From jmalcolm at eff.org Mon Jun 1 00:04:25 2015 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 21:04:25 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Civil society transparency In-Reply-To: <20150531090029.5bd0ce96@quill> References: <55617E51.5010901@itforchange.net> <5566FE8A.9010209@itforchange.net> <685563FB-947F-4110-8B81-3872514B494C@eff.org> <20150531090029.5bd0ce96@quill> Message-ID: On May 31, 2015, at 12:00 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > On Thu, 28 May 2015 18:41:20 -0700 > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> Replying just to the IGC list > > As a matter of fact, Jeremy's posting was broadcast to many civil > society mailing lists. It was not my intention but I was replying by phone and didn't double check. > Given that the initial set of pointed questions were sparked by the > initial Bestbits meeting having been part of a formal "capacity > building" programme funded in part by the US and UK government, That is 100% false. None of the budget for that meeting was funded by any government grant and there was and is never any such capacity building program behind Best Bits. The draft report from an independent researcher that you read suggesting otherwise was categorically incorrect and I can only hope was subsequently corrected. From katitza at eff.org Mon Jun 1 19:17:55 2015 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 19:17:55 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] SIGN on: Open Letter to Paraguayan Congress Against Data Retention (48 hours) Message-ID: <134AECA7-9F76-439C-B48A-E44E42B7D50A@eff.org> Dear all, TEDIC (Paraguay) together with David Bogado (Paraguayan), EFF Latin American Community Development Coordinator and Javier Pallero (Access) have written an open letter to the Paraguayan Senators asking them to reject Pyrawebs, the Paraguayan data retention bill. The letter is available here in English and Spanish: https://etherpad.mozilla.org/p6W7PQgphV The bill will be discussed on Thursday. They have 48 hours to stop the bill. The team is currently asking for sign ons into the letter from organization from around the world. They would like international support. If you would like to sign-on, can you send your signature to David Bogado davidbogado at eff.org cc-ing on this thread. Many thanks, Katitza Rodriguez EFF International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 842 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From javier at accessnow.org Mon Jun 1 19:41:22 2015 From: javier at accessnow.org (Javier Pallero) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 20:41:22 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] SIGN on: Open Letter to Paraguayan Congress Against Data Retention (48 hours) In-Reply-To: <134AECA7-9F76-439C-B48A-E44E42B7D50A@eff.org> References: <134AECA7-9F76-439C-B48A-E44E42B7D50A@eff.org> Message-ID: (APOLOGIES FOR CROSS POSTING) Dear all, As Katitza said, it is very important to our friends in Paraguay to stop this bill at the Senate hearing next Thursday. Please, make sure to sign and share it. Another way of helping them is by asking all your followers to tweet using the hashtag #pyrawebs from now on until the vote happens. In case you want to share your concerns with the bill sponsors, these are their twitter accounts: http://twitter.com/GiuzzioArnaldo http://twitter.com/ArnoldoWiens http://twitter.com/FSilvaFacetti Here is some updated contextual information in English and Spanish you may also share, including an advocacy video with Frank La Rue alerting about inminent human rights violations arising from this bill. https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2015/06/01/pyrawebs-menacing-return-of-mass-surveillance-in-paraguay-espanol-english https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/12/pyrawebs-paraguayans-rise-against-mandatory-data-retention https://medium.com/@TEDICpy/preocupante-postura-de-senadores-sobre-proyecto-de-ley-pyrawebs-94f232fb3f7e Thanks in advance! *---Javier Pallero* Policy Analyst Access | accessnow.org PGP 0xEBFD028A Fingerprint 0503 FBA1 10B2 B83C 61FC FE3B 4E7E EBDD EBFD 028A *Join the Access team - *we're hiring ! On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > Dear all, > > TEDIC (Paraguay) together with David Bogado (Paraguayan), EFF Latin > American Community Development Coordinator and Javier Pallero (Access) have > written an open letter to the Paraguayan Senators asking them to reject > Pyrawebs, the Paraguayan data retention bill. The letter is available here > in English and Spanish: https://etherpad.mozilla.org/p6W7PQgphV > > The bill will be discussed on Thursday. They have 48 hours to stop the > bill. > > The team is currently asking for sign ons into the letter from > organization from around the world. They would like international support. > If you would like to sign-on, can you send your signature to David Bogado > davidbogado at eff.org cc-ing on this thread. > > Many thanks, > > Katitza Rodriguez > EFF International Rights Director > Electronic Frontier Foundation > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Jun 2 01:48:31 2015 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 11:18:31 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Civil society transparency In-Reply-To: <5564E14D.9000203@eff.org> References: <55617E51.5010901@itforchange.net> <5564E14D.9000203@eff.org> Message-ID: <556D43AF.2050406@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 27 May 2015 02:40 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 24/05/2015 11:57 pm, Ian Peter wrote: >> Secondly, I wonder how it would work in CS which has so many people >> who are basically acting as individuals rather than representatives >> of organisations. Many if not most of us also have non CS >> affiliations (eg membership of ISOC, business or governmental >> employees if we are cs volunteers, academic postings etc) so the >> “pure” CS rep is probably a bit hard to find. I am not sure what we >> would gain by having a register of all our multiple affiliations >> which would need regular updating to be of any use. I think we need >> to ensure our major coalitions (BB, JNC, IGC, APC, NCSG) act >> transparently, and by and large I think they do. But I am not sure of >> the value of extending this to what is probably tens of thousands of >> members or organisations affiliated with these larger groups. > > Agreed. I also feel that it's a misplaced priority. If any of us > actually had enough influence to being making significant impacts on > policy, then the expenditure of time and resources on self-policing > ourselves in this fashion might make some sense. Why do then many civil society transparency initiatives exist at all? And then isnt the whole idea of multistakeholderism about a greater impact of civil society on actual policy making, which simply raises the stake so much higher, and could only mean that civil society transparency is even more needed in the IG space even more than other spaces... You would argue for equal footing with governments on the policy making table but not equal footing in terms of transparency and accountability of civil society actors!? A strange proposition, and if I remember right it is you who recently spoke of open gov initiative and how it should be somehow extended to the IG space. Open gov initiative is nothing if not about various kinds of transparency and accountability in policy development circles of all the involved actors. If anything, civil society standards are supposed to be much higher bec it is the CS which traditionally asks the most questions from others in these regard. I think you are making rather convoluted and weak arguments, many of which cancel each other. It is extremely disappointing that this discussion is taking place in this manner in what are supposed to be two civil society elists/ groups of global repute. > But since we have enough difficulty as it is just with being heard, > let alone having an impact, it just seems a real misallocation of > scarce resources for us to be placing ourselves under the microscope > like this, especially since nobody but ourselves is raising the question. If you think no one else is raising these questions, then you are simply not listening. Political discourse at least in the South , but in fact also in the North, is rife with discussions about transparency and accountability of all pulbic actors, including, and often pointedly, civil society, and what kind of monumental distortions get caused in default. Everyone from whom transparency/ accountability is sought would like to say that it is not an impotant issue and the such, but that does not cut much ice. > Instead of a register, there are already voluntary transparency > pledges that one can adopt (eg the INGO Accountability Charter, > http://www.ingoaccountabilitycharter.org/). Anything heavier than > that is, I feel, difficult to justify. Here again you are arguing something in direct opposition to some of your earlier arguments, about paucity of resources with civil society orgs.. I am sure you would have seen the details of the initiative that you link to, and therefore know that it is much much more complex and demanding than a simple transparency register (which also is of course voluntary, how else it could be?), somewhat on the lines of the EU Transparency Register , that I am proposing... So why and how is a less complex proposal being confronted by a much more complex and demanding option, while at the same time making the argument that we dont have the kind of resources that are required, is simply beyond me . > > Also, take note of this article (from the left, by the way), > criticising efforts to enforce formal accountability standards on > civil society organisations: > > http://hapinternational.org/pool/files/ngos,-civil-soc.pdf Jeremy, again I wish you have read the details before you quickly assembled this repertoire of evidences in support of what clearly is a pre judged position, that global IG civil society does not need any kind of a transparency initiative. Apart from the fact that the central motivation of the article that you cite is to fend against neoliberal attacks on civil society, which is hardly your case, while the article explores issues with developing more complex accountability systems for civil society, /*it is strongly and clearly for basic transparency of civil society groups*/... Quoting from its second last page, where it begins to build its conclusions "The key to this must be, as SustainAbility (2003) so eloquently demonstrate, transparency. Who the organisation is; what it does; how it is funded; and what the organisation does with the money it receives are all essential as either pre-requisites for the development of accountability relationships, or as a critical element in the discharge of that relationship. This, it seems, could be a first pre-requisite for accountability: and especially for NGOs as this would help to expose the “astroturf” NGOs as well as developing a more benign accountability amongst those NGOs with a genuine concern for the wider public good." And then very significantly, in the concluding part, in fact in its very last sentence, the article says: /* *//**/ /**/ /*"... combination of minimum transparency plus a level of accountability commensurate with stakeholders, size and economic power should discomfort the astroturf and the explicitly business-oriented NGOs rather more than it will discomfort those NGOs that the neo-liberal backlash has been seeking to discredit. As such, accountability seems like a good thing."*/ Did you forget to read this :)... You have to make up your mind whether you agree with the article you quote or you do not.... IMHO, you are just assembling a desperate case here.... One is so sorry, disappointed, and almost appalled that we are having such arguments against basic transparency of civil society.. parminder > > -- > 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: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nb at bollow.ch Tue Jun 2 05:45:46 2015 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 11:45:46 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Civil society transparency In-Reply-To: References: <55617E51.5010901@itforchange.net> <5566FE8A.9010209@itforchange.net> <685563FB-947F-4110-8B81-3872514B494C@eff.org> <20150531090029.5bd0ce96@quill> <20150601122935.53aef61c@quill> <556C95F6.7020705@riseup.net> <556CAB2E.8050604@apc.org> Message-ID: <20150602114546.523498ea@quill> On Tue, 2 Jun 2015 10:23:46 +0100 Chris Prince Udochukwu Njoku wrote: > There's this dictum: "He who plays the piper > dictates the tune." The extent to which a CSO opens its arms to a > donor's funds ought to be determined by the extent to which the CSO > understands how far the funding will strengthen or weaken it in its > march to accomplishing its mission. In our quest for free, open and > safe Internet, at a time when governments and their organizations are > itching to be in control (for reasons we all know well) we have to be > thoughtfully selective in who funds us if we still must think, voice > and act our way to our stated goals. Well said. And depending on what those goals are and what the circumstances are, it can turn out that on the path towards the goals some difficult decisions may sometimes need to be made, including decisions in regard to which maybe others would reasonably have made a different, more cautious call. In my view, it is especially in those situations that transparency in honestly disclosing such more problematic choices is particularly valuable and trust-inspiring. Greetings, Norbert From susan at chalmers.associates Tue Jun 2 17:13:57 2015 From: susan at chalmers.associates (Susan Chalmers) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 17:13:57 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Help build smart articles on IG at the ICANNWiki edit-a-thon Message-ID: Dear colleagues, I hope this email finds you all well. I am working with ICANNWiki - a small, not-for-profit based in Portland, Oregon, USA (not part of ICANN) - to build partnerships across the IG space, including the fostering of collaborative, community drafting of articles on ICANN and IG topics. We will be holding two "edit-a-thon" sessions during the upcoming ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires. For those attending, we would love to see you there. Date: June 22 & 24, 2015 Time: 11:30-13:00 Location: Sheraton Conference Center, Buenos Aires, Argentina ICW article on the ICANN53 Edit-a-Thon: http://icannwiki.com/ICANN_53_-_Edit-a-thon With a solid base of over 5,500 articles, ICW has great potential for becoming a vibrant community space to share and grow knowledge on ICANN and IG topics. We warmly invite you to help us enrich this Neutral Point of View resource. Please feel free to contact me directly with any questions. Sincerely, Susan Susan Chalmers susan at chalmers.associates *CHALMERS* & ASSOCIATES http://chalmers.associates -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From katitza at eff.org Tue Jun 2 21:47:57 2015 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 21:47:57 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Time Sensitive: Can you help us defeat data retention in Paraguay? Message-ID: <32EBE55E-9F26-41CD-9B9A-FB9CC7C063A7@eff.org> Estimados Best Bits: Thanks to those who have signed the letter. For those who missed that thread, this Thursday, the Paraguayan Senate will vote on a data retention mandate—one of the worst anti-privacy bills we've yet seen in Paraguay. The bill, dubbed "Pyrawebs", is a big deal: its data retention mandate is a disproportionate measure that should be roundly rejected. With only 48 hours to support our friends at TEDIC to stop the bill, EFF is asking for your rapid support by: 1. Signing the Open Letter: Sign the Open Letter to the Paraguayan Senate (NGOs only) available here: https://etherpad.mozilla.org/p6W7PQgphV We'll release the letter this Thursday morning for the vote on the bill in the Paraguayan Senate. You can add your signature directly on the pad, or send your signature to David Bogado: davidbogado at eff.org 2. Spreading the word about Pyrawebs' issues: Use the hashtag #Pyrawebs. More information: Access: Pyrawebs: the menacing return of mass surveillance in Paraguay [Espanol / English]  EFF: Paraguayans Rise Up Against Mandatory Data Retention TEDIC: Precoupante Postura de Senadores Frente al Pyrawebs Thank you in advance for signing our letter Katitza Rodriguez, EFF International Rights Director -- Open Letter to the Paraguayan Senate (English below) Carta Abierta al Senado de Paraguay 1 de Junio de 2015, Honorable Cámara de Senadores de la República del Paraguay Presente.- De nuestra consideración: Las organizaciones firmantes manifiestan un llamado de alerta respecto al Proyecto de Ley "Que establece la obligación de conservar datos de tráfico", presentado por los Senadores Fernando Silva Facetti, Roberto Acevedo, Arnaldo Giuzzio y Arnoldo Wiens. Este Proyecto de Ley, que fue rechazado en forma unánime por la Cámara de Diputados el pasado 12 de marzo, ha vuelto a la cámara de origen en su Tercer Trámite Constitucional para su rechazo definitivo o la aprobación. De aprobarse, el Proyecto de Ley obligará a los Proveedores de Servicios de Internet (PSI) a almacenar por un periodo de 12 (doce) meses datos tales como el origen y destino de sus comunicaciones, hora y fecha de conexión y desconexión, información de geolocalización e identificación de los dispositivos, lo que permitirá documentar las actividades en línea de millones de usuarios inocentes. Los datos retenidos podrán ser luego accedidos por las autoridades de investigación paraguayas para perseguir cualquier hecho punible. Este Proyecto de Ley excluye el "contenido" de las comunicaciones, sin embargo, la recolección indiscriminada de datos de tráfico y el cruzamiento de esta información puede revelar mucho más que el contenido de las llamadas que los proponentes del proyecto han dado a entender en declaraciones a medios de comunicación. Estos datos de tráfico proporcionan suficiente contexto para conocer algunos de los detalles más íntimos de las vidas de los paraguayos, como por ejemplo: sus lugares de residencia y tránsito habituales, sus relaciones sociales, sus hábitos de consumo, las personas con quienes se comunican, sus preferencias personales, entre tantos otros. Organizaciones de la sociedad civil, periodistas, abogados, expertos en seguridad informática, y activistas de derechos humanos han reconocido que el Estado tiene obligaciones en materia de investigación y sanción de los infractores de delitos penales, inclusive en el contexto digital. Sin embargo, lo que realmente el Congreso paraguayo busca con esta norma es cambiar las reglas de juego vigentes sobre la autorización para conducir la vigilancia. Con este proyecto de ley se pasaría de un sistema donde la autorización de la vigilancia de las comunicaciones se basa en la sospecha individualizada, a raíz de la comisión de un ilícito penal, hacia un sistema donde la vigilancia es masiva, no selectiva, sin sospecha alguna de la comisión de un delito; es decir, donde la autorización es a priori, un 'cheque en blanco' que permite la conservación de datos para posible uso futuro de los mismos por parte de las autoridades. Las medidas de vigilancia de las comunicaciones de personas inocentes de un país entero, tal como se encuentra contemplado en el anteproyecto son medidas desproporcionadas e innecesarias en una sociedad democrática donde el Estado de Derecho prevalece. En efecto, el proyecto no distingue entre situaciones en las que una vigilancia estaría justificada y aquellas en las que no, permitiendo de este modo una intrusión abusiva e ilegítima del control estatal en la vida privada de las personas. Se reconoce también que las salvaguardas requeridas por el derecho internacional no han sido incluidas en la ley, en particular por la falta de proporcionalidad de las medidas proyectadas y la ausencia de garantías mínimas para la protección de la privacidad de las personas y de sus datos de carácter absolutamente personal. En conclusión, este proyecto ignora las garantías básicas previstas en la Constitución Nacional y los tratados internacionales de Derechos Humanos, por lo que resultaría una violación de derechos como la libertad de expresión e intimidad, consagrados en la Carta Magna. Por todo lo expuesto, llamamos al Poder Legislativo paraguayo a defender la Constitución Nacional paraguaya y los derechos humanos de aquellos afectados, rechazando plenamente el Proyecto de ley #Pyrawebs. _____________________________________________________________________ ENGLISH VERSION: Open letter to the Senate from Paraguay June 1st, 2015, Honorable Senate of the Republic of Paraguay: We, the undersigned organizations, write to urge you to reject the proposed bill that "establishes the obligation to retain traffic data" introduced by Senators Fernando Silva Facetti, Roberto Acevedo, Arnaldo Giuzzio and Arnoldo Wiens. This bill, which was rejected unanimously by the Deputies Chamber on March 12, has been sent to the Senate for its approval or rejection. If passed into law, the bill will force Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to store users' data for a period of twelve months. The data collected would include the source and destination of all communications, the time and date of all connection and disconnection logs, as well as details about the users' location and devices. This collection will track the online activities of millions of innocent users, and will be accessible to Paraguayan law enforcement as part of the investigation of any criminal offense. This bill does exclude the mass collection of the content of electronic communications. However, indiscriminate collection of non-content ("traffic") data and the cross-referencing of this information can reveal far more than the bill's proponents have suggested in remarks to media; more, even, in some cases, than the content of a communication could show. Traffic data provides sufficient context to determine some of the most intimate details of the lives of Paraguayans, including where they live, work and the identity of other locations they regularly visit, and their relationships to others. It can provide a complete lists of friends and other contacts, describe their online habits, and reveal their personal preferences in every part of their private and political lives. Civil society organizations, journalists, lawyers, online security experts and human rights activists have recognized that the state has obligations to investigate and punish the perpetrators of criminal offenses, online and offline. However, this bill does far more than just that. It radically transforms the legal basis for conducting surveillance. With this bill, Paraguay would pass from a legal system where the authorization of surveillance of communications is based on individualized suspicion following the commission of a criminal offense, to a system where surveillance is massive, non-selective, and conducted without any suspicion of criminal intent. The authorization to surveil would become a 'blank check' that would allow the collection of all data under the presumption that it should be available for future use by the authorities. Conducting surveillance on the communications of innocent people as described in the proposed bill, is a disproportionate and unnecessary measure in a democratic society where the rule of law must be respected. The bill fails to distinguish any situation when targeted surveillance might be justified or not, thus allowing an unchecked and excessive intrusion into the private lives of all Paraguayans. Safeguards required by international law have not been included in the bill, including minimum guarantees for the protection of the privacy of individuals and their personal data. In conclusion, this bill ignores the basic guarantees required by international human rights law. Its passage will result in the violation of the right to freedom of expression and privacy, as enshrined in Paraguay's Constitution. For these reasons, we call on the Paraguayan legislature to reject the traffic data retention bill outright. #pyrawebs -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 842 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From javier at accessnow.org Thu Jun 4 14:52:29 2015 From: javier at accessnow.org (Javier Pallero) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 15:52:29 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] BREAKING: Data Retention bill in Paraguay rejected Message-ID: Dear all, the paraguayan senate has just rejected the data retention bill known as #Pyrawebs thus killing it for good. Thanks to all involved in the process, all letter signatories and special congratulations to TEDIC (Paraguay) and EFF (International) for their enormous support. Best regards, *---Javier Pallero* Policy Analyst Access | accessnow.org PGP 0xEBFD028A Fingerprint 0503 FBA1 10B2 B83C 61FC FE3B 4E7E EBDD EBFD 028A *Join the Access team - *we're hiring ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 01:06:37 2015 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 13:06:37 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] BREAKING: Data Retention bill in Paraguay rejected In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <035801d09f4d$920a4870$b61ed950$@gmail.com> Javier or anyone, Does anyone have an idea of the degree to which the international publicizing and response to this proposed legislation played a role in its rejection? Tks, M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Javier Pallero Sent: June 5, 2015 2:52 AM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [bestbits] BREAKING: Data Retention bill in Paraguay rejected Dear all, the paraguayan senate has just rejected the data retention bill known as #Pyrawebs thus killing it for good. Thanks to all involved in the process, all letter signatories and special congratulations to TEDIC (Paraguay) and EFF (International) for their enormous support. Best regards, --- Javier Pallero Policy Analyst Access | accessnow.org PGP 0xEBFD028A Fingerprint 0503 FBA1 10B2 B83C 61FC FE3B 4E7E EBDD EBFD 028A Join the Access team - we're hiring! