout
fichier qui y est joint, est envoyé à l'intention exclusive de son ou de
ses destinataires; il est de nature confidentielle et peut constituer une
information privilégiée. Nous avertissons toute personne autre que le
destinataire prévu que tout examen, réacheminement, impression, copie,
distribution ou autre utilisation de ce message et de tout fichier qui y
est joint est strictement interdit. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire
prévu, veuillez en aviser immédiatement l'expéditeur par retour de courriel
et supprimer ce message et tout document joint de votre système. Merci.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150226/c070a546/attachment.htm>

From rishab.bailey at gmail.com  Fri Feb 27 02:48:52 2015
From: rishab.bailey at gmail.com (Rishab Bailey)
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 13:18:52 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] The Internet Social Forum
Message-ID: <CANf7=M0YLiF-hVK1qh0Pqi3EO+s0oKiuPp06R_a1kF7ymGEVCw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

Attached is a communication from a global group of civil society
organisations (in English, French and Spanish) who are proposing to hold an
Internet Social Forum, taking inspiration from the World Social Forum. The
preparatory process for the Internet Social Forum (ISF) will be kicked off
at a workshop at the World Social Forum, Tunis, March, 2015.

The call can also be found at www.InternetSocialForum.net.

You are invited, in an organisational capacity or as individuals, to
participate in the ISF initiative, towards visioning a people's Internet,
that can underpin a global democratic and egalitarian society. The ISF will
follow the World Social Forum participation criteria which can be found here
<https://fsm2015.org/en/criteria-participation>.

The ISF initiative will have both an online and physical aspects - we will
work through an e-list and also hold ISF f2f meetings.

Apart from your cooperation and collaborations, suggestions for how to
proceed are also welcome.

We are of course happy to respond to any questions that you may have in the
above regard.

We look forward to hearing from you, and please feel free to forward this
message to others.

Regards,
Rishab
for the Society for Knowledge Commons, India
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150227/c608e35b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Internet Social Forum - en.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 103459 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150227/c608e35b/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Internet Social Forum - fr.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 112480 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150227/c608e35b/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Internet Social Forum- sp.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 154222 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150227/c608e35b/attachment-0002.pdf>

From carolina.rossini at gmail.com  Wed Feb  4 11:07:58 2015
From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 11:07:58 -0500
Subject: [bestbits] FOLLOW WIRED Twitter Facebook RSS FCC Chairman Tom
 Wheeler: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAeWuSxt=0r+0_K0jdiUYHBmA=9NmXz3CAPGMEghTKJQmA@mail.gmail.com>

http://www.wired.com/2015/02/fcc-chairman-wheeler-net-neutrality/

-- 
-- 
*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/20150204/9298856e/attachment.htm>

From m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk  Wed Feb  4 14:23:06 2015
From: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk (Marianne Franklin)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 19:23:06 +0000
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: in memory of Heike Jensen
In-Reply-To: <A9AAF0C8-6F4D-4C27-B407-4B4AF43674B3@gmx.de>
References: <A9AAF0C8-6F4D-4C27-B407-4B4AF43674B3@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <54D2719A.7050500@gold.ac.uk>

Dear all

Apologies for the cross-posting, and the sombre content. Some of you 
will already know that a year ago Heike Jensen passed away. Heike was a 
stalwart of Giganet, the Gender DC and other civil society work at the 
IGF, and the GigaNET community in the crucial early years. Her 
involvement and contribution goes back to the WSIS e.g. Heike 
contributed to the Joergensen edited volume (2006) on Human Rights in 
the Global Information Society, reporting for Freedom House and others 
and being part of IGF meetings through the Gender DC and Giganet symposia.

The last time Heike was at the IGF was Sharm el Sheikh I think, though 
she may also have been in Nairobi. In recent years she devoted herself 
to other work from her (new) homebase in Munich where she was very happy 
after adjusting from the move there from Berlin.

Heike was a wonderful person, a great researcher and advocate as her 
partner below reminds us. I, for one, have missed having her take part 
in recent years but I will miss her for the years to come at this 
anniversary.