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From katitza at eff.org Fri Jun 5 05:06:27 2015 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 05:06:27 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] BREAKING: Data Retention bill in Paraguay rejected In-Reply-To: <035801d09f4d$920a4870$b61ed950$@gmail.com> References: <035801d09f4d$920a4870$b61ed950$@gmail.com> Message-ID: There were many pieces of the campaign, being the letter, just one of them. The goal of the letter was to provide support to the local group on their credibility. They were demanding what it was in the letter but they were attack by local prosecutors and others. The international support helps them to let the govt know that this is not only a local issue but a global problem, and they are not alone. We also do it for creating additional press news (we got nice shout out in the press). Finally as I said, there were many other pieces of the campaign such as the mobilization on twitter (which the politicians refers to that during the Senate debate) etc..and the lobbying and the media appearances and etc.. > On Jun 5, 2015, at 1:06 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > > Javier or anyone, > > Does anyone have an idea of the degree to which the international publicizing and response to this proposed legislation played a role in its rejection? > > Tks, > > M > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Javier Pallero > Sent: June 5, 2015 2:52 AM > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: [bestbits] BREAKING: Data Retention bill in Paraguay rejected > > Dear all, > > the paraguayan senate has just rejected the data retention bill known as #Pyrawebs thus killing it for good. > > Thanks to all involved in the process, all letter signatories and special congratulations to TEDIC (Paraguay) and EFF (International) for their enormous support. > > Best regards, > > --- > > Javier Pallero > > Policy Analyst > Access | accessnow.org > PGP 0xEBFD028A > Fingerprint 0503 FBA1 10B2 B83C 61FC FE3B 4E7E EBDD EBFD 028A > > > Join the Access team - we're hiring ! > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 842 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jun 5 06:18:22 2015 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2015 15:48:22 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Civil society transparency In-Reply-To: <685563FB-947F-4110-8B81-3872514B494C@eff.org> References: <55617E51.5010901@itforchange.net> <5566FE8A.9010209@itforchange.net> <685563FB-947F-4110-8B81-3872514B494C@eff.org> Message-ID: <5571776E.3070805@itforchange.net> On Friday 29 May 2015 07:11 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Replying just to the IGC list in respect of the suggestion that the > IGC could host this McCarthy Committee on civil society funding and > transparency, I doubt that there is any consensus that it should do > this, and the IGC cannot act in its absence. > > I for one cannot imagine a scenario in which this would not do much > more harm than good. There had already been much negative fallout from > JNC members interrogating others on this list and the Best Bits lists > by about their funding and demanding they take particular > accountability and transparency measures. We could not withstand > another such inquisition without a foundation of mutual trust and > respect, which frankly will take much time to rebuild, beginning with > an adjustment in attitude from the inquisitioners. Jeremy I made a straight forward proposal for a simplest possible, voluntary, transparency initiative for the civil society groups involved in the IG area. I also pointed out that because of both (1) the even higher stakes involved in the multi-stakeholder governance structures, and (2) the highly contested (and invested) geo politics of the area, such an initiative is especially important in this area. I also pointed that the NetMundial statement as well as the UN report on IGF improvements carries language which strongly points towards need for such transparency. I further clearly proposed that some group(s) that have the confidence of everyone in this area can manage the initiative. I, IT for Change or JNC have no interest in managing it. I further volunteered to personally help raise resources for it, that can be used by whichever entity we collectively decide should anchor this project. Further, I said that we can discuss different possible approaches to such a voluntary transparency initiative - I suggested the EU's transparency register as a model, Ian said we could explore alternative possibilities ( I request him to elaborate but havent heard back), Becky pointed to some resources and templates, which I am happy to go with, although they are more complex than a simple 'interests/ objectives / funding sources' kind of voluntary disclosure like the cited EU register calls for, you yourselves cited a document about which too I expressed openness to possibly treat as a basis for our further discussion... Meanwhile Luca Belli published this excellent paper on multistakeholderism ( I greatly encourage everyone to read it ) which also presents a basic schema of declarations of interests and funding for actors involved in IG space. The leads provided by this paper is one way we can take this discussion and the proposed initiative forward. However, instead of engaging on any of these lines, you continue to call the proposal names (McCarthy-ism) and take the ad hominem line of attacking the proposer rather than engage with the proposal. (BTW, I do consider it - excuse the expression - rather shameful for the co-convenor of a coalition to openly 'admit' that the basic problem that is considered to have dogged the coalition - roughly, a sort of ongoing conflict between two sides or groups, which I think is political - has really been about one side seeking funds related transparency from the office bearers of the coalition. Such statements belong to some corrupt set ups in a forsaken under-developed place, not in a top global coalition of civil society actors. On the other hand, your assertion that before such demands can be made, the demand-makers have to learn to behave and so on directly invites the analogy of a dictator who refuses to hold elections because he claims that pro-democracy protests had gone somewhat violent in some areas. We have been hearing such things for centuries now. But it is incredulous that a person of your skills and social position makes such statements in this era. ) Meanwhile, I have no expectations or claims from you as a person, but a co-convenor of the Bestbits groups I may restate my request that I will like to have some kind of official response on my proposal - or an alternative transparency proposal for civil society groups - from the Bestbits management. thanks, and best regards, parminder > > -- > 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 :: > > On May 28, 2015, at 4:39 AM, parminder > wrote: > >> Thanks Ian >> >> Responding to the two issues you raise. >> >> On Monday 25 May 2015 12:27 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >>> Hi Parminder, >>> >>> Two issues in response to your suggestion. >>> >>> Firstly, the suggestion that CSCG do this. CSCG consists of five >>> people who are pretty busy co-ordinating coalitions of CS >>> organisations (BB, JNC, IGC, APC, NCSG) and myself as an independent >>> chair. The role of CSCG is to ensure a co-ordinated civil society >>> response and conduit when it comes to making civil society >>> appointments to outside organisations. It has no staff, no funding, >>> not even a formal charter. In order to address some of the issues >>> it faces I have suggested from time to time that the membership be >>> expanded to include say 3 more respected civil society people who >>> are not formal representatives of coalitions of CS organisations. >>> The last time I suggested this it was met with some strongly worded >>> negative responses from JNC and I have not heard of any change of >>> position on this. So for these reasons I don’t think CSCG is the >>> right organisation to take on this task. Perhaps IGC? >> >> I suggested CSCG bec it has reps from major CS networks and so there >> was a common ownership over what should be a commonly owned and >> directed initiative so that there is scope of bias, and appropriate >> avenues of recourse exist. I still think CSCG the right body for it, >> but IGC would do as well. As for resources, let me make this blind >> offer, I will try and raise resources for one person devoting her >> half/ quarter time, who can be housed in a reputed org with a neutral >> image, for this purpose. More resources are needed initially for >> setting it up, but once set up it wont require much. I still do not >> know from where id seek resources but I am confident that with so >> much funds coming into the IG space someone somewhere would give a >> few thousand dollars for overall transparency and accountability in >> the sector. That should address and settle the resources argument in >> terms of my proposal. >> >>> >>> Secondly, I wonder how it would work in CS which has so many people >>> who are basically acting as individuals rather than representatives >>> of organisations. Many if not most of us also have non CS >>> affiliations (eg membership of ISOC, business or governmental >>> employees if we are cs volunteers, academic postings etc) so the >>> “pure” CS rep is probably a bit hard to find. I am not sure what we >>> would gain by having a register of all our multiple affiliations >>> which would need regular updating to be of any use. I think we need >>> to ensure our major coalitions (BB, JNC, IGC, APC, NCSG) act >>> transparently, and by and large I think they do. But I am not sure >>> of the value of extending this to what is probably tens of thousands >>> of members or organisations affiliated with these larger groups. >> >> Almost all CS transparency and accountability initiatives are >> focussed on organisations and not individuals, bec of the obvious >> reasons that the former have a greater role and impact. One may not >> need such processes for individuals, other than perhaps when any >> nominations or appointments are being on behalf of civil society , in >> which case anyone would agree that some basic declarations should in >> any case be necessary, and such simple and basic decelerations alone >> are what my proposed initiative asks for. >> >>> >>> Over to others to discuss. I am not opposed to the suggestion that >>> something be done in this area, but I think we need to refine any >>> such idea somewhat, >> >> Please give suggestions. >> >>> and if the aim is somehow to enhance CS credibility and transparency >>> in this space, perhaps we should also discuss what other measures >>> might also assist this. >> >> And for this as well. >> >> Thanks again. parminder >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> *From:* parminder >>> *Sent:* Sunday, May 24, 2015 3:31 PM >>> *To:* Ian Peter ; >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> ; BestBitsList ; >>> mailto:forum at justnetcoalition.org ; A general information sharing >>> space for the APC Community. >>> *Subject:* [governance] Civil society transparency >>> >>> Ian, and reps of civil society networks on the Civil Society >>> Coordination Group (CSCG) , >>> >>> I propose that CSCG sets up a civil society transparency project, >>> somewhat on the lines of the EU Transparency Register, pl see >>> http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/homePage.do . >>> >>> It should in fact go beyond the EU initiative which is a general one >>> for all lobbying groups, whereas we here are concerned with civil >>> society which should set the highest example of transparency and >>> accountability. The 'register' can have self filled information on >>> objectives of an organisation, principles followed by it, if any, >>> its funding, partners, and so on.... >>> >>> This is at present just my proposal, but I hope one or more civil >>> society networks in the IG space can own it and push it... CSCG >>> would be well placed to run this project as a neutral space so that >>> there is no accusation of bias that any such initiative is being >>> employed for partisan purposes. In any case, a simple initiative for >>> openness, transparency and accountability can hardly be partisan. >>> >>> The register can have optional higher level features whereby a >>> group/ org can declare its means of public accountability, whether >>> and how its internal governance is done, how matters can be taken by >>> with their oversight bodies, like board etc, and whether they have >>> any means whereby they respond to public question on their work, etc. >>> >>> For such genuine cases where such transparency can harm an >>> organisations work, or security, such organisations, and only such >>> organisations, can be exempted employing a clear process and set of >>> criteria. >>> >>> Remember, both the UN report on improvements to the IGF and the >>> NetMundial Statement highlight the issue of transparency. I also >>> recently read in these lists how we should make bridges with the >>> OpenGov movement which is almost wholly about this one thing. Time >>> we begin practising what we preach. >>> >>> I look forward to hear responses to this proposal.. >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nb at bollow.ch Mon Jun 1 06:29:35 2015 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 12:29:35 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Civil society transparency In-Reply-To: References: <55617E51.5010901@itforchange.net> <5566FE8A.9010209@itforchange.net> <685563FB-947F-4110-8B81-3872514B494C@eff.org> <20150531090029.5bd0ce96@quill> Message-ID: <20150601122935.53aef61c@quill> On Sun, 31 May 2015 21:04:25 -0700 Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On May 31, 2015, at 12:00 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > Given that the initial set of pointed questions were sparked by the > > initial Bestbits meeting having been part of a formal "capacity > > building" programme funded in part by the US and UK government, > > That is 100% false. None of the budget for that meeting was funded by > any government grant Sure. In view of the various circumstances (including in particular the presence of a Google representative at the meeting) I have never had any reason to harbor any doubts that the disclosures about the funding for the formal budget of that meeting might potentially have been insufficient, or that they might potentially have been untruthful. The transparency/disclosure concerns were always about something else, namely that (1) the other main organizer/leader of Bestbits besides you had, according to the best available information, pursued this at least during the 2012 phase as part of a formal, partly US government funded, capacity building program, and that (2) it appeared that at least one of the other people who were invited to become part of the initial Bestbits steering committee have been partners of this "capacity building program", and that (3) none of this had been disclosed to Bestbits participants at the relevant times. (Note: I wouldn't have objected to point '(2)' if it had been disclosed in a timely manner and with a credible assurance that indeed it was only one of the partners of the capacity building program who was invited to the initial Bestbits steering committee.) > and there was and is never any such capacity > building program behind Best Bits. The draft report from an > independent researcher that you read suggesting otherwise was > categorically incorrect and I can only hope was subsequently > corrected. I'd expect that in the public online version which is in the filename marked "final draft", any errors pointed out by the interviewees will have been corrected. http://strategiesformediareform.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/ICA-Paper-Final-Draft-Lentz-and-Hutchison.pdf This document states inter alia: "the digital media rights sector both in the U.S. and elsewhere continues to suffer limited resources [...] Recognition of such challenges is often why donor organizations step in to try to help. This happens by way of entrepreneurial NGO actors approaching donors, or donors approaching NGO actors to address a perceived gap in a sector’s capacity to address important policy issues effectively. Yet donor involvement—a necessary precondition for policy advocacy organizations seeking sustainable capacity—also triggers conflict in policy advocacy fields. [...] this paper explores some of the tensions and also benefits of what will be referred to as “intermediary” organizations’ involvement in helping to build the capacity of an emergent policy advocacy sector: the Internet freedom advocacy sector that addresses Internet governance and human rights in a digital media context. The paper features early-stage case study research on a specific intermediary actor in this field: the Internet Freedom and Human Rights (IFHR) program launched in 2012 and coordinated by Global Partners & Associates (GP&A) in the UK with its Washington, DC partner, the New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute (OTI). [...] The IFHR program enjoys support for this work from several donor organizations interested in digital rights issues, which include the Ford Foundation, the Open Society Foundation, the Media Democracy Fund, the British and Dutch governments, as well as the U.S. State Department. GP&A, founded in 2005 and based in London, serves as the primary grantee [...] Working within a short time frame, the program has succeeded in forging strong alliances with its local partner organizations, working together with them and other NGOs at regional and international forums to produce useful policy proposals that have garnered widespread support. [..] While working continuously with these partners, the IFHR program also organized three large regional meetings for NGOs, scholars and activists working on Internet freedom issues. These meetings occurred in the fall of 2012, in Kenya, Azerbaijan and Brazil. Furthermore, the IFHR program had a significant presence at the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12) in Dubai, in December. [...] The Azerbaijan meeting [...] piggybacked on the 7th Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Baku, Azerbaijan 6-9 November 2012. Being that the IGF is a UN-led, multi-stakeholder annual meeting, established to discuss public policy issues related to the Internet, the IFHR program saw it as an opportunity to convene with many Internet governance and Internet rights NGOs at once. They did so a few days before the start of the IGF, in a large gathering called Best Bits.(*) To IFHR program staff, this was a significant achievement (especially due to the preponderance of disparate perspectives), as the Best Bits meeting resulted in a clear consensus amongst those present, and an ensuing statement, which was later quoted by the US government (Puddephatt, 2012). Interviews with IFHR program staff suggest that to them, the occasion demonstrated the true potential for global coalition building, a main goal of the IFHR program." (*) At this point there is a reference to an endnote which says: "http://bestbits.net/ ; from interviews we learned that the term “Best Bits” was suggested by Dr. Jeremy Malcolm, senior policy officer for Consumers International’s “Consumers in the Digital Age” programme: http://www.consumersinternational.org/who-we-are/our-team/jeremy-malcolm#.UaZIq-BYSK8 " If in spite of all of the above, you still believe that your claim is defensible that "there was and is never any such capacity building program behind Best Bits", please arrange for disclosure of the true facts about the role and activities of the IFHR program in relation to Bestbits, which would in that case have been misunderstood by the researchers, and explain how that misunderstanding would have come about. Greetings, Norbert From avri at acm.org Fri Jun 5 12:08:12 2015 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2015 12:08:12 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [Bp_multistakeholder] Open call for Best Practice Forum (BPF) - Multistakeholder Practice Contributions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5571C96C.6030102@acm.org> Hi, If you know of any process that you think works or don't work, here is a chance to write it up and submit it. avri -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [Bp_multistakeholder] Open call for Best Practice Forum (BPF) - Multistakeholder Practice Contributions Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 11:33:35 +0200 From: IGF To: bp_multistakeholder at intgovforum.org, intersessional_2015 at intgovforum.org The report produced by the UN CSTD working group on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) called for the development of more tangible outputs to “enhance the impact of the IGF on global Internet governance and policy”. In order to enrich the potential for IGF outputs, the IGF is working on a set of intersessional activities including best practice forums (BPFs). The outputs from these activities are intended to become dynamic resources, to be nurtured and serve in turn as inputs into other forums such as WSIS+10. *The Best Practice Forum (BPF) onDeveloping meaningful multistakeholder participation mechanisms , BPF-Multistakeholder for short, invites community members to submit brief descriptions (suggest a max 500 words each) of multistakeholder and other participatory democratic practices they have used that have either:* * * *- worked very well* *- worked rather badly* Note that your experiences on challenges and failures are equally or sometimes more valuable than your experience on success as we often learn from failures. In your contributions, please respond to issues and questions discussed in the paper which deals with normative issues, that is descriptions of how the multistakeholder model should work. This paper has been produced from the output of last years BPF and comments made over the first months of 2015. The contributions on practices should be about things that did or did not work. Each contribution should restrict itself to describing just one practice. Should you wish to describe more than one practice, please submit multiple contributions. The contributions should notbe normative or describe how multistakeholder organizations/processes/mechanisms should work. Any normative comments should be added to the main BPF synthesis paper itself as either comments or suggested text. That document remains open for comments and suggested text. The contributions should be submitted to the BPF Multistakeholder mailing list and also to Brian Gutterman (gutterman at un.org ) by 13 July 2015. The contributions will then be synthesized with the current paper, to produce the draft input for this year’s IGF BPF meeting that will take place during the annual IGF in Joao Pessoa from 10-13 November. Refining this draft would then become the primary work item for this BPF in the run up to the IGF. The outputs produced by the BPF at IGF are intended to serve as inputs to other Internet governance fora and processes and may be maintained as living documents for further improvement. The output may also be used as part of capacity building information available through the IGF website and other distribution mechanisms such as the Friends of the IGF research sites. It is hoped that this output will become useful input in the further development of multistakeholder practice. The open IGF working group facilitating the work of the BPF-Multistakeholder remains open to new members and will continue to remain open to all interested stakeholders. All information can be found at: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/170-igf-2014/best-practice-forums-2014/1891-developing-meaningful-multistakeholder-participation-mechnisms Best regards, IGF Secretariat --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Bp_multistakeholder mailing list Bp_multistakeholder at intgovforum.org http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_multistakeholder_intgovforum.org From willi.uebelherr at riseup.net Fri Jun 5 17:20:56 2015 From: willi.uebelherr at riseup.net (willi uebelherr) Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2015 18:20:56 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Civil society transparency In-Reply-To: <5571776E.3070805@itforchange.net> References: <55617E51.5010901@itforchange.net> <5566FE8A.9010209@itforchange.net> <685563FB-947F-4110-8B81-3872514B494C@eff.org> <5571776E.3070805@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <557212B8.90804@riseup.net> Dear friends, we have read many things in this thread. And sometimes, i ask me, where lives this people? Dear parminder, you speak about EU and transparency in a direct relation?. Do you know, what is the EU? Do you know, how it works? Do you know, how it is inside structured? In the german language, we have a small sentence. "den Bock zum Gaertner machen" (make the goat the gardener). Or you can use: To fight against the fire in a forest with gasoline. In the text from Luca Belli i found a reference to a book, that Wolfgang Kleinwaechter have edited 2007. "The Power of Ideas: Internet Governance in a Global Multi-Stakeholder Environment ". Now i got the pdf-file. And i see, 8 years before, the discussion about "Internet Governance" was the same. And i ask me: In all this years of big discussions, many meetings in 5 star environments, what is the result? Only the resignation, frustration and the loss of orientation? many greetings, willi Buenos Aires, Argentina Am 05/06/2015 um 07:18 schrieb parminder: > On Friday 29 May 2015 07:11 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> Replying just to the IGC list in respect of the suggestion that the >> IGC could host this McCarthy Committee on civil society funding and >> transparency, I doubt that there is any consensus that it should do >> this, and the IGC cannot act in its absence. >> >> I for one cannot imagine a scenario in which this would not do much >> more harm than good. There had already been much negative fallout from >> JNC members interrogating others on this list and the Best Bits lists >> by about their funding and demanding they take particular >> accountability and transparency measures. We could not withstand >> another such inquisition without a foundation of mutual trust and >> respect, which frankly will take much time to rebuild, beginning with >> an adjustment in attitude from the inquisitioners. > > Jeremy > > I made a straight forward proposal for a simplest possible, voluntary, > transparency initiative for the civil society groups involved in the IG > area. I also pointed out that because of both (1) the even higher stakes > involved in the multi-stakeholder governance structures, and (2) the > highly contested (and invested) geo politics of the area, such an > initiative is especially important in this area. I also pointed that the > NetMundial statement as well as the UN report on IGF improvements > carries language which strongly points towards need for such transparency. > > I further clearly proposed that some group(s) that have the confidence > of everyone in this area can manage the initiative. I, IT for Change or > JNC have no interest in managing it. I further volunteered to personally > help raise resources for it, that can be used by whichever entity we > collectively decide should anchor this project. > > Further, I said that we can discuss different possible approaches to > such a voluntary transparency initiative - I suggested the EU's > transparency register as a model, Ian said we could explore alternative > possibilities ( I request him to elaborate but havent heard back), Becky > pointed to some resources and templates, which I am happy to go with, > although they are more complex than a simple 'interests/ objectives / > funding sources' kind of voluntary disclosure like the cited EU register > calls for, you yourselves cited a document about which too I expressed > openness to possibly treat as a basis for our further discussion... > > Meanwhile Luca Belli published this excellent paper on > multistakeholderism > > ( I greatly encourage everyone to read it ) which also presents a basic > schema of declarations of interests and funding for actors involved in > IG space. The leads provided by this paper is one way we can take this > discussion and the proposed initiative forward. > > However, instead of engaging on any of these lines, you continue to call > the proposal names (McCarthy-ism) and take the ad hominem line of > attacking the proposer rather than engage with the proposal. > > (BTW, I do consider it - excuse the expression - rather shameful for > the co-convenor of a coalition to openly 'admit' that the basic problem > that is considered to have dogged the coalition - roughly, a sort of > ongoing conflict between two sides or groups, which I think is political > - has really been about one side seeking funds related transparency from > the office bearers of the coalition. Such statements belong to some > corrupt set ups in a forsaken under-developed place, not in a top global > coalition of civil society actors. On the other hand, your assertion > that before such demands can be made, the demand-makers have to learn to > behave and so on directly invites the analogy of a dictator who refuses > to hold elections because he claims that pro-democracy protests had gone > somewhat violent in some areas. We have been hearing such things for > centuries now. But it is incredulous that a person of your skills and > social position makes such statements in this era. ) > > Meanwhile, I have no expectations or claims from you as a person, but a > co-convenor of the Bestbits groups I may restate my request that I will > like to have some kind of official response on my proposal - or an > alternative transparency proposal for civil society groups - from the > Bestbits management. > > thanks, and best regards, > > parminder From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 19:40:08 2015 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2015 07:40:08 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] BREAKING: Data Retention bill in Paraguay rejected In-Reply-To: References: <035801d09f4d$920a4870$b61ed950$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <01c101d09fe9$03b0f730$0b12e590$@gmail.com> Thanks for this Katitza.. I should say that my interest is more or less "academic" but I am curious whether or not (and how) these processes of (attempted) global mobilization in these areas are being effective. It is possible that they may represent some type of proto-global democratic mobilization which can give us hints on how broader such movements might operate and be (or not be) effective in the future. M From: Katitza Rodriguez [mailto:katitza at eff.org] Sent: June 5, 2015 5:06 PM To: Michael Gurstein Cc: Javier Pallero; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] BREAKING: Data Retention bill in Paraguay rejected There were many pieces of the campaign, being the letter, just one of them. The goal of the letter was to provide support to the local group on their credibility. They were demanding what it was in the letter but they were attack by local prosecutors and others. The international support helps them to let the govt know that this is not only a local issue but a global problem, and they are not alone. We also do it for creating additional press news (we got nice shout out in the press). Finally as I said, there were many other pieces of the campaign such as the mobilization on twitter (which the politicians refers to that during the Senate debate) etc..and the lobbying and the media appearances and etc.. On Jun 5, 2015, at 1:06 AM, Michael Gurstein > wrote: Javier or anyone, Does anyone have an idea of the degree to which the international publicizing and response to this proposed legislation played a role in its rejection? Tks, M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Javier Pallero Sent: June 5, 2015 2:52 AM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [bestbits] BREAKING: Data Retention bill in Paraguay rejected Dear all, the paraguayan senate has just rejected the data retention bill known as #Pyrawebs thus killing it for good. Thanks to all involved in the process, all letter signatories and special congratulations to TEDIC (Paraguay) and EFF (International) for their enormous support. Best regards, --- Javier Pallero Policy Analyst Access | accessnow.org PGP 0xEBFD028A Fingerprint 0503 FBA1 10B2 B83C 61FC FE3B 4E7E EBDD EBFD 028A Join the Access team - we're hiring! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From willi.uebelherr at riseup.net Fri Jun 5 22:54:21 2015 From: willi.uebelherr at riseup.net (willi uebelherr) Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2015 23:54:21 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Internet governance needs to develop ambitions Message-ID: <557260DD.6040807@riseup.net> Dear friends, on my working for a text "decentralisation of the DNS system" i have found this text from Amelia Andersdotter from the Pirate Party in Sweden. For all people with this dreams: We are not alone. Internet governance needs to develop ambitions 30 Apr 2015 by Amelia Andersdotter http://policyreview.info/articles/news/internet-governance-needs-develop-ambitions/362 many greetings, willi Buenos Aires, Argentina From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Jun 6 18:02:32 2015 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2015 08:02:32 +1000 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Civil society transparency In-Reply-To: <55617E51.5010901@itforchange.net> References: <55617E51.5010901@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <41C19523561A4A5CA29EF6368B4F5AA5@Toshiba> Hi Parminder, Following from the discussion, here is what I think is possible and realistic in this space. Firstly, I think the question of transparency and disclosure of conflicts of interest is important. However, I don’t think people need to declare interests to involve themselves in discussion here or in any of our open mailing lists, and the real concerns start to arise only when people are seeking office as civil society representatives. Here, most of the office bearing exists in the various coalitions – APC, Best Bits, JNC, NCSG, IGC. I would urge each of these groups, when holding elections, to require candidates to register any conflicts of interest. I know Best Bits is moving to elections for its Steering Committee again soon, perhaps it could formulate some sort of basic disclosure requirement for its purposes? And I guess JNC must be moving towards holding its first elections for SC replenishment soon? And IGC could easily add such a requirement for its candidates for co cordinator elections (presumably late this year). But these are requirements for individual groups, and the form of such is for each group to determine. I think however that such a requirement would be a good idea. As regards CSCG – our calls for candidates are for appointments to outside bodies, and I agree that some form of disclosure of any conflicts of interest would be a good idea. Currently it would appear that our next task would be MAG replenishment (and a small one at that), probably early next year. I will suggest to the members that we should require some sort of basic disclosure statement. But that of course is up to the members (APC, BB, JNC, NCSG, IGC) to determine. I’m not sure we can go much further. But if some work can be done on a simple model of a form of disclosure, that would be good. Ian Peter From: parminder Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 5:31 PM To: Ian Peter ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; BestBitsList ; mailto:forum at justnetcoalition.org ; A general information sharing space for the APC Community. Subject: [governance] Civil society transparency Ian, and reps of civil society networks on the Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) , I propose that CSCG sets up a civil society transparency project, somewhat on the lines of the EU Transparency Register, pl see http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/homePage.do . It should in fact go beyond the EU initiative which is a general one for all lobbying groups, whereas we here are concerned with civil society which should set the highest example of transparency and accountability. The 'register' can have self filled information on objectives of an organisation, principles followed by it, if any, its funding, partners, and so on.... This is at present just my proposal, but I hope one or more civil society networks in the IG space can own it and push it... CSCG would be well placed to run this project as a neutral space so that there is no accusation of bias that any such initiative is being employed for partisan purposes. In any case, a simple initiative for openness, transparency and accountability can hardly be partisan. The register can have optional higher level features whereby a group/ org can declare its means of public accountability, whether and how its internal governance is done, how matters can be taken by with their oversight bodies, like board etc, and whether they have any means whereby they respond to public question on their work, etc. For such genuine cases where such transparency can harm an organisations work, or security, such organisations, and only such organisations, can be exempted employing a clear process and set of criteria. Remember, both the UN report on improvements to the IGF and the NetMundial Statement highlight the issue of transparency. I also recently read in these lists how we should make bridges with the OpenGov movement which is almost wholly about this one thing. Time we begin practising what we preach. I look forward to hear responses to this proposal.. parminder -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ca at cafonso.ca Sat Jun 6 18:48:50 2015 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2015 19:48:50 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] IANA transition - BR Gov comments on the CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal Message-ID: <557378D2.6030503@cafonso.ca> For the ones who are following the IANA transition process: attached please find the comments posted by the government of Brazil on June 03, 2015, in response to the call for public comments on the CCWG-Accountability Initial Draft Proposal. I generally agree with the comments. fraternal regards --c.a. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: BRAZIL - ICANN Accountability Review Process - Comments - 20150603 .pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 168419 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Jun 6 22:20:42 2015 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2015 10:20:42 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Civil society transparency In-Reply-To: <41C19523561A4A5CA29EF6368B4F5AA5@Toshiba> References: <55617E51.5010901@itforchange.net> <41C19523561A4A5CA29EF6368B4F5AA5@Toshiba> Message-ID: <003801d0a0c9$1587b3f0$40971bd0$@gmail.com> Ian and all, The reason why there is a request for disclosure is so as to know the background or context from which opinions/positions/actions emerge. It is the same argument I think, as that concerning real identity vs. anonymity as per the current Facebook controversy. It is an extremely useful and in some cases essential item of information to know who (the identity) it is that one is interacting with. My own feeling on the issue is that unless there are strong and persuasive arguments in favour of anonymity then knowing the “identity” of who (or what) ever one is interacting with is a basic requirement. I don’t know that it has ever been an issue in our various IG discussions but if it did arise my guess is that most would opt for people using their “real” names/identities for their contributions. If the above is the case then I think that by extension we can give some content to what we mean by “real identity”. To some degree the components of the “real identity” required for effective communication/interaction will vary from context to context—for romantic purposes age, appearance, gender would likely be necessary; for financial contexts formal elements as might be required or contracts such as citizenship, financial and credit information are part of that “real identify”. I would argue that in our IG context “real identity” should include a knowledge of the financial/contractual contexts (i.e. who is paying the piper) from which individual participation is being presented. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Ian Peter Sent: June 7, 2015 6:03 AM To: parminder; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; BestBitsList; Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org; A general information sharing space for the APC Community. Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Civil society transparency Hi Parminder, Following from the discussion, here is what I think is possible and realistic in this space. Firstly, I think the question of transparency and disclosure of conflicts of interest is important. However, I don’t think people need to declare interests to involve themselves in discussion here or in any of our open mailing lists, and the real concerns start to arise only when people are seeking office as civil society representatives. Here, most of the office bearing exists in the various coalitions – APC, Best Bits, JNC, NCSG, IGC. I would urge each of these groups, when holding elections, to require candidates to register any conflicts of interest. I know Best Bits is moving to elections for its Steering Committee again soon, perhaps it could formulate some sort of basic disclosure requirement for its purposes? And I guess JNC must be moving towards holding its first elections for SC replenishment soon? And IGC could easily add such a requirement for its candidates for co cordinator elections (presumably late this year). But these are requirements for individual groups, and the form of such is for each group to determine. I think however that such a requirement would be a good idea. As regards CSCG – our calls for candidates are for appointments to outside bodies, and I agree that some form of disclosure of any conflicts of interest would be a good idea. Currently it would appear that our next task would be MAG replenishment (and a small one at that), probably early next year. I will suggest to the members that we should require some sort of basic disclosure statement. But that of course is up to the members (APC, BB, JNC, NCSG, IGC) to determine. I’m not sure we can go much further. But if some work can be done on a simple model of a form of disclosure, that would be good. Ian Peter From: parminder Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 5:31 PM To: Ian Peter ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; BestBitsList ; mailto:forum at justnetcoalition.org ; A general information sharing space for the APC Community. Subject: [governance] Civil society transparency Ian, and reps of civil society networks on the Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) , I propose that CSCG sets up a civil society transparency project, somewhat on the lines of the EU Transparency Register, pl see http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/homePage.do . It should in fact go beyond the EU initiative which is a general one for all lobbying groups, whereas we here are concerned with civil society which should set the highest example of transparency and accountability. The 'register' can have self filled information on objectives of an organisation, principles followed by it, if any, its funding, partners, and so on.... This is at present just my proposal, but I hope one or more civil society networks in the IG space can own it and push it... CSCG would be well placed to run this project as a neutral space so that there is no accusation of bias that any such initiative is being employed for partisan purposes. In any case, a simple initiative for openness, transparency and accountability can hardly be partisan. The register can have optional higher level features whereby a group/ org can declare its means of public accountability, whether and how its internal governance is done, how matters can be taken by with their oversight bodies, like board etc, and whether they have any means whereby they respond to public question on their work, etc. For such genuine cases where such transparency can harm an organisations work, or security, such organisations, and only such organisations, can be exempted employing a clear process and set of criteria. Remember, both the UN report on improvements to the IGF and the NetMundial Statement highlight the issue of transparency. I also recently read in these lists how we should make bridges with the OpenGov movement which is almost wholly about this one thing. Time we begin practising what we preach. I look forward to hear responses to this proposal.. parminder _____ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jun 7 01:49:58 2015 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2015 11:19:58 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Civil society transparency In-Reply-To: <41C19523561A4A5CA29EF6368B4F5AA5@Toshiba> References: <55617E51.5010901@itforchange.net> <41C19523561A4A5CA29EF6368B4F5AA5@Toshiba> Message-ID: <5573DB86.5080001@itforchange.net> Ian, thanks for taking this discussion forward. Firstly, on the matter of to whom the required transparency measures should be applicable. I have said this before, this is supposed to be voluntary, and individuals merely getting into discussions on civil society lists are not important in this regard. It is the civil society organisations as well as individuals who get selected as civil society reps in various forms, or otherwise play significant roles in civil society and multistakeholder spaces, that we mainly focus on. The major organisations involved in this area must be subject to basic transparency requirements whether or not they take a civil society rep position because they in any case very often play very important role in policy processes. As you would have seen, unfortunately, a lot of strong civil society action is currently taking place away from the key coalitions that you mention. (On the other hand, I dont see why any individual just coming into some IG discussion on civil society lists would be taking any IG related funding at all - I mean what would s/he take it for - for spending time on these lists!? (That btw would be most interesting - but then we know that some big governments have paid people intervening in the cyber - public sphere as a new form of public propaganda.) So, I fail to understand why is this discussion focussing on individuals merely participating in the list discussions - they can simply ignore the proposed voluntary register, or enter that they take no IG activities related funding from anyone, as one would expect to be true for most of them. But then well, if individuals do take clear IG related funding, say, as travel grants, occasional writings. and so on, I would think it is necessary to declare that - perhaps even morethan in case of organisations, who, unlike individuals, mostly - though not always - have other forms of additional NGO governance checks. But to repeat, my proposal has a greater primary focus on involved organisations as against individuals. ) Next, about what kind of transparency measures are appropriate. 