Just thought some of you would like to know of her passing if you did 
not already.

best
MF


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	in memory of Heike Jensen
Date: 	Mon, 2 Feb 2015 21:33:17 +0100
From: 	Thomas Ochs <ThomasOchs at gmx.de>
To: 	Thomas Ochs <thomasochs at gmx.de>



In Memory of our Beloved

*Heike*

Dr.phil. Heike Jensen

On the first anniversary of her death on February 3, 2014


Heike was a dedicated feminist and from the bottom of her heart a 
humanitarian.

Both her scholarship and her work for NGOs aimed at making the world a 
more just place for every human being.

The pain and grief caused by the loss of a beloved person is only 
bearable when we experience how much she meant to those whose lives she 
touched. Because the only thing that matters in life are the traces of 
love that a person leaves behind.

One year ago, after her brave fight against cancer, Heike passed away.

She contitnues to live in our hearts.


Thomas Ochs
Streitbergstr. 18
81249 München

Brunhilde Jensen
Angermünder Str. 55 A
12305 Berlin







-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150204/0797c168/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpg
Size: 82986 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150204/0797c168/attachment.jpg>

From anriette at apc.org  Wed Feb  4 15:16:00 2015
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 22:16:00 +0200
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: in memory of Heike Jensen
In-Reply-To: <54D2719A.7050500@gold.ac.uk>
References: <A9AAF0C8-6F4D-4C27-B407-4B4AF43674B3@gmx.de> <54D2719A.7050500@gold.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <54D27E00.30001@apc.org>

Dear Marianne

Thanks for posting this. This also reached us at APC this week, and 
many of us did not know about Heike's death. She worked with us closely
on many projects and publications, and we are planning to dedicate an
edition of GenderIT.org to her and her work.

In 2013 she wrote this chapter for us for Global Information Society Watch.

http://www.giswatch.org/institutional-overview/womens-rights-gender/whose-internet-it-anyway-shaping-internet-feminist-voice

It is a great loss.

Anriette

On 04/02/2015 21:23, Marianne Franklin wrote:
> Dear all
>
> Apologies for the cross-posting, and the sombre content. Some of you
> will already know that a year ago Heike Jensen passed away. Heike was
> a stalwart of Giganet, the Gender DC and other civil society work at
> the IGF, and the GigaNET community in the crucial early years. Her
> involvement and contribution goes back to the WSIS e.g. Heike
> contributed to the Joergensen edited volume (2006) on Human Rights in
> the Global Information Society, reporting for Freedom House and others
> and being part of IGF meetings through the Gender DC and Giganet
> symposia.
>
> The last time Heike was at the IGF was Sharm el Sheikh I think, though
> she may also have been in Nairobi. In recent years she devoted herself
> to other work from her (new) homebase in Munich where she was very
> happy after adjusting from the move there from Berlin.
>
> Heike was a wonderful person, a great researcher and advocate as her
> partner below reminds us. I, for one, have missed having her take part
> in recent years but I will miss her for the years to come at this
> anniversary.
>
> Just thought some of you would like to know of her passing if you did
> not already.
>
> best
> MF
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: 	in memory of Heike Jensen
> Date: 	Mon, 2 Feb 2015 21:33:17 +0100
> From: 	Thomas Ochs <ThomasOchs at gmx.de>
> To: 	Thomas Ochs <thomasochs at gmx.de>
>
>
>
> In Memory of our Beloved 
>
>  *Heike*
>
> Dr.phil. Heike Jensen
>
>  
>
> On the first anniversary of her death on February 3, 2014
>
>
> Heike was a dedicated feminist and from the bottom of her heart a
> humanitarian.
>
> Both her scholarship and her work for NGOs aimed at making the world a
> more just place for every human being.
>
>  
>
> The pain and grief caused by the loss of a beloved person is only
> bearable when we experience how much she meant to those whose lives
> she touched. Because the only thing that matters in life are the
> traces of love that a person leaves behind.
>
>  
>
> One year ago, after her brave fight against cancer, Heike passed away.
>
> She contitnues to live in our hearts.
>
>
> Thomas Ochs
> Streitbergstr. 18
> 81249 München
>
> Brunhilde Jensen
> Angermünder Str. 55 A
> 12305 Berlin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as 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/20150204/b6af4ed0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpg
Size: 82986 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150204/b6af4ed0/attachment.jpg>