'Conflict of interest' is used more in corporate governance and we, civil society people, would best stick to higher norms of public life rather than go by corporate governance norms. The later are necessarily limited and have a different nature. For instance, conflict of interest will apply to someone who holds the shares of a company but then gets involved in a governance decision that impacts the bottomline of that company. Things really do not work like that in public life, where transparency and accountability have a very different - much higher but accordingly also diffuse - meaning and implication. The 'public' part of 'public life' is very important - and as civil society players we are in public life, in fact in its rather powerful 'political life' part. In stating a conflict of interest a person takes a private decision about oneself and one's state of affair (of course, the decision can become public in case of accusations, some future crisis, and so on). Transparency of people in public life requires such judgements to made /by the public/, and /at all times/. That is of essence. Sorry, that one has to go into such basic canons of public life, which have a long history and much better enunciations than I can attempt here. It is or this reason that simple conflict of interest statement while it may serve the limited scope of requirements of corporate governance, does not satisfy the public requirements of public life, especially as involving those actors who are involved in public governance, as IG civil society certainly is. To make this discussion more concrete; youd agree that we should get into instituting a process only if it has any real meaning in terms of practical implications. So I ask you, lets say that an organisation or an individual were receiving funding from government of India or from Google - and is involved in the typical IG related activities; please provide me an instance of likely case in which that organisation/ individual will self declare a conflict of interest. I cant think of many such possible instances - policy work is by its very nature diffuse and almost everyone is, by the very nature of it being public policy, impacted - some certainly more than the other, but private judgements of such impact would hardly be useful. It is not that IGF or an IG governance body is ever going to make a declaration specifically on govt of India or google, in which kind of case perhaps one may jump to state a funding conflict. In fact, one still may not, becuase typically any org will accept funding only in the name of promoting public interest and would not want to accept that pushing a public policy discussion or process in one way or the other actually constitutes a 'conflict of interest' - in that it would not want to admit that in accepting a funding it had accepted taking on 'an interest'. That is a fundamental difference in how a civil society org is constitutes, as against a lobbying body. For all these reasons, conflict of interest is not a concept suited for civil society transparency and accountability. Your proposal for "require(ing) candidates to register any conflicts of interest" would simply result in all candidates saying 'they have no conflict of interest that they can recognise' and thus would serve no purpose at all. Lastly, while you keep on saying this is the most we can do ( 'conflict of interest' declaration) you have not given any reason why transparency standards often applied in other areas of civil society work should not be applied in the IG space as well, and what exactly is wrong with a basic voluntary register of transparency simply declaring 'interests, objectives, and funding sources'. This even when I have been arguing that it is even more important for IG civil society than in other civil society areas, because the unique multistakeholder claim and approach in this area puts civil society in more significant, even powerful, policy positions than in other areas. Also, how basic documents on healthy development of a multistakeholder approach like the UN report on IGF improvements, NetMundial Statement, etc, all point to need for greater transparency. I once again exhort you to read Luca Belli's this excellent paper on multistakeholderism which argues why such basic transparency is essential to forwarding a multistakeholder approach. I cant see how IG civil society can keep pushing a multistakeholder approach to policy making, and seek a greater role for itself in the process, but then keep dragging its feet on accepting even basic transparency norms. The world is watching of course, and will ask questions. there is a cost to being in public life. parminder On Sunday 07 June 2015 03:32 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Hi Parminder, > > Following from the discussion, here is what I think is possible and > realistic in this space. > > Firstly, I think the question of transparency and disclosure of > conflicts of interest is important. > > However, I don’t think people need to declare interests to involve > themselves in discussion here or in any of our open mailing lists, and > the real concerns start to arise only when people are seeking office > as civil society representatives. > > Here, most of the office bearing exists in the various coalitions – > APC, Best Bits, JNC, NCSG, IGC. I would urge each of these groups, > when holding elections, to require candidates to register any > conflicts of interest. I know Best Bits is moving to elections for its > Steering Committee again soon, perhaps it could formulate some sort of > basic disclosure requirement for its purposes? And I guess JNC must be > moving towards holding its first elections for SC replenishment soon? > And IGC could easily add such a requirement for its candidates for co > cordinator elections (presumably late this year). > > But these are requirements for individual groups, and the form of such > is for each group to determine. I think however that such a > requirement would be a good idea. > > As regards CSCG – our calls for candidates are for appointments to > outside bodies, and I agree that some form of disclosure of any > conflicts of interest would be a good idea. Currently it would appear > that our next task would be MAG replenishment (and a small one at > that), probably early next year. I will suggest to the members that we > should require some sort of basic disclosure statement. But that of > course is up to the members (APC, BB, JNC, NCSG, IGC) to determine. > > I’m not sure we can go much further. But if some work can be done on a > simple model of a form of disclosure, that would be good. > > Ian Peter > > *From:* parminder > *Sent:* Sunday, May 24, 2015 5:31 PM > *To:* Ian Peter ; > governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; > BestBitsList ; > mailto:forum at justnetcoalition.org ; A general information sharing > space for the APC Community. > *Subject:* [governance] Civil society transparency > > Ian, and reps of civil society networks on the Civil Society > Coordination Group (CSCG) , > > I propose that CSCG sets up a civil society transparency project, > somewhat on the lines of the EU Transparency Register, pl see > http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/homePage.do . > > It should in fact go beyond the EU initiative which is a general one > for all lobbying groups, whereas we here are concerned with civil > society which should set the highest example of transparency and > accountability. The 'register' can have self filled information on > objectives of an organisation, principles followed by it, if any, its > funding, partners, and so on.... > > This is at present just my proposal, but I hope one or more civil > society networks in the IG space can own it and push it... CSCG would > be well placed to run this project as a neutral space so that there is > no accusation of bias that any such initiative is being employed for > partisan purposes. In any case, a simple initiative for openness, > transparency and accountability can hardly be partisan. > > The register can have optional higher level features whereby a group/ > org can declare its means of public accountability, whether and how > its internal governance is done, how matters can be taken by with > their oversight bodies, like board etc, and whether they have any > means whereby they respond to public question on their work, etc. > > For such genuine cases where such transparency can harm an > organisations work, or security, such organisations, and only such > organisations, can be exempted employing a clear process and set of > criteria. > > Remember, both the UN report on improvements to the IGF and the > NetMundial Statement highlight the issue of transparency. I also > recently read in these lists how we should make bridges with the > OpenGov movement which is almost wholly about this one thing. Time we > begin practising what we preach. > > I look forward to hear responses to this proposal.. > > parminder > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jun 7 02:18:35 2015 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2015 11:48:35 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [JNC - Forum] [governance] Civil society transparency In-Reply-To: References: <55617E51.5010901@itforchange.net> <41C19523561A4A5CA29EF6368B4F5AA5@Toshiba> <003801d0a0c9$1587b3f0$40971bd0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5573E23B.8010503@itforchange.net> On Sunday 07 June 2015 10:30 AM, Roberto Bissio wrote: > Dear Parminder, > > There are many mechanisms for CSO accountability. > > NGOS accredited to the UN have to regularly report on funding, bilaws, > authorities and activities. > > Further, an INGO accountability charter > exists: http://www.ingoaccountabilitycharter.org/ > > Social Watch was a member, until we could not afford the membership > fee, which is unfairly burdensome on poorer organizations from the South. > > Some fee is required if you are to assess the reporting of the > organizations. Otherwise everybody declares what it wants and the > transparency is meaningless. Roberto This is the reason that what is sought is a simple no cost statement of voluntary declaration of (1) interests, and (2) objectives and (3) funding sources, very much on the lines of the basic requirement that you mention below, and I would add as per your note "affiliations to networks or institutions " (somewhat like theEU transparency register .) And this with no fee or costs to those who enter the register -- the project should be run on independent funding by whoever runs it, and I have offered to help raise resources. And it being an online activity, the project requires very little resources. While in any case required for civil society, such a practise becomes even more important in the IG space where (1) there is a special - even 'equal footing' - claim to be on policy tables , and (2) where the geo-political investments as well as corporate investments into CS spaces by far exceed any other area. Funding sources of both JNC and BestBits have been publicly questioned in the recent past, on these very lists. What better way to go forward than having basic transparency declarations instituted to that there is a better basis for minimum cooperation and working together as we go forward. In this regard, it is important to recognise that for good or bad, or maybe that is just some unique characteristics of a civil society space which is both in the making in some way, and otherwise unique in some other ways, political divisions have been especially deep within the IG civil society space. (The reasons for this are structural, although repeated efforts are made to lay the blame on individual behavioural causes, and thus escape the real political basis of the differences .) I know that these things are not unknown in other areas, but still - stated very roughly - a better mainstream conception of civil society is generally obtainable in other areas. All these characteristics of the IG civil society space make instituting some basic transparency guidelines - on a voluntary basis - important for healthy development of civil society in the IG area, whose political role in the emerging digitally-mediated society is going to be extremly important. This should be a common commitment to ourselves, in all humility with regard to the increasingly important political role that civil society in the IG space plays. parminder > > While it makes sense to demand accountability from organizations > involved in the top levl of international advocacy, there are too many > situations in the world where this could mean another additional and > unfair request, on top of the many requests of regular reports that > most countries have to grant incorporation. Demanding more from CSOs > when neither governments nor corporations have to meet similar > requirements seems unfair to me. But maybe it makes sense to have a > list explaining wether the members are incporprated, where and under > what title (for profit, non-profit, etc) and affilitiaons to networks > or institutions they want to declare or wether it is an individual or > an informal grouping. Do remember that it is an human right (right to > association) to form groups of any kind, and they are (or should be) > deemed as "innocent" until proven guilty. Too many states turn the > table around and presume that associations are illegal until they > register and demonstrate they are "clean". We should not unwillingly > support that trend. > > best, > Roberto > > > On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 4:20 AM, Michael Gurstein > wrote: > > Ian and all, > > > > The reason why there is a request for disclosure is so as to know > the background or context from which opinions/positions/actions > emerge. It is the same argument I think, as that concerning real > identity vs. anonymity as per the current Facebook controversy. It > is an extremely useful and in some cases essential item of > information to know who (the identity) it is that one is > interacting with. > > > > My own feeling on the issue is that unless there are strong and > persuasive arguments in favour of anonymity then knowing the > “identity” of who (or what) ever one is interacting with is a > basic requirement. I don’t know that it has ever been an issue in > our various IG discussions but if it did arise my guess is that > most would opt for people using their “real” names/identities for > their contributions. > > > > If the above is the case then I think that by extension we can > give some content to what we mean by “real identity”. > > > > To some degree the components of the “real identity” required for > effective communication/interaction will vary from context to > context—for romantic purposes age, appearance, gender would likely > be necessary; for financial contexts formal elements as might be > required or contracts such as citizenship, financial and credit > information are part of that “real identify”. > > > > I would argue that in our IG context “real identity” should > include a knowledge of the financial/contractual contexts (i.e. > who is paying the piper) from which individual participation is > being presented. > > > > M > > > > *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > ] *On Behalf Of *Ian Peter > *Sent:* June 7, 2015 6:03 AM > *To:* parminder; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > ; BestBitsList; > Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org; A general information sharing space > for the APC Community. > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] [governance] Civil society transparency > > > > Hi Parminder, > > > > Following from the discussion, here is what I think is possible > and realistic in this space. > > > > Firstly, I think the question of transparency and disclosure of > conflicts of interest is important. > > > > However, I don’t think people need to declare interests to involve > themselves in discussion here or in any of our open mailing lists, > and the real concerns start to arise only when people are seeking > office as civil society representatives. > > > > Here, most of the office bearing exists in the various coalitions > – APC, Best Bits, JNC, NCSG, IGC. I would urge each of these > groups, when holding elections, to require candidates to register > any conflicts of interest. I know Best Bits is moving to elections > for its Steering Committee again soon, perhaps it could formulate > some sort of basic disclosure requirement for its purposes? And I > guess JNC must be moving towards holding its first elections for > SC replenishment soon? And IGC could easily add such a > requirement for its candidates for co cordinator elections > (presumably late this year). > > > > But these are requirements for individual groups, and the form of > such is for each group to determine. I think however that such a > requirement would be a good idea. > > > > As regards CSCG – our calls for candidates are for appointments to > outside bodies, and I agree that some form of disclosure of any > conflicts of interest would be a good idea. Currently it would > appear that our next task would be MAG replenishment (and a small > one at that), probably early next year. I will suggest to the > members that we should require some sort of basic disclosure > statement. But that of course is up to the members (APC, BB, JNC, > NCSG, IGC) to determine. > > > > I’m not sure we can go much further. But if some work can be done > on a simple model of a form of disclosure, that would be good. > > > > Ian Peter > > > > *From:*parminder > > *Sent:*Sunday, May 24, 2015 5:31 PM > > *To:*Ian Peter ; > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > ; BestBitsList > ; > mailto:forum at justnetcoalition.org ; A general information sharing > space for the APC Community. > > *Subject:*[governance] Civil society transparency > > > > Ian, and reps of civil society networks on the Civil Society > Coordination Group (CSCG) , > > I propose that CSCG sets up a civil society transparency project, > somewhat on the lines of the EU Transparency Register, pl see > http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/homePage.do . > > It should in fact go beyond the EU initiative which is a general > one for all lobbying groups, whereas we here are concerned with > civil society which should set the highest example of transparency > and accountability. The 'register' can have self filled > information on objectives of an organisation, principles followed > by it, if any, its funding, partners, and so on.... > > This is at present just my proposal, but I hope one or more civil > society networks in the IG space can own it and push it... CSCG > would be well placed to run this project as a neutral space so > that there is no accusation of bias that any such initiative is > being employed for partisan purposes. In any case, a simple > initiative for openness, transparency and accountability can > hardly be partisan. > > The register can have optional higher level features whereby a > group/ org can declare its means of public accountability, whether > and how its internal governance is done, how matters can be taken > by with their oversight bodies, like board etc, and whether they > have any means whereby they respond to public question on their > work, etc. > > For such genuine cases where such transparency can harm an > organisations work, or security, such organisations, and only such > organisations, can be exempted employing a clear process and set > of criteria. > > Remember, both the UN report on improvements to the IGF and the > NetMundial Statement highlight the issue of transparency. I also > recently read in these lists how we should make bridges with the > OpenGov movement which is almost wholly about this one thing. Time > we begin practising what we preach. > > I look forward to hear responses to this proposal.. > > parminder > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > Forum mailing list > Forum at justnetcoalition.org > http://mail.justnetcoalition.org/listinfo/forum > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Sun Jun 7 03:04:13 2015 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2015 09:04:13 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] [JNC - Forum] [governance] Civil society transparency In-Reply-To: <5573E23B.8010503@itforchange.net> References: <55617E51.5010901@itforchange.net> <41C19523561A4A5CA29EF6368B4F5AA5@Toshiba> <003801d0a0c9$1587b3f0$40971bd0$@gmail.com> <5573E23B.8010503@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5A7E3D00-73E1-48C3-95D2-B5D748F9C5FC@theglobaljournal.net> To add a comment on NGO accountability (not synonym for transparency), and to support Parminder's point and putting my Top 500 NGOs' hat on: - INGO accountability Charter has a rather limited list of participants (large INGOs) precisely for the reason it is a paid "stamp". When looking in details, this charter has very limited constraints. The non-profit sector has clearly not endorsed it. For some good reasons. Listed corporations that do rely on public investment are under legal obligations in terms of accountability and transparency, and still, we do know that they are far away from being as transparent in terms of governance, interests and influence (lobbying politics, governments, trade unions, and civil society). - There is no UN binding law, obligation or regulation, or whatever official request from NGOs listed as ECOSOC accredited by the UN. NGOs are basically free to provide info or not, and upload it within the database where one can find links related to NGOs accredited. The UN has no legal authority over NGO/NPO accountability or transparency. Once again, an ECOSOC accreditation is a simple ticket to provide NGOs with a possibility to join, listen, and sometime express within some of the UN forums/agencies/programs... As we rank NGOs/NPOs/SocEnt/PPPs (with a public interest orientation) since 2012, we have been into many of these issues, and so far governments and listed corporations have a much greater degree of public accountability obligation than the non-profit sector. The non-profit sector obeys more on a voluntary basis, some of them providing, sometime, a good level of public data and information. There is room for progress. That would benefit the non-profit sector, and the IG sub non-profit sector could lead on this issue. JC Le 7 juin 2015 à 08:18, parminder a écrit : > > > On Sunday 07 June 2015 10:30 AM, Roberto Bissio wrote: >> Dear Parminder, >> >> There are many mechanisms for CSO accountability. >> >> NGOS accredited to the UN have to regularly report on funding, bilaws, authorities and activities. >> >> Further, an INGO accountability charter exists: http://www.ingoaccountabilitycharter.org/ >> >> Social Watch was a member, until we could not afford the membership fee, which is unfairly burdensome on poorer organizations from the South. >> >> Some fee is required if you are to assess the reporting of the organizations. Otherwise everybody declares what it wants and the transparency is meaningless. > > Roberto > > This is the reason that what is sought is a simple no cost statement of voluntary declaration of (1) interests, and (2) objectives and (3) funding sources, very much on the lines of the basic requirement that you mention below, and I would add as per your note "affiliations to networks or institutions " (somewhat like the EU transparency register .) And this with no fee or costs to those who enter the register -- the project should be run on independent funding by whoever runs it, and I have offered to help raise resources. And it being an online activity, the project requires very little resources. > > While in any case required for civil society, such a practise becomes even more important in the IG space where (1) there is a special - even 'equal footing' - claim to be on policy tables , and (2) where the geo-political investments as well as corporate investments into CS spaces by far exceed any other area. Funding sources of both JNC and BestBits have been publicly questioned in the recent past, on these very lists. What better way to go forward than having basic transparency declarations instituted to that there is a better basis for minimum cooperation and working together as we go forward. In this regard, it is important to recognise that for good or bad, or maybe that is just some unique characteristics of a civil society space which is both in the making in some way, and otherwise unique in some other ways, political divisions have been especially deep within the IG civil society space. (The reasons for this are structural, although repeated efforts are made to lay the blame on individual behavioural causes, and thus escape the real political basis of the differences .) I know that these things are not unknown in other areas, but still - stated very roughly - a better mainstream conception of civil society is generally obtainable in other areas. All these characteristics of the IG civil society space make instituting some basic transparency guidelines - on a voluntary basis - important for healthy development of civil society in the IG area, whose political role in the emerging digitally-mediated society is going to be extremly important. This should be a common commitment to ourselves, in all humility with regard to the increasingly important political role that civil society in the IG space plays. > > parminder > >> >> While it makes sense to demand accountability from organizations involved in the top levl of international advocacy, there are too many situations in the world where this could mean another additional and unfair request, on top of the many requests of regular reports that most countries have to grant incorporation. Demanding more from CSOs when neither governments nor corporations have to meet similar requirements seems unfair to me. But maybe it makes sense to have a list explaining wether the members are incporprated, where and under what title (for profit, non-profit, etc) and affilitiaons to networks or institutions they want to declare or wether it is an individual or an informal grouping. Do remember that it is an human right (right to association) to form groups of any kind, and they are (or should be) deemed as "innocent" until proven guilty. Too many states turn the table around and presume that associations are illegal until they register and demonstrate they are "clean". We should not unwillingly support that trend. >> >> best, >> Roberto >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 4:20 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote: >> Ian and all, >> >> >> The reason why there is a request for disclosure is so as to know the background or context from which opinions/positions/actions emerge. It is the same argument I think, as that concerning real identity vs. anonymity as per the current Facebook controversy. It is an extremely useful and in some cases essential item of information to know who (the identity) it is that one is interacting with. >> >> >> My own feeling on the issue is that unless there are strong and persuasive arguments in favour of anonymity then knowing the “identity” of who (or what) ever one is interacting with is a basic requirement. I don’t know that it has ever been an issue in our various IG discussions but if it did arise my guess is that most would opt for people using their “real” names/identities for their contributions. >> >> >> If the above is the case then I think that by extension we can give some content to what we mean by “real identity”. >> >> >> To some degree the components of the “real identity” required for effective communication/interaction will vary from context to context—for romantic purposes age, appearance, gender would likely be necessary; for financial contexts formal elements as might be required or contracts such as citizenship, financial and credit information are part of that “real identify”. >> >> >> I would argue that in our IG context “real identity” should include a knowledge of the financial/contractual contexts (i.e. who is paying the piper) from which individual participation is being presented. >> >> >> M >> >> >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Ian Peter >> Sent: June 7, 2015 6:03 AM >> To: parminder; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; BestBitsList; Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org; A general information sharing space for the APC Community. >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Civil society transparency >> >> >> Hi Parminder, >> >> >> Following from the discussion, here is what I think is possible and realistic in this space. >> >> >> Firstly, I think the question of transparency and disclosure of conflicts of interest is important. >> >> >> However, I don’t think people need to declare interests to involve themselves in discussion here or in any of our open mailing lists, and the real concerns start to arise only when people are seeking office as civil society representatives. >> >> >> Here, most of the office bearing exists in the various coalitions – APC, Best Bits, JNC, NCSG, IGC. I would urge each of these groups, when holding elections, to require candidates to register any conflicts of interest. I know Best Bits is moving to elections for its Steering Committee again soon, perhaps it could formulate some sort of basic disclosure requirement for its purposes? And I guess JNC must be moving towards holding its first elections for SC replenishment soon? And IGC could easily add such a requirement for its candidates for co cordinator elections (presumably late this year). >> >> >> But these are requirements for individual groups, and the form of such is for each group to determine. I think however that such a requirement would be a good idea. >> >> >> As regards CSCG – our calls for candidates are for appointments to outside bodies, and I agree that some form of disclosure of any conflicts of interest would be a good idea. Currently it would appear that our next task would be MAG replenishment (and a small one at that), probably early next year. I will suggest to the members that we should require some sort of basic disclosure statement. But that of course is up to the members (APC, BB, JNC, NCSG, IGC) to determine. >> >> >> I’m not sure we can go much further. But if some work can be done on a simple model of a form of disclosure, that would be good. >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> From: parminder >> >> Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 5:31 PM >> >> To: Ian Peter ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; BestBitsList ; mailto:forum at justnetcoalition.org ; A general information sharing space for the APC Community. >> >> Subject: [governance] Civil society transparency >> >> >> Ian, and reps of civil society networks on the Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) , >> >> I propose that CSCG sets up a civil society transparency project, somewhat on the lines of the EU Transparency Register, pl see http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/homePage.do . >> >> It should in fact go beyond the EU initiative which is a general one for all lobbying groups, whereas we here are concerned with civil society which should set the highest example of transparency and accountability. The 'register' can have self filled information on objectives of an organisation, principles followed by it, if any, its funding, partners, and so on.... >> >> This is at present just my proposal, but I hope one or more civil society networks in the IG space can own it and push it... CSCG would be well placed to run this project as a neutral space so that there is no accusation of bias that any such initiative is being employed for partisan purposes. In any case, a simple initiative for openness, transparency and accountability can hardly be partisan. >> >> The register can have optional higher level features whereby a group/ org can declare its means of public accountability, whether and how its internal governance is done, how matters can be taken by with their oversight bodies, like board etc, and whether they have any means whereby they respond to public question on their work, etc. >> >> For such genuine cases where such transparency can harm an organisations work, or security, such organisations, and only such organisations, can be exempted employing a clear process and set of criteria. >> >> Remember, both the UN report on improvements to the IGF and the NetMundial Statement highlight the issue of transparency. I also recently read in these lists how we should make bridges with the OpenGov movement which is almost wholly about this one thing. Time we begin practising what we preach. >> >> I look forward to hear responses to this proposal.. >> >> parminder >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Forum mailing list >> Forum at justnetcoalition.org >> http://mail.justnetcoalition.org/listinfo/forum >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From becky.lentz at mcgill.ca Mon Jun 1 09:39:29 2015 From: becky.lentz at mcgill.ca (Becky Lentz, Dr.) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 13:39:29 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Civil society transparency In-Reply-To: <20150601122935.53aef61c@quill> References: <55617E51.5010901@itforchange.net> <5566FE8A.9010209@itforchange.net> <685563FB-947F-4110-8B81-3872514B494C@eff.org> <20150531090029.5bd0ce96@quill> ,<20150601122935.53aef61c@quill> Message-ID: <4562DF2F52066C4F8B1EE3A35B808D657EA494A9@EXMBX2010-7.campus.MCGILL.CA> Dear colleagues, The 'report' in question is research I did in 2009 and 2010 that focused primarily on Global Partners' capacity building program related to their internet and human rights work. This study seems to be the source of considerable misunderstanding/concern about facts, data collected, from whom and so on. I will respond with a fuller set of details about the supposed errors sometime this week. My computer with that information crashed and I cannot access it for several days. I should add, however, that interviews and reports/data provided by Global Partners were used for that research; additionally, Global Partners was very transparent and collaborative; it was given a copy of the report/study prior to its presentation at an academic conference in London in 2010 for fact checking. In an effort to address this lingering conflict about sources of funding and so on that relate to this study, I would ask that you please address any issues, corrections, questions about the research to me directly. I will respond item by item. If it helps to post these responses to this or another list, I will do so. Best, Becky Lentz McGill University ________________________________________ From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Norbert Bollow [nb at bollow.ch] Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 6:29 AM To: BestBitsList Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; A general information sharing space for the APC Community. Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Civil society transparency On Sun, 31 May 2015 21:04:25 -0700 Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On May 31, 2015, at 12:00 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > Given that the initial set of pointed questions were sparked by the > > initial Bestbits meeting having been part of a formal "capacity > > building" programme funded in part by the US and UK government, > > That is 100% false. None of the budget for that meeting was funded by > any government grant Sure. In view of the various circumstances (including in particular the presence of a Google representative at the meeting) I have never had any reason to harbor any doubts that the disclosures about the funding for the formal budget of that meeting might potentially have been insufficient, or that they might potentially have been untruthful. The transparency/disclosure concerns were always about something else, namely that (1) the other main organizer/leader of Bestbits besides you had, according to the best available information, pursued this at least during the 2012 phase as part of a formal, partly US government funded, capacity building program, and that (2) it appeared that at least one of the other people who were invited to become part of the initial Bestbits steering committee have been partners of this "capacity building program", and that (3) none of this had been disclosed to Bestbits participants at the relevant times. (Note: I wouldn't have objected to point '(2)' if it had been disclosed in a timely manner and with a credible assurance that indeed it was only one of the partners of the capacity building program who was invited to the initial Bestbits steering committee.) > and there was and is never any such capacity > building program behind Best Bits. The draft report from an > independent researcher that you read suggesting otherwise was > categorically incorrect and I can only hope was subsequently > corrected. I'd expect that in the public online version which is in the filename marked "final draft", any errors pointed out by the interviewees will have been corrected. http://strategiesformediareform.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/ICA-Paper-Final-Draft-Lentz-and-Hutchison.pdf This document states inter alia: "the digital media rights sector both in the U.S. and elsewhere continues to suffer limited resources [...] Recognition of such challenges is often why donor organizations step in to try to help. This happens by way of entrepreneurial NGO actors approaching donors, or donors approaching NGO actors to address a perceived gap in a sector’s capacity to address important policy issues effectively. Yet donor involvement—a necessary precondition for policy advocacy organizations seeking sustainable capacity—also triggers conflict in policy advocacy fields. [...] this paper explores some of the tensions and also benefits of what will be referred to as “intermediary” organizations’ involvement in helping to build the capacity of an emergent policy advocacy sector: the Internet freedom advocacy sector that addresses Internet governance and human rights in a digital media context. The paper features early-stage case study research on a specific intermediary actor in this field: the Internet Freedom and Human Rights (IFHR) program launched in 2012 and coordinated by Global Partners & Associates (GP&A) in the UK with its Washington, DC partner, the New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute (OTI). [...] The IFHR program enjoys support for this work from several donor organizations interested in digital rights issues, which include the Ford Foundation, the Open Society Foundation, the Media Democracy Fund, the British and Dutch governments, as well as the U.S. State Department. GP&A, founded in 2005 and based in London, serves as the primary grantee [...] Working within a short time frame, the program has succeeded in forging strong alliances with its local partner organizations, working together with them and other NGOs at regional and international forums to produce useful policy proposals that have garnered widespread support. [..] While working continuously with these partners, the IFHR program also organized three large regional meetings for NGOs, scholars and activists working on Internet freedom issues. These meetings occurred in the fall of 2012, in Kenya, Azerbaijan and Brazil. Furthermore, the IFHR program had a significant presence at the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12) in Dubai, in December. [...] The Azerbaijan meeting [...] piggybacked on the 7th Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Baku, Azerbaijan 6-9 November 2012. Being that the IGF is a UN-led, multi-stakeholder annual meeting, established to discuss public policy issues related to the Internet, the IFHR program saw it as an opportunity to convene with many Internet governance and Internet rights NGOs at once. They did so a few days before the start of the IGF, in a large gathering called Best Bits.(*) To IFHR program staff, this was a significant achievement (especially due to the preponderance of disparate perspectives), as the Best Bits meeting resulted in a clear consensus amongst those present, and an ensuing statement, which was later quoted by the US government (Puddephatt, 2012). Interviews with IFHR program staff suggest that to them, the occasion demonstrated the true potential for global coalition building, a main goal of the IFHR program." (*) At this point there is a reference to an endnote which says: "http://bestbits.net/ ; from interviews we learned that the term “Best Bits” was suggested by Dr. Jeremy Malcolm, senior policy officer for Consumers International’s “Consumers in the Digital Age” programme: http://www.consumersinternational.org/who-we-are/our-team/jeremy-malcolm#.UaZIq-BYSK8 " If in spite of all of the above, you still believe that your claim is defensible that "there was and is never any such capacity building program behind Best Bits", please arrange for disclosure of the true facts about the role and activities of the IFHR program in relation to Bestbits, which would in that case have been misunderstood by the researchers, and explain how that misunderstanding would have come about. Greetings, Norbert From anriette at apc.org Sun Jun 7 03:33:57 2015 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2015 09:33:57 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] [JNC - Forum] [governance] Civil society transparency In-Reply-To: <5573E23B.8010503@itforchange.net> References: <55617E51.5010901@itforchange.net> <41C19523561A4A5CA29EF6368B4F5AA5@Toshiba> <003801d0a0c9$1587b3f0$40971bd0$@gmail.com> <5573E23B.8010503@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5573F3E5.4000403@apc.org> Dear all I have not seen Roberto's message previously but I agree with Roberto completely. Anriette On 07/06/2015 08:18, parminder wrote: > > > On Sunday 07 June 2015 10:30 AM, Roberto Bissio wrote: >> Dear Parminder, >> >> There are many mechanisms for CSO accountability. >> >> NGOS accredited to the UN have to regularly report on funding, bilaws, >> authorities and activities. >> >> Further, an INGO accountability charter >> exists: http://www.ingoaccountabilitycharter.org/ >> >> Social Watch was a member, until we could not afford the membership >> fee, which is unfairly burdensome on poorer organizations from the South. >> >> Some fee is required if you are to assess the reporting of the >> organizations. Otherwise everybody declares what it wants and the >> transparency is meaningless. > > Roberto > > This is the reason that what is sought is a simple no cost statement of > voluntary declaration of (1) interests, and (2) objectives and (3) > funding sources, very much on the lines of the basic requirement that > you mention below, and I would add as per your note "affiliations to > networks or institutions " (somewhat like theEU transparency register > .) And > this with no fee or costs to those who enter the register -- the project > should be run on independent funding by whoever runs it, and I have > offered to help raise resources. And it being an online activity, the > project requires very little resources. > > While in any case required for civil society, such a practise becomes > even more important in the IG space where (1) there is a special - even > 'equal footing' - claim to be on policy tables , and (2) where the > geo-political investments as well as corporate investments into CS > spaces by far exceed any other area. Funding sources of both JNC and > BestBits have been publicly questioned in the recent past, on these very > lists. What better way to go forward than having basic transparency > declarations instituted to that there is a better basis for minimum > cooperation and working together as we go forward. In this regard, it is > important to recognise that for good or bad, or maybe that is just some > unique characteristics of a civil society space which is both in the > making in some way, and otherwise unique in some other ways, political > divisions have been especially deep within the IG civil society space. > (The reasons for this are structural, although repeated efforts are made > to lay the blame on individual behavioural causes, and thus escape the > real political basis of the differences .) I know that these things are > not unknown in other areas, but still - stated very roughly - a better > mainstream conception of civil society is generally obtainable in other > areas. All these characteristics of the IG civil society space make > instituting some basic transparency guidelines - on a voluntary basis - > important for healthy development of civil society in the IG area, whose > political role in the emerging digitally-mediated society is going to be > extremly important. This should be a common commitment to ourselves, in > all humility with regard to the increasingly important political role > that civil society in the IG space plays. > > parminder > >> >> While it makes sense to demand accountability from organizations >> involved in the top levl of international advocacy, there are too many >> situations in the world where this could mean another additional and >> unfair request, on top of the many requests of regular reports that >> most countries have to grant incorporation. Demanding more from CSOs >> when neither governments nor corporations have to meet similar >> requirements seems unfair to me. But maybe it makes sense to have a >> list explaining wether the members are incporprated, where and under >> what title (for profit, non-profit, etc) and affilitiaons to networks >> or institutions they want to declare or wether it is an individual or >> an informal grouping. Do remember that it is an human right (right to >> association) to form groups of any kind, and they are (or should be) >> deemed as "innocent" until proven guilty. Too many states turn the >> table around and presume that associations are illegal until they >> register and demonstrate they are "clean". We should not unwillingly >> support that trend. >> >> best, >> Roberto >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 4:20 AM, Michael Gurstein > > wrote: >> >> Ian and all, >> >> >> >> The reason why there is a request for disclosure is so as to know >> the background or context from which opinions/positions/actions >> emerge. It is the same argument I think, as that concerning real >> identity vs. anonymity as per the current Facebook controversy. It >> is an extremely useful and in some cases essential item of >> information to know who (the identity) it is that one is >> interacting with. >> >> >> >> My own feeling on the issue is that unless there are strong and >> persuasive arguments in favour of anonymity then knowing the >> “identity” of who (or what) ever one is interacting with is a >> basic requirement. I don’t know that it has ever been an issue in >> our various IG discussions but if it did arise my guess is that >> most would opt for people using their “real” names/identities for >> their contributions. >> >> >> >> If the above is the case then I think that by extension we can >> give some content to what we mean by “real identity”. >> >> >> >> To some degree the components of the “real identity” required for >> effective communication/interaction will vary from context to >> context—for romantic purposes age, appearance, gender would likely >> be necessary; for financial contexts formal elements as might be >> required or contracts such as citizenship, financial and credit >> information are part of that “real identify”. >> >> >> >> I would argue that in our IG context “real identity” should >> include a knowledge of the financial/contractual contexts (i.e. >> who is paying the piper) from which individual participation is >> being presented. >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >> >> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >> ] *On Behalf Of *Ian Peter >> *Sent:* June 7, 2015 6:03 AM >> *To:* parminder; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> ; BestBitsList; >> Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org; A general information sharing space >> for the APC Community. >> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] [governance] Civil society transparency >> >> >> >> Hi Parminder, >> >> >> >> Following from the discussion, here is what I think is possible >> and realistic in this space. >> >> >> >> Firstly, I think the question of transparency and disclosure of >> conflicts of interest is important. >> >> >> >> However, I don’t think people need to declare interests to involve >> themselves in discussion here or in any of our open mailing lists, >> and the real concerns start to arise only when people are seeking >> office as civil society representatives. >> >> >> >> Here, most of the office bearing exists in the various coalitions >> – APC, Best Bits, JNC, NCSG, IGC. I would urge each of these >> groups, when holding elections, to require candidates to register >> any conflicts of interest. I know Best Bits is moving to elections >> for its Steering Committee again soon, perhaps it could formulate >> some sort of basic disclosure requirement for its purposes? And I >> guess JNC must be moving towards holding its first elections for >> SC replenishment soon? And IGC could easily add such a >> requirement for its candidates for co cordinator elections >> (presumably late this year). >> >> >> >> But these are requirements for individual groups, and the form of >> such is for each group to determine. I think however that such a >> requirement would be a good idea. >> >> >> >> As regards CSCG – our calls for candidates are for appointments to >> outside bodies, and I agree that some form of disclosure of any >> conflicts of interest would be a good idea. Currently it would >> appear that our next task would be MAG replenishment (and a small >> one at that), probably early next year. I will suggest to the >> members that we should require some sort of basic disclosure >> statement. But that of course is up to the members (APC, BB, JNC, >> NCSG, IGC) to determine. >> >> >> >> I’m not sure we can go much further. But if some work can be done >> on a simple model of a form of disclosure, that would be good. >> >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> >> *From:*parminder >> >> *Sent:*Sunday, May 24, 2015 5:31 PM >> >> *To:*Ian Peter ; >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> ; BestBitsList >> ; >> mailto:forum at justnetcoalition.org ; A general information sharing >> space for the APC Community. >> >> *Subject:*[governance] Civil society transparency >> >> >> >> Ian, and reps of civil society networks on the Civil Society >> Coordination Group (CSCG) , >> >> I propose that CSCG sets up a civil society transparency project, >> somewhat on the lines of the EU Transparency Register, pl see >> http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/homePage.do . >> >> It should in fact go beyond the EU initiative which is a general >> one for all lobbying groups, whereas we here are concerned with >> civil society which should set the highest example of transparency >> and accountability. The 'register' can have self filled >> information on objectives of an organisation, principles followed >> by it, if any, its funding, partners, and so on.... >> >> This is at present just my proposal, but I hope one or more civil >> society networks in the IG space can own it and push it... CSCG >> would be well placed to run this project as a neutral space so >> that there is no accusation of bias that any such initiative is >> being employed for partisan purposes. In any case, a simple >> initiative for openness, transparency and accountability can >> hardly be partisan. >> >> The register can have optional higher level features whereby a >> group/ org can declare its means of public accountability, whether >> and how its internal governance is done, how matters can be taken >> by with their oversight bodies, like board etc, and whether they >> have any means whereby they respond to public question on their >> work, etc. >> >> For such genuine cases where such transparency can harm an >> organisations work, or security, such organisations, and only such >> organisations, can be exempted employing a clear process and set >> of criteria. >> >> Remember, both the UN report on improvements to the IGF and the >> NetMundial Statement highlight the issue of transparency. I also >> recently read in these lists how we should make bridges with the >> OpenGov movement which is almost wholly about this one thing. Time >> we begin practising what we preach. >> >> I look forward to hear responses to this proposal.. >> >> parminder >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Forum mailing list >> Forum at justnetcoalition.org >> http://mail.justnetcoalition.org/listinfo/forum >> >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > From kichango at gmail.com Sun Jun 7 04:58:06 2015 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2015 08:58:06 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] IANA transition - BR Gov comments on the CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal In-Reply-To: <557378D2.6030503@cafonso.ca> References: <557378D2.6030503@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Brother Carlos, I wish we had this earlier, for it would've made the job easier for some of us who could have just submitted "we endorse the Brazilian government's comment" as our comment. I particularly appreciate the BR gov clear argument about legal status and jurisdiction, including the stated purposes of such argument. The way ICANN has been operating has always created a sense of unease wrt governments' full participation, something that has to do with a sense of slippery slope toward government privatization, whether intended or an afterthought (I once personally witnessed within ICANN a US allied government rep from the Pacific cast a vote that was in contradiction with the law in her country.) If multi-stakeholder were to mean something, the meaning of the term "private" in this context should be clearly differentiated from that of saying, for instance, "private (profit driven) corporation"* and should rather clearly, fully and once for all in practice mean "public-benefit (private) corporation." Furthermore, maybe "in their respective roles" should just mean that every group come as who they are at first (in continuation/line with their defining functions) and then enter a dialog that is open and plural across stakeholder groups, where all ideas will be argued and heard for their merits (intellectual, operational, yes political, etc. etc.) This may still happen without governments needing to behave as private companies or non-governmental actors claiming to fulfill governments' functions. Ok let me just stop here and say I, for whatever this may be worth, approve of BR gov message. (Never mind my ill advised, additional drift on multistakeholderism.) A systematic assessment of the pluses and minuses of each potential candidate jurisdictions for ICANN mission and global ownership is a must to fully complete the goals of its transition. Fraternal regards (*) Note, 1) such can evidently be for profit but not necessarily: one may be a nonprofit private entity and still be driven by for profit interests, as their processes may be dominated by for profit participants. 2) I do understand how the term "private" is often used by US based stakeholders in this context, as to mean NONgovernmental. While there is that constant risk of confusion with the other meaning of "private" (one may say 'private' is tainted by the for profit corporate use), there is on the other hand the fact that the term "nongovernmental" is already... tainted by the bunch of civil society ;) So tainted for tainted, the US led in that by USG has favored the use of the term "private." Doesn't this ring a bell? 'International,' 'multilateral' and (even) 'democratic' tainted by 'intergovernmental' practices? So let's stay away from those and find something as "private" as meant above but at the same time plural and that gave 'multistakeholderism'? Again, please get back to the central message above and never mind my extra drift. Just store that in the Sunday morning hermeneutics drawer. /Brought to you by Mawaki's droid agent On Jun 6, 2015 10:49 PM, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > For the ones who are following the IANA transition process: attached > please find the comments posted by the government of Brazil on June 03, > 2015, in response to the call for public comments on the > CCWG-Accountability Initial Draft Proposal. > > I generally agree with the comments. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jun 7 05:58:11 2015 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2015 15:28:11 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] IANA transition - BR Gov comments on the CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <557378D2.6030503@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <557415B3.3070609@itforchange.net> On Sunday 07 June 2015 02:28 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > Brother Carlos, > > I wish we had this earlier, for it would've made the job easier for > some of us who could have just submitted "we endorse the Brazilian > government's comment" as our comment. > Mawaki/ Carlos I am happy to assist you to seek support for this position in civil society. Perhaps IGC can endorse it. Further, we can collect names of those who separately would like to endorse it. > I particularly appreciate the BR gov clear argument about legal status > and jurisdiction, including the stated purposes of such argument. > The argument that US courts overruling ICANN decision (something that is inescapable, and will certainly happen sooner or later) is 'the' key problem and issue in oversight transition and that such an eventuality would make a mockery of ICANN as a global governance body, has regularly been made on this list - along with examples. But good to be waking up to it even if only when we are fully on the brink - but still, better late than never. This issue is indeed fully unsolvable in the current process and in the current 'paradigm' - it would be good to also clearly see and understand this further fact. And there from begin doing what needs to be done. It is not useful to always wait for arriving on the brink and then realising. Just wastes a lot of time, and time is power in what is a fast concretizing global digital order. parminder > The way ICANN has been operating has always created a sense of unease > wrt governments' full participation, something that has to do with a > sense of slippery slope toward government privatization, whether > intended or an afterthought (I once personally witnessed within ICANN > a US allied government rep from the Pacific cast a vote that was in > contradiction with the law in her country.) If multi-stakeholder were > to mean something, the meaning of the term "private" in this context > should be clearly differentiated from that of saying, for instance, > "private (profit driven) corporation"* and should rather clearly, > fully and once for all in practice mean "public-benefit (private) > corporation." > > Furthermore, maybe "in their respective roles" should just mean that > every group come as who they are at first (in continuation/line with > their defining functions) and then enter a dialog that is open and > plural across stakeholder groups, where all ideas will be argued and > heard for their merits (intellectual, operational, yes political, etc. > etc.) This may still happen without governments needing to behave as > private companies or non-governmental actors claiming to fulfill > governments' functions. > > Ok let me just stop here and say I, for whatever this may be worth, > approve of BR gov message. (Never mind my ill advised, additional > drift on multistakeholderism.) A systematic assessment of the pluses > and minuses of each potential candidate jurisdictions for ICANN > mission and global ownership is a must to fully complete the goals of > its transition. > > Fraternal regards > > (*) Note, 1) such can evidently be for profit but not necessarily: one > may be a nonprofit private entity and still be driven by for profit > interests, as their processes may be dominated by for profit > participants. 2) I do understand how the term "private" is often used > by US based stakeholders in this context, as to mean NONgovernmental. > While there is that constant risk of confusion with the other meaning > of "private" (one may say 'private' is tainted by the for profit > corporate use), there is on the other hand the fact that the term > "nongovernmental" is already... tainted by the bunch of civil society > ;) So tainted for tainted, the US led in that by USG has favored the > use of the term "private." Doesn't this ring a bell? 'International,' > 'multilateral' and (even) 'democratic' tainted by 'intergovernmental' > practices? So let's stay away from those and find something as > "private" as meant above but at the same time plural and that gave > 'multistakeholderism'? Again, please get back to the central message > above and never mind my extra drift. Just store that in the Sunday > morning hermeneutics drawer. > > /Brought to you by Mawaki's droid agent > > On Jun 6, 2015 10:49 PM, "Carlos A. Afonso" > wrote: > > For the ones who are following the IANA transition process: attached > please find the comments posted by the government of Brazil on > June 03, > 2015, in response to the call for public comments on the > CCWG-Accountability Initial Draft Proposal. > > I generally agree with the comments. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jun 7 07:10:37 2015 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2015 16:40:37 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] IANA transition - BR Gov comments on the CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal In-Reply-To: <557378D2.6030503@cafonso.ca> References: <557378D2.6030503@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <557426AD.1000409@itforchange.net> Dear Carlos I very much agree with Brazil's position and congratulate it for it. BTW, India has also made somewhat similar comments. The key points of agreement are on what are two most important issues - need for international jurisdiction, and accountability to the larger global public rather than just the groups which are currently closely engaged with ICANN, which can be called as 'external accountability' as against 'internal accountability'. Having agreed with Brazil's position, I must state that the issues that Brazil is raising now have always been clear, and are the basic ones in the oversight transition process. It has been equally obvious, almost right from the start, but at least very soon after, that these key issues will be ignored. It was therefore important to push these issues right to the front, and make it clear that these are non negotiable, and also gather support among other groups for this position. What I find strange among the key groups/ orgs that can be expected to come from a 'progressive' standpoint - key governments, including I would have hoped the EU, but certainly the larger developing ones, and key civil society groups, is that they have been so shy to say upfront what is indeed non negotiable that an impression is allowed to go around that while there is indeed some limited discontent, and any such process would have some, there is a level of general agreement being built going forward. Such shyness or reticence among 'progressive' actors does the cause a lot of harm. How else could the process, after having been listening (or perhaps not) to all key actors during the WG process, still come up with the current proposal. One advisor to the process has publicly claimed that most advisers considered 'jurisdiction' as a key issue, and one can be sure that the countries that are now making statements on this issue would have done the same in the WG process. How then does the proposal put up for comments make no mention of jurisdiction issue at all, nor of external accountability? The answer is simple: the process is rigged to produce outcomes that satisfy US government (even beyond the 4 initial conditions that it laid - do note, continued US jurisdiction is not one of them) and, as a secondary complicit group, the ICANN plus insiders, who have varying shades of loyalty to the ICANN system, but when push comes to shove they are excepted to all agree on structural issues and work as one. There simply can be no other outcome. One does not need to wait till September to know this. There is no question that the issue of US jurisdictional immunity (only possible through incorporation of ICANN under international law) will be considered in the right earnest. In fact, I dont see even opening up of the issue of 'external accountability'. So, the die is more or less cast. Somewhat oddly, while clearly asking for immunity from US jurisdiction at several places in their response document, Brazil government is still shy to say the obvious, that this is possible only under international law, which can only be written by a due international process. Or do the Brazilians know of some other manner in which immunity from jurisdiction from country of incorporation can be obtained? One can well take a broad multi-stakeholder approach to evolve a basic charter for the ICANN, but to make it international law it has to follow due process. In default, it can never provide what Brazil government seeks in numerous places in the document. Of course they know it, but the shyness and reticence - maybe still a NetMundial hangover - in inexplicable. I hope Brazil gov clarifies its position in this regard, or anyone else who understands their current thinking might do it. This thing has to go to WSIS plus 10, whose negotiations start this month. It is no use to bungle once again and wait too long till after the WSIS plus 10 opportunity is also lost. One has to gather support from key nations, including the EU... While some progress could perhaps be forced at WSIS plus, it may not be so easy, for so long have various actors been all over the place that putting the act together in this short period can be extremely difficult. In any case, US would not give way easily, especially since it has begun believing for quite some time now, certainly over the last year, that it has got itself into a good position and successfully divided the opposition, into a hopeless mess. So while one must try to get what one can at WSIS plus 10, the rest would need to be forced through developing coalitions of digital economic and political power which alone can make US come to the global negotiation table. Currently, it simply does not have enough incentive to do it. parminder On Sunday 07 June 2015 04:18 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > For the ones who are following the IANA transition process: attached > please find the comments posted by the government of Brazil on June 03, > 2015, in response to the call for public comments on the > CCWG-Accountability Initial Draft Proposal. > > I generally agree with the comments. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Guru at ITforChange.net Sun Jun 7 13:13:09 2015 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (Guru) Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2015 22:43:09 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Who rules cyberspace? Message-ID: <55747BA5.30606@ITforChange.net> An op-ed by Parminder in Hindu, a leading Indian daily highlighting structural geo-political and geo-economics issues of IG, and the need for new alignments that can disrupt the increasingly more powerful and more uni-polar networked-digital complex centred in the US. regards, Guru http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/who-rules-cyberspace/article7287716.ece Who rules cyberspace? Parminder Jeet Singh A new architecture of social power and control is getting built with its core in the U.S.India should work through the BRICS group to develop an alternative to this Internet hegemony The Internet evokes a deep dilemma of whether ‘to govern or not’. Few things work as well as the Internet does: it’s always on, always obliging, and consists of endless possibilities, routinely conjuring wonders that we have not dreamt of. On the other hand, it is difficult not to be troubled by how the Internet is everywhere, but without any clear means of accountability and political reaction to how much it is changing around us. But without sufficient clarity regarding the nature of the problems and the required solutions, mere general political scepticism cannot hold a candle to the populist governmental-hands-off-the-Internet sentiment. The latter is expectedly strongest among the richer classes, who trust the devices of the market to get the Internet to do their bidding. Other than routine knee-jerk reactions over people freely expressing themselves on the Internet, which could threaten various kinds of power elites, while also sometimes causing genuine security and cultural concerns, there exists no serious political conceptions around the Internet in India today, much less its appropriate governance in public interest. This state of affairs is quite detrimental to society as the Internet is becoming closely associated with social power and control in almost all areas. It has become like a global neural system running through and transforming all social sectors. Whoever has control over this neural network begins to wield unprecedented power — economic, political, social and cultural. Two elements of this emerging system are the connectivity architecture and the continuous bits of information generated by each and every micro activity of our increasingly digitised existence — what is generally known as Big Data. Even a superficial scan of how the triple phenomenon of digitisation, networking and datafication is occurring in every area will suggest the nature of consolidation of power in the hands of anyone who can control these two elements. Every sector is impacted Take the agriculture sector for example. Monsanto is now increasingly a Big Data company, as it holds almost field-wise micro information on climate, soil type, neighbourhood agri-patterns, and so on. Such data will form the backbone of even its traditional agri-offerings. It is easy to understand how data control-based lock-ins are going to be even more powerful and monopolistic than the traditional dependencies in this sector. Recently, John Deere, the world’s largest agricultural machinery maker, told the U.S. Copyright Office that farmers don’t own their tractors. Because computer code runs through modern tractors, farmers receive “an implied license for the life of the vehicle to operate the vehicle”. There is a pattern of end-to-end informational controls. Similar developments are occurring in every other sector. Policymaking and governance are becoming dangerously dependent on Big Data, even as the public sector is all but giving up its traditional responsibilities for public statistics. The state is increasingly dependent on data collected and controlled by a few global corporations. Data companies such as Google are entering verticals like automobile and health in a manner that is threatening the traditional players in these sectors. Doctors subscribing to medical information networks carrying patient data, disease demographics, pharma information, and so on could soon become but appendages of the network. The network they think right now is a mere support may become the primary agent in the relationship. Such is the power of the network, vis-a-vis its peripheral users. Network and data providers in the education sector sell their services in the name of personalised offerings for every student, and every context. Schools with resources may find them alluring, but then they merely add to the power of the monopolistic networks, at the expense of their peripheral users. As their power consolidates, so do the terms of engagements mutate in the favour of the network controllers. Here we have deliberately used examples of power shifts across whole sectors induced by digital networks. On the individual-use front, it is perhaps even easier to see the kind of social power exercised by those who can at will alter the algorithms of Facebook and Google, which increasingly provide us the logic and pattern of our social relationships and of means of accessing information and opinion making. All this should set us thinking about who really controls the digital connectivity patterns and Big Data. In this regard, one can speak of a global unipolar networked-digital complex, with its elements of political and commercial power, both overwhelmingly concentrated in the U.S.. We are therefore witness to a phenomenon which is of extreme social importance, spanning all sectors of society. And the powerful levers of control of this phenomenon almost entirely lie in an eco-political domain over which the Indian society or state has no control, and very limited influence. This should be a public policy nightmare. However, you would not suspect it if you were watching the political discourse in India, not only inside the government but also outside. One comes across periodic discussions on freedom of expression issues, while the state, and some civil society actors, have begun to show heightened security-related anxieties. But one hears nothing about the overall new architecture of social power and control that is getting built, with its core in the U.S. It implicates very significant long-term economic, political, social and cultural issues that should greatly concern a country like India. Even freedom of expression and security are significantly related to this new power architecture. Governments are traditionally slow on the take with regard to such rapidly moving phenomena, however socially important they might be. Civil society engagement in this area is dominated by middle class interests, whereby markets tend to be considered as essentially benign. Their major struggle is against the excesses of the state, the Internet no doubt being a significant new arena for such excesses. This has resulted in serious blind-spots regarding the larger architectural issues about the global Internet, with far-reaching economic, social and cultural implications. It is urgently required to undertake a systematic examination of these issues, situating them in the geo-political and geo-economic logics that overwhelmingly drive them. Appropriate domestic and foreign policies have to be developed within such a larger understanding. India’s geopolitical options Even for a country of India’s stature, it is not easy to play the geo-political game on its own, and certainly not in an area viewed by the dominant actors as among the most crucial for establishing global political and economic domination. No quarters will be given here, as has been clear from the pronounced non-activity in the limited UN-based global forums dealing with Internet governance issues. This, therefore, is not a field for the faint-hearted; it requires strong real politik approaches. The only option left for India is to go with the strong nations that are similarly placed with respect to U.S.’s digital hegemony. Although this is one area where the EU countries are almost as much the victims as other countries, it is unlikely that they will break their geo-political alliance with the U.S. any time soon. They would either keep suffering silently, or seek solutions at the bilateral level with the U.S., and through strengthening EU level regulation. Just last month, the economic ministers of Germany and France sought a “general regulatory framework for ‘essential digital platforms’” at the EU level. India should work through the BRICS group (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) to develop an alternative to the U.S.-based global unipolar networked-digital complex. This may be the only viable path right now. It could be difficult for BRICS to work together on issues involving civil and political rights, for which reason the cooperation could focus on economic issues. The global architecture of the Internet today is mostly determined by its geo-economic underpinnings. Going beyond the typical one-off treatment of Internet and big data issues, BRICS must begun to see them in a larger geo-systemic framework. The last BRICS summit gave a resounding response to the global financial hegemonies by setting up a New Development Bank, and an alternative reserve currency system. The next BRICS summit in Ufa, Russia, in July 2015 should come up with a similar systemic response to the U.S.-centred Internet. This can be achieved by pulling together a strong framework for BRICS cooperation on digital economy. That would be the biggest game changer with respect to what is now a complete stalemate over global governance of the Internet. (Parminder Jeet Singh works with the Bengaluru-based NGO, IT for Change. He has been an advisor to the Chair of the United Nations Internet Governance Forum. Email:parminder at itforchange.net) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 6th_parminder_G_TH_2429652e.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 15730 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jmalcolm at eff.org Sun Jun 7 15:22:05 2015 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2015 12:22:05 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] International groups sign-on statement on South African Draft Online Regulation Policy Message-ID: <557499DD.10206@eff.org> Dear all, I am writing to present a new opt-in sign-on statement for your consideration. Not too long ago Anriette from APC posted a message to this list about the Draft Online Regulation Policy on which the South African Film and Publications Board publicly consulting. The draft policy is over-broad, and allows content to be blocked without a judicial order. Therefore many civil society groups in South Africa have been actively mobilising against it. One of the groups leading this fight (along with APC and others) is Right2Know, and Micah Reddy from that organisation has contributed a joint statement for international groups to sign in solidarity with local activists: http://bestbits.net/draft-online-regulation-policy/ This supplements, but does not replace, an existing petition that is also linked at the bottom of the statement, and which you are also encouraged to endorse. This is a campaign that many of us can get since it does not raise any issues that most participants have found divisive (such as multi-stakeholder mechanisms or civil society funding), however it is known some Best Bits participants have different views about child protection and may not with to endorse. This is totally fine, because like all our joint statements, it is opt-in, being posted on our open platform so that those who agree can endorse, and those who do not can abstain from doing so. Nonetheless I would like to encourage all of those who agree with the statement to consider endorsing it. Many thanks in anticipation of your support. -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm at eff.org Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220 OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide: https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en From pranesh at cis-india.org Mon Jun 8 10:57:31 2015 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 16:57:31 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Civil society transparency In-Reply-To: <5573DB86.5080001@itforchange.net> References: <55617E51.5010901@itforchange.net> <41C19523561A4A5CA29EF6368B4F5AA5@Toshiba> <5573DB86.5080001@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5575AD5B.5020800@cis-india.org> Dear Parminder, I am at this point unclear what the precised difference between your position and Ian's is, for I don't find myself disagreeing much with either of you (or Anriette or Roberto). On "conflict of interest": This is not an idea from the corporate world. It existed far before that, too. A judge, for instance, has a conflict of interest if she is deciding a case that related to someone close to her. A political figure may have a conflict of interest while making a decision that involves a relative. "Conflict of interest" is an idea that belongs to the public sphere and the political sphere as well. At any rate, this is splitting hairs. On the transparency register: I support the idea, but I have the following operational questions: 1. Will there be a body that vets the information provided? If so, how will this be funded? 2. Will this be somewhat like the ICANN's CoI form, but with additional questions since this is not just about CoI? 3. Do you envisage there being any consequences of someone having been funded by a government or a corporation or a religious charity or a corporate-funded foundation, etc., on whether someone can be a CS representative? If yes, what kinds of consequences do you envisage? In essence, I understand the transparency motivations, but I'm very unclear what accountability mechanisms are envisaged to accompany it, if any. (Also, while reading Jeremy's point about witch-hunts, keep what's happening with Ford Foundation in India in the back of your head.) Regards, Pranesh parminder [2015-06-007 11:19:58 +0530]: > Ian, thanks for taking this discussion forward. > > Firstly, on the matter of to whom the required transparency measures > should be applicable. I have said this before, this is supposed to be > voluntary, and individuals merely getting into discussions on civil > society lists are not important in this regard. It is the civil society > organisations as well as individuals who get selected as civil society > reps in various forms, or otherwise play significant roles in civil > society and multistakeholder spaces, that we mainly focus on. The major > organisations involved in this area must be subject to basic > transparency requirements whether or not they take a civil society rep > position because they in any case very often play very important role in > policy processes. As you would have seen, unfortunately, a lot of strong > civil society action is currently taking place away from the key > coalitions that you mention. > > (On the other hand, I dont see why any individual just coming into some > IG discussion on civil society lists would be taking any IG related > funding at all - I mean what would s/he take it for - for spending time > on these lists!? (That btw would be most interesting - but then we know > that some big governments have paid people intervening in the cyber - > public sphere as a new form of public propaganda.) So, I fail to > understand why is this discussion focussing on individuals merely > participating in the list discussions - they can simply ignore the > proposed voluntary register, or enter that they take no IG activities > related funding from anyone, as one would expect to be true for most of > them. But then well, if individuals do take clear IG related funding, > say, as travel grants, occasional writings. and so on, I would think it > is necessary to declare that - perhaps even morethan in case of > organisations, who, unlike individuals, mostly - though not always - > have other forms of additional NGO governance checks. But to repeat, my > proposal has a greater primary focus on involved organisations as > against individuals. ) > > Next, about what kind of transparency measures are appropriate. > 'Conflict of interest' is used more in corporate governance and we, > civil society people, would best stick to higher norms of public life > rather than go by corporate governance norms. The later are necessarily > limited and have a different nature. For instance, conflict of interest > will apply to someone who holds the shares of a company but then gets > involved in a governance decision that impacts the bottomline of that > company. Things really do not work like that in public life, where > transparency and accountability have a very different - much higher but > accordingly also diffuse - meaning and implication. The 'public' part > of 'public life' is very important - and as civil society players we are > in public life, in fact in its rather powerful 'political life' part. In > stating a conflict of interest a person takes a private decision about > oneself and one's state of affair (of course, the decision can become > public in case of accusations, some future crisis, and so on). > Transparency of people in public life requires such judgements to made > /by the public/, and /at all times/. That is of essence. Sorry, that one > has to go into such basic canons of public life, which have a long > history and much better enunciations than I can attempt here. > > It is or this reason that simple conflict of interest statement while it > may serve the limited scope of requirements of corporate governance, > does not satisfy the public requirements of public life, especially as > involving those actors who are involved in public governance, as IG > civil society certainly is. > > To make this discussion more concrete; youd agree that we should get > into instituting a process only if it has any real meaning in terms of > practical implications. So I ask you, lets say that an organisation or > an individual were receiving funding from government of India or from > Google - and is involved in the typical IG related activities; please > provide me an instance of likely case in which that organisation/ > individual will self declare a conflict of interest. I cant think of > many such possible instances - policy work is by its very nature diffuse > and almost everyone is, by the very nature of it being public policy, > impacted - some certainly more than the other, but private judgements of > such impact would hardly be useful. It is not that IGF or an IG > governance body is ever going to make a declaration specifically on govt > of India or google, in which kind of case perhaps one may jump to state > a funding conflict. In fact, one still may not, becuase typically any > org will accept funding only in the name of promoting public interest > and would not want to accept that pushing a public policy discussion or > process in one way or the other actually constitutes a 'conflict of > interest' - in that it would not want to admit that in accepting a > funding it had accepted taking on 'an interest'. That is a fundamental > difference in how a civil society org is constitutes, as against a > lobbying body. For all these reasons, conflict of interest is not a > concept suited for civil society transparency and accountability. Your > proposal for "require(ing) candidates to register any conflicts of > interest" would simply result in all candidates saying 'they have no > conflict of interest that they can recognise' and thus would serve no > purpose at all. > > Lastly, while you keep on saying this is the most we can do ( 'conflict > of interest' declaration) you have not given any reason why transparency > standards often applied in other areas of civil society work should not > be applied in the IG space as well, and what exactly is wrong with a > basic voluntary register of transparency simply declaring 'interests, > objectives, and funding sources'. This even when I have been arguing > that it is even more important for IG civil society than in other civil > society areas, because the unique multistakeholder claim and approach in > this area puts civil society in more significant, even powerful, policy > positions than in other areas. Also, how basic documents on healthy > development of a multistakeholder approach like the UN report on IGF > improvements, NetMundial Statement, etc, all point to need for greater > transparency. I once again exhort you to read Luca Belli's this > excellent paper on multistakeholderism > > which argues why such basic transparency is essential to forwarding a > multistakeholder approach. > > I cant see how IG civil society can keep pushing a multistakeholder > approach to policy making, and seek a greater role for itself in the > process, but then keep dragging its feet on accepting even basic > transparency norms. The world is watching of course, and will ask > questions. there is a cost to being in public life. > > parminder > > > On Sunday 07 June 2015 03:32 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> Hi Parminder, >> >> Following from the discussion, here is what I think is possible and >> realistic in this space. >> >> Firstly, I think the question of transparency and disclosure of >> conflicts of interest is important. >> >> However, I don’t think people need to declare interests to involve >> themselves in discussion here or in any of our open mailing lists, and >> the real concerns start to arise only when people are seeking office >> as civil society representatives. >> >> Here, most of the office bearing exists in the various coalitions – >> APC, Best Bits, JNC, NCSG, IGC. I would urge each of these groups, >> when holding elections, to require candidates to register any >> conflicts of interest. I know Best Bits is moving to elections for its >> Steering Committee again soon, perhaps it could formulate some sort of >> basic disclosure requirement for its purposes? And I guess JNC must be >> moving towards holding its first elections for SC replenishment soon? >> And IGC could easily add such a requirement for its candidates for co >> cordinator elections (presumably late this year). >> >> But these are requirements for individual groups, and the form of such >> is for each group to determine. I think however that such a >> requirement would be a good idea. >> >> As regards CSCG – our calls for candidates are for appointments to >> outside bodies, and I agree that some form of disclosure of any >> conflicts of interest would be a good idea. Currently it would appear >> that our next task would be MAG replenishment (and a small one at >> that), probably early next year. I will suggest to the members that we >> should require some sort of basic disclosure statement. But that of >> course is up to the members (APC, BB, JNC, NCSG, IGC) to determine. >> >> I’m not sure we can go much further. But if some work can be done on a >> simple model of a form of disclosure, that would be good. >> >> Ian Peter >> >> *From:* parminder >> *Sent:* Sunday, May 24, 2015 5:31 PM >> *To:* Ian Peter ; >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; >> BestBitsList ; >> mailto:forum at justnetcoalition.org ; A general information sharing >> space for the APC Community. >> *Subject:* [governance] Civil society transparency >> >> Ian, and reps of civil society networks on the Civil Society >> Coordination Group (CSCG) , >> >> I propose that CSCG sets up a civil society transparency project, >> somewhat on the lines of the EU Transparency Register, pl see >> http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/homePage.do . >> >> It should in fact go beyond the EU initiative which is a general one >> for all lobbying groups, whereas we here are concerned with civil >> society which should set the highest example of transparency and >> accountability. The 'register' can have self filled information on >> objectives of an organisation, principles followed by it, if any, its >> funding, partners, and so on.... >> >> This is at present just my proposal, but I hope one or more civil >> society networks in the IG space can own it and push it... CSCG would >> be well placed to run this project as a neutral space so that there is >> no accusation of bias that any such initiative is being employed for >> partisan purposes. In any case, a simple initiative for openness, >> transparency and accountability can hardly be partisan. >> >> The register can have optional higher level features whereby a group/ >> org can declare its means of public accountability, whether and how >> its internal governance is done, how matters can be taken by with >> their oversight bodies, like board etc, and whether they have any >> means whereby they respond to public question on their work, etc. >> >> For such genuine cases where such transparency can harm an >> organisations work, or security, such organisations, and only such >> organisations, can be exempted employing a clear process and set of >> criteria. >> >> Remember, both the UN report on improvements to the IGF and the >> NetMundial Statement highlight the issue of transparency. I also >> recently read in these lists how we should make bridges with the >> OpenGov movement which is almost wholly about this one thing. Time we >> begin practising what we preach. >> >> I look forward to hear responses to this proposal.. >> >> parminder >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283 sip:pranesh at ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh at cis-india.org twitter:https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 801 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jun 8 13:38:31 2015 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 23:08:31 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Civil society transparency In-Reply-To: <5575AD5B.5020800@cis-india.org> References: <55617E51.5010901@itforchange.net> <41C19523561A4A5CA29EF6368B4F5AA5@Toshiba> <5573DB86.5080001@itforchange.net> <5575AD5B.5020800@cis-india.org> Message-ID: <5575D317.8090208@itforchange.net> Dear Pranesh Thanks for your engagement. On Monday 08 June 2015 08:27 PM, Pranesh Prakash wrote: > Dear Parminder, > I am at this point unclear what the precised difference between your > position and Ian's is, for I don't find myself disagreeing much with > either of you (or Anriette or Roberto). I will be very happy to find no difference . And if you are not able to see the difference try taking forward different approaches to actual action, and then perhaps then you will. I am looking for some actual action, and not just theoretical discussion . And so if you think the two approaches lead to same practical impact - of something that can actually be done - say in the next 3 months, I am so very glad - lets get going with it (But I suspect not even Ian thinks so - whereby there indeed are differences here.) So let me again say what I am saying - I am seeking a transparency register with declaration of interests/ objectives/ funding sources something on the lines of EU transparency register with some possible contextualisation to civil society situation. Now this is a concrete thing. EU transparency register is here and here is a page showing information submitted by one civil society organisation - similar info is submitted by business associations . I fully understand that the EU transparency register fulfils a specific purpose, and here the purpose and motivations may be a little different and accordingly adjustments can be made. The basic question is - are we ready to agree to put in a place a transparency initiative or not... If yes, I understand that the least would be to make a voluntary statement of interests, objectives and funding sources .. I have seen no civil society transparency initiative which is less than this, although there are many much more complex which kind are not being advocated here. So, we either agree to one such kind, and agree to begin working for it so that it can be in place in 3-4 months, or we do not. Sorry, maybe I am just being an activist, and escaping nuance. But that is how I see it. But of course, I am happy to hear about alternatives and how we can proceed with them. I am not wedded to any one idea or format - but it is my present understanding that any such initiative has to have minimum of the 3 elements that I mentioned. That is the minimum that any CS transparency initiative I know has. > > On "conflict of interest": > This is not an idea from the corporate world. It existed far before > that, too. A judge, for instance, has a conflict of interest if she > is deciding a case that related to someone close to her. A political > figure may have a conflict of interest while making a decision that > involves a relative. "Conflict of interest" is an idea that belongs > to the public sphere and the political sphere as well. At any rate, > this is splitting hairs. Agree, lets avoid going into this hair-splitting. Although what I meant was that 'conflict of interest statement' as a transparency measure belongs to the corporate world; in public life much greater, pro active and default 360 degree transparency is ideally insisted upon. We know that in India in our right to information work - and how increasingly various kinds of actual disclosures are asked for, not just a self judged conflict of interest statement. I havent heard of anyone asking for and making 'conflict of interest' statements in the government for instance - simply becuase the need and demands of transparency are much much greater and deeper. That is what I meant by saying that this idea as an adequate transparency measure comes from and belongs to the corporate world. I dont know of any civil society transparency initiative based on conflict of interest declaration - which is owing to good reasons which I would not go into right now. > > On the transparency register: > I support the idea, but I have the following operational questions: > 1. Will there be a body that vets the information provided? That is not proposed in the idea I forwarded. I just proposed a register where groups voluntary fill in information - and if they do not, or fill inadequately, it for the public to see and make their impressions about it. It is possible to periodically publish the list of those who have made the declarations - and I understand that it puts pressure on any civil society org / actor which is big enough, exercising influence and power around but not making the basic declarations. It just works by public opinion. So, no, no one would be vetting the information as far as what I proposed goes. > If so, how will this be funded? Since no vetting is involved, there is limited resource requirement, for which we can try and raise funds. > 2. Will this be somewhat like the ICANN's CoI form, but with > additional questions since this is not just about CoI? As mentioned, I do not find conflict of interest declaration at all adequate - and that is not the tradition in civil society transparency initiatives . Civil society engagement is broad spectrum in public interest, and nominally everyone only receives funds to do public interest, ..... I have discussed this in earlier posts too, CoI is not an appropriate concept here - a basic statement of interests, objectives and funding sources is. > 3. Do you envisage there being any consequences of someone having been > funded by a government or a corporation or a religious charity or a > corporate-funded foundation, etc., on whether someone can be a CS > representative? If yes, what kinds of consequences do you envisage? I see no consequences other than of public opinion, which all of politically active civil society must incessantly subject ourselves to, in a fully transparent manner, even if it sometimes hurts - which times I would say would be the greatest character-building ones. However, if say some feminists decide to make a hue and cry to see some candidate for a civil society position being majorly funded by groups that are against reproductive rights, and in fact corresponding language exists in the objective statements of the org to which the candidate belong, who am I to stop them from doing so. After all, transparency of information means that such information would be politically employed by some people in some circumstances - otherwise the whole thing is meaningless. > > In essence, I understand the transparency motivations, but I'm very > unclear what accountability mechanisms are envisaged to accompany it, > if any. It is only about transparency - no accountability measures are envisaged. Becky earlier posted information (on the BB list) on some initiatives that go much beyond, into accountability seeking, but that is not my current proposal at all. > > (Also, while reading Jeremy's point about witch-hunts, keep what's > happening with Ford Foundation in India in the back of your head.) What is happening with Ford Foundation in India has nothing to do what is being discussed here. As for as I know the Foundation promotes NGO transparency .... best, parminder > > Regards, > Pranesh > > parminder [2015-06-007 11:19:58 +0530]: >> Ian, thanks for taking this discussion forward. >> >> Firstly, on the matter of to whom the required transparency measures >> should be applicable. I have said this before, this is supposed to be >> voluntary, and individuals merely getting into discussions on civil >> society lists are not important in this regard. It is the civil society >> organisations as well as individuals who get selected as civil society >> reps in various forms, or otherwise play significant roles in civil >> society and multistakeholder spaces, that we mainly focus on. The major >> organisations involved in this area must be subject to basic >> transparency requirements whether or not they take a civil society rep >> position because they in any case very often play very important role in >> policy processes. As you would have seen, unfortunately, a lot of strong >> civil society action is currently taking place away from the key >> coalitions that you mention. >> >> (On the other hand, I dont see why any individual just coming into some >> IG discussion on civil society lists would be taking any IG related >> funding at all - I mean what would s/he take it for - for spending time >> on these lists!? (That btw would be most interesting - but then we know >> that some big governments have paid people intervening in the cyber - >> public sphere as a new form of public propaganda.) So, I fail to >> understand why is this discussion focussing on individuals merely >> participating in the list discussions - they can simply ignore the >> proposed voluntary register, or enter that they take no IG activities >> related funding from anyone, as one would expect to be true for most of >> them. But then well, if individuals do take clear IG related funding, >> say, as travel grants, occasional writings. and so on, I would think it >> is necessary to declare that - perhaps even morethan in case of >> organisations, who, unlike individuals, mostly - though not always - >> have other forms of additional NGO governance checks. But to repeat, my >> proposal has a greater primary focus on involved organisations as >> against individuals. ) >> >> Next, about what kind of transparency measures are appropriate. >> 'Conflict of interest' is used more in corporate governance and we, >> civil society people, would best stick to higher norms of public life >> rather than go by corporate governance norms. The later are necessarily >> limited and have a different nature. For instance, conflict of interest >> will apply to someone who holds the shares of a company but then gets >> involved in a governance decision that impacts the bottomline of that >> company. Things really do not work like that in public life, where >> transparency and accountability have a very different - much higher but >> accordingly also diffuse - meaning and implication. The 'public' part >> of 'public life' is very important - and as civil society players we are >> in public life, in fact in its rather powerful 'political life' part. In >> stating a conflict of interest a person takes a private decision about >> oneself and one's state of affair (of course, the decision can become >> public in case of accusations, some future crisis, and so on). >> Transparency of people in public life requires such judgements to made >> /by the public/, and /at all times/. That is of essence. Sorry, that one >> has to go into such basic canons of public life, which have a long >> history and much better enunciations than I can attempt here. >> >> It is or this reason that simple conflict of interest statement while it >> may serve the limited scope of requirements of corporate governance, >> does not satisfy the public requirements of public life, especially as >> involving those actors who are involved in public governance, as IG >> civil society certainly is. >> >> To make this discussion more concrete; youd agree that we should get >> into instituting a process only if it has any real meaning in terms of >> practical implications. So I ask you, lets say that an organisation or >> an individual were receiving funding from government of India or from >> Google - and is involved in the typical IG related activities; please >> provide me an instance of likely case in which that organisation/ >> individual will self declare a conflict of interest. I cant think of >> many such possible instances - policy work is by its very nature diffuse >> and almost everyone is, by the very nature of it being public policy, >> impacted - some certainly more than the other, but private judgements of >> such impact would hardly be useful. It is not that IGF or an IG >> governance body is ever going to make a declaration specifically on govt >> of India or google, in which kind of case perhaps one may jump to state >> a funding conflict. In fact, one still may not, becuase typically any >> org will accept funding only in the name of promoting public interest >> and would not want to accept that pushing a public policy discussion or >> process in one way or the other actually constitutes a 'conflict of >> interest' - in that it would not want to admit that in accepting a >> funding it had accepted taking on 'an interest'. That is a fundamental >> difference in how a civil society org is constitutes, as against a >> lobbying body. For all these reasons, conflict of interest is not a >> concept suited for civil society transparency and accountability. Your >> proposal for "require(ing) candidates to register any conflicts of >> interest" would simply result in all candidates saying 'they have no >> conflict of interest that they can recognise' and thus would serve no >> purpose at all. >> >> Lastly, while you keep on saying this is the most we can do ( 'conflict >> of interest' declaration) you have not given any reason why transparency >> standards often applied in other areas of civil society work should not >> be applied in the IG space as well, and what exactly is wrong with a >> basic voluntary register of transparency simply declaring 'interests, >> objectives, and funding sources'. This even when I have been arguing >> that it is even more important for IG civil society than in other civil >> society areas, because the unique multistakeholder claim and approach in >> this area puts civil society in more significant, even powerful, policy >> positions than in other areas. Also, how basic documents on healthy >> development of a multistakeholder approach like the UN report on IGF >> improvements, NetMundial Statement, etc, all point to need for greater >> transparency. I once again exhort you to read Luca Belli's this >> excellent paper on multistakeholderism >> >> >> which argues why such basic transparency is essential to forwarding a >> multistakeholder approach. >> >> I cant see how IG civil society can keep pushing a multistakeholder >> approach to policy making, and seek a greater role for itself in the >> process, but then keep dragging its feet on accepting even basic >> transparency norms. The world is watching of course, and will ask >> questions. there is a cost to being in public life. >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Sunday 07 June 2015 03:32 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>> Hi Parminder, >>> >>> Following from the discussion, here is what I think is possible and >>> realistic in this space. >>> >>> Firstly, I think the question of transparency and disclosure of >>> conflicts of interest is important. >>> >>> However, I don’t think people need to declare interests to involve >>> themselves in discussion here or in any of our open mailing lists, and >>> the real concerns start to arise only when people are seeking office >>> as civil society representatives. >>> >>> Here, most of the office bearing exists in the various coalitions – >>> APC, Best Bits, JNC, NCSG, IGC. I would urge each of these groups, >>> when holding elections, to require candidates to register any >>> conflicts of interest. I know Best Bits is moving to elections for its >>> Steering Committee again soon, perhaps it could formulate some sort of >>> basic disclosure requirement for its purposes? And I guess JNC must be >>> moving towards holding its first elections for SC replenishment soon? >>> And IGC could easily add such a requirement for its candidates for co >>> cordinator elections (presumably late this year). >>> >>> But these are requirements for individual groups, and the form of such >>> is for each group to determine. I think however that such a >>> requirement would be a good idea. >>> >>> As regards CSCG – our calls for candidates are for appointments to >>> outside bodies, and I agree that some form of disclosure of any >>> conflicts of interest would be a good idea. Currently it would appear >>> that our next task would be MAG replenishment (and a small one at >>> that), probably early next year. I will suggest to the members that we >>> should require some sort of basic disclosure statement. But that of >>> course is up to the members (APC, BB, JNC, NCSG, IGC) to determine. >>> >>> I’m not sure we can go much further. But if some work can be done on a >>> simple model of a form of disclosure, that would be good. >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> *From:* parminder >>> *Sent:* Sunday, May 24, 2015 5:31 PM >>> *To:* Ian Peter ; >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; >>> BestBitsList ; >>> mailto:forum at justnetcoalition.org ; A general information sharing >>> space for the APC Community. >>> *Subject:* [governance] Civil society transparency >>> >>> Ian, and reps of civil society networks on the Civil Society >>> Coordination Group (CSCG) , >>> >>> I propose that CSCG sets up a civil society transparency project, >>> somewhat on the lines of the EU Transparency Register, pl see >>> http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/homePage.do . >>> >>> It should in fact go beyond the EU initiative which is a general one >>> for all lobbying groups, whereas we here are concerned with civil >>> society which should set the highest example of transparency and >>> accountability. The 'register' can have self filled information on >>> objectives of an organisation, principles followed by it, if any, its >>> funding, partners, and so on.... >>> >>> This is at present just my proposal, but I hope one or more civil >>> society networks in the IG space can own it and push it... CSCG would >>> be well placed to run this project as a neutral space so that there is >>> no accusation of bias that any such initiative is being employed for >>> partisan purposes. In any case, a simple initiative for openness, >>> transparency and accountability can hardly be partisan. >>> >>> The register can have optional higher level features whereby a group/ >>> org can declare its means of public accountability, whether and how >>> its internal governance is done, how matters can be taken by with >>> their oversight bodies, like board etc, and whether they have any >>> means whereby they respond to public question on their work, etc. >>> >>> For such genuine cases where such transparency can harm an >>> organisations work, or security, such organisations, and only such >>> organisations, can be exempted employing a clear process and set of >>> criteria. >>> >>> Remember, both the UN report on improvements to the IGF and the >>> NetMundial Statement highlight the issue of transparency. I also >>> recently read in these lists how we should make bridges with the >>> OpenGov movement which is almost wholly about this one thing. Time we >>> begin practising what we preach. >>> >>> I look forward to hear responses to this proposal.. >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deji at accessnow.org Mon Jun 8 15:14:28 2015 From: deji at accessnow.org (Deji Olukotun) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 15:14:28 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] International groups sign-on statement on South African Draft Online Regulation Policy In-Reply-To: <557499DD.10206@eff.org> References: <557499DD.10206@eff.org> Message-ID: Hi Jeremy, This is a great statement. Access has signed on. Best, Deji On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Dear all, > > I am writing to present a new opt-in sign-on statement for your > consideration. Not too long ago Anriette from APC posted a message to > this list about the Draft Online Regulation Policy on which the South > African Film and Publications Board publicly consulting. The draft > policy is over-broad, and allows content to be blocked without a > judicial order. Therefore many civil society groups in South Africa > have been actively mobilising against it. > > One of the groups leading this fight (along with APC and others) is > Right2Know, and Micah Reddy from that organisation has contributed a > joint statement for international groups to sign in solidarity with > local activists: > > http://bestbits.net/draft-online-regulation-policy/ > > This supplements, but does not replace, an existing petition that is > also linked at the bottom of the statement, and which you are also > encouraged to endorse. > > This is a campaign that many of us can get since it does not raise any > issues that most participants have found divisive (such as > multi-stakeholder mechanisms or civil society funding), however it is > known some Best Bits participants have different views about child > protection and may not with to endorse. This is totally fine, because > like all our joint statements, it is opt-in, being posted on our open > platform so that those who agree can endorse, and those who do not can > abstain from doing so. > > Nonetheless I would like to encourage all of those who agree with the > statement to consider endorsing it. Many thanks in anticipation of your > support. > > -- > 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 > -- Deji Olukotun Senior Advocacy Manager Access | accessnow.org tel: +1 888 414 0100 x 708 | @dejiridoo PGP: 0x6012CDA8 Fingerprint: 3AEE 4194 F70E C806 A810 857A 6AD5 8F48 6012 CDA8 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ca at cafonso.ca Mon Jun 8 19:57:29 2015 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 20:57:29 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] IANA transition - R.Bissio's comments on CCWG-Accountability Draft Message-ID: <55762BE9.7000209@cafonso.ca> For the ones who are following the IANA transition process: attached please find the comments posted by Roberto Bissio, one of the advisors to the CCWG-Accountability, regarding the draft proposal. The list and short bio of the advisors can be found here: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Advisors fraternal regards --c.a. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: roberto_bissio_comments_ccwg-account_draft_20150603.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 98279 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jmalcolm at eff.org Mon Jun 1 12:36:49 2015 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 09:36:49 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Civil society transparency In-Reply-To: <20150601122935.53aef61c@quill> References: <55617E51.5010901@itforchange.net> <5566FE8A.9010209@itforchange.net> <685563FB-947F-4110-8B81-3872514B494C@eff.org> <20150531090029.5bd0ce96@quill> <20150601122935.53aef61c@quill> Message-ID: <4A4C16F9-FBA2-4512-9567-DB511FEBD268@eff.org> On 01/06/2015, at 3:29 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > The Azerbaijan meeting [...] piggybacked on the 7th Internet > Governance Forum (IGF) in Baku, Azerbaijan 6-9 November 2012. Being > that the IGF is a UN-led, multi-stakeholder annual meeting, > established to discuss public policy issues related to the > Internet, the IFHR program saw it as an opportunity to convene > with many Internet governance and Internet rights NGOs at once. > They did so a few days before the start of the IGF, in a large > gathering called Best Bits.(*) > ... > If in spite of all of the above, you still believe that your claim is > defensible that "there was and is never any such capacity building > program behind Best Bits", please arrange for disclosure of the true > facts about the role and activities of the IFHR program in relation to > Bestbits, which would in that case have been misunderstood by the > researchers, and explain how that misunderstanding would have come > about. I don't know anything about that program, since it is not my programme, and neither was it ever discussed or considered by the Best Bits steering committee. The organisation that I was working for at the time had its own programme, with its own funders, that intersected with the Best Bits meeting to some extent. So did many other participants, including Global Partners of course. If any of them wanted to report *their participation in* the Best Bits meeting to their funders as an outcome or their programme, that's their business. That is quite different from saying that Best Bits is part of any particular participant organisation's programme, or is associated with any of any of that organisation's funders. PS. I'm not going to debate this on-list with you any further. -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm at eff.org Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220 OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide: https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en From kichango at gmail.com Tue Jun 9 07:11:38 2015 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 11:11:38 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] IANA transition - BR Gov comments on the CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <557378D2.6030503@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: It's good to see a law scholar involved in this discussion. I'll leave it to the Brazilian party to ultimate tell whether your reading is correct or not. In the meantime I'd volunteer the following comments. On Jun 8, 2015 10:46 PM, "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" < froomkin at law.miami.edu> wrote: > > Perhaps I'm misreading something, but I read this document to make the following assertions: > > 1. All restrictions on ICANN's location must be removed. > And the question reopened for deliberation by all stakeholders, including governments among others. Only the outcome of such deliberation will be fully legitimate within the framework of the post-2015 ICANN. > 2. ICANN does not have to leave the US but must be located in a place where the governing law has certain characteristics, including not having the possibiliity that courts overrule ICANN (or at least the IRP). > > (And, as it happens, the US is not such a place....) > Not only avoiding courts overruling relevant outcomes of the Internet global community processes, but also examining and resolving the possible interferences/conflicts that might arise for government representatives being subject to a foreign country law simply in the process of attending to their regular duties (if they were to be fully engaged with ICANN). Quote: "From the Brazilian perspective the existing structure clearly imposes limits to the participation of governmental representatives, as it is unlikely that a representative of a foreign government will be authorized (by its own government) to formally accept a position in a body pertaining to a U.S. corporation." This may be what you're getting at with your point 3 below, but I'm not sure whether the problem is only the fact that governments have to deal with a corporate form/law or whether it is altogether the fact that it is a single country law without any form of deliberate endorsement by the other governments (who also have law making power in their respective country just as the US government). Assuming your reading is correct, and if necessary complemented by my remarks above, I'd be interested in hearing from you about any issues you may see with the BR gov comments. Thanks, Mawaki > > 3. ICANN doesn't have to change its form, but it needs a form where governments are comfortable. > > (And, as it happens, the corporate form is not such a form....) > > > What am I missing? > > > > On Sat, 6 Jun 2015, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> For the ones who are following the IANA transition process: attached >> please find the comments posted by the government of Brazil on June 03, >> 2015, in response to the call for public comments on the >> CCWG-Accountability Initial Draft Proposal. >> >> I generally agree with the comments. >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> > > -- > A. Michael Froomkin, http://law.tm > Laurie Silvers & Mitchell Rubenstein Distinguished Professor of Law > Editor, Jotwell: The Journal of Things We Like (Lots), jotwell.com > Program Chair, We Robot 2016 | +1 (305) 284-4285 | froomkin at law.tm > U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA > -->It's warm here.<-- > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From susan at chalmers.associates Wed Jun 10 11:09:56 2015 From: susan at chalmers.associates (Susan Chalmers) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 11:09:56 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Update on IGF Main Session proposals Message-ID: Dear all, An update to let everyone know that a number of IGF main session proposals have been submitted to the MAG list. On my own initiative I sought comments from various members of the community and on this list for a session on zero-rating. The proposal which I submitted to the MAG is available to read here: https://docs.google.com/a/chalmers.associates/document/d/1lmPUwCkRRtyLdQj5Mlug2L3n1Q88eC-ALnTz_D-uiuc/edit?usp=sharing . Thank you to all who helped! Other proposals were submitted via the MAG list on the following topics: - Cybersecurity (private sector) - Human Rights (civil society) - NetMundial (local host / technical community member) - Internet Economy and Sustainable development (private sector) I kindly invite my colleagues to add any that I may have missed. We are awaiting next steps from the Chair on how the proposals will be selected. Sincerely, Susan Susan Chalmers susan at chalmers.associates *CHALMERS* & ASSOCIATES http://chalmers.associates -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From deborah at apc.org Tue Jun 16 06:04:01 2015 From: deborah at apc.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 12:04:01 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Internet rights @ HRC29 Message-ID: <557FF491.10806@apc.org> Dear all, The 29th session of the Human Rights Council opened yesterday, and APC and Access have put together a brief on the internet rights issues that will come up. It's a busy session with the presentation of the report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression on encryption and anonymity, the appointment of the new SR on privacy, and more. https://www.apc.org/en/news/human-rights-council-hrc29-what-stake-internet-rig If anyone is in Geneva and able to come to the HRC, there a few events of interest (in the brief). Kind regards, Deborah From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Tue Jun 16 11:04:04 2015 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 11:04:04 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Internet rights @ HRC29 In-Reply-To: <557FF491.10806@apc.org> References: <557FF491.10806@apc.org> Message-ID: <55803AE4.7060809@mail.utoronto.ca> Thanks for this, the agenda does seem packed! I wanted to draw to your attention, an important proceeding that is taking place at ICANN, and is an important Internet governance issue. A working group on the accreditation of privacy proxy services, which many endangered groups and political/social dissidents use to protect their identities from disclosure on WHOIS, has been meeting for a year and a half. The report is up for comments until July 7. The civil society groups who have been actively trying to protect these services from any requirements that would price them out of existence, or make many organizations ineligible to use them, would appreciate the support of human rights groups everywhere. There are two easy ways to do this: *Briefing Paper* The first is a briefing paper prepared by 3 members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, to give an overview of some of the issues and concerns that we feel are still present and need some further work. You can find our briefing attached and we welcome and feedback, suggestions or comments. *Savedomainprivacy.org* A website has also been setup by a number of other stakeholders in this process at www.savedomainprivacy.org . Members of the public and interested parties can sign onto a petition to protect the ability of registrants to keep their personal information private. I would urge everyone to have a look at both pieces of info and please feel free to contact me or any of the other authors if you or your organization want further information or to help you submit your own comments during the Public Comments period which will be ending on July 7^th 2015. On 2015-06-16 6:04, Deborah Brown wrote: > Dear all, > > The 29th session of the Human Rights Council opened yesterday, and APC > and Access have put together a brief on the internet rights issues that > will come up. It's a busy session with the presentation of the report of > the Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression on encryption and > anonymity, the appointment of the new SR on privacy, and more. > > https://www.apc.org/en/news/human-rights-council-hrc29-what-stake-internet-rig > > If anyone is in Geneva and able to come to the HRC, there a few events > of interest (in the brief). > > Kind regards, > Deborah > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PrivacyProxyBriefing-1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 381265 bytes Desc: not available URL: From willi.uebelherr at riseup.net Fri Jun 19 17:28:04 2015 From: willi.uebelherr at riseup.net (willi uebelherr) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 18:28:04 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] The decentralization of the DNS system Message-ID: <55848964.10504@riseup.net> The decentralization of the DNS system We need a completely self-organizing Internet. And this is possible only through massive decentralization. We can look at the difficulties at the beginning of the Internet with tolerance. They were mostly of technical nature. But today we have other conditions. And under such other conditions arise other possibilities. It is about the IP address. It is necessary to ensure that the packets find their direct path to their goals. The router work with numbers. We humans with text. The content is the same. Only the representation is different. The Internet, a transport system for digital data in packet form, needs the destination address in order to direct the packets to their destinations. The packages contain that destination address. Thus, the packets are always the instance to activate and orient the router. This, however, requires the knowledge of the geographical position of the target in order to determine the direction to this. But this question is not the subject of this text. Here i speak about about how the transformation of a text can be organized properly into the numerical representation of the IP address. We focus on the ccTLD (country code Top Level Domain). It is the first level of the cascade for the decentralized organization of the DNS system. The gTLD (generic TLD such as .com, .org, .net ...) do not interest us. Each person can decide for themselves whether they want to apply this nonsense. Each host on the Internet, client or server or both, has a unique and singular geographical position. We describe it with the world coordinate system WCS 1984 (WCS84) or later versions. All GPS and online map systems work with that. For mobile devices, this is always the position of the access point to the Internet. To transport the packages we need this information so that the router can select the most direct route. The decentralization of the DNS system rests on the cascade steadily reduced regions. The first level is the ccTLD. So a country with borders, as we know it today. We can use this, although it is not optimal. All other levels are determined exclusively in their regions. The administration, as set, change, and resolve, only happens in the region. This applies to each level. The organizational level for the ccTLD is the association of the countries on our planet. So the UN. The regions within a country are organizational objects in the respective country. Local regions are organizational properties of the larger region. The organizational models are always determined at the level of each region. In order for a region in Brazil is achieved via the ccTLD ".br" worldwide. But their internal deeper structure may be different from the structure in Kenya, India or Russia. Regardless of the specific local / regional organizational structure of the DNS system, we always get the correct IP address for our goal. Only the principles of the resolution of a domain sequence into a numeric IP address is the subject of our common discussion. With the local self-organization we dissolve the need for global Internet Governance. This may for organizations, that are derive its raison d'être from the global Internet Governance, be uncomfortable. We carry this with serenity. Important for us is to help all the people in the different regions of our planet to organize their own DNA structure in accordance with their own principles. This makes it possible for all people of our planet to connect to all regions of our planet for the communication. We have several instruments which have well proven in the history of the Internet. The most important instrument are the RFCs. With that we can best explain the principles of decentralized DNS system. And this is also the place where we describe the global access to the ccTLD's. The rest is regional and local task. The dynamics in the inventory of domains can be very large. But this task is clearly and simply by decentralization of the administration. An important field of our activities in the IG forums is the propagation of a free access to the setting up, modification and dissolution of a domain. Technically this is not a major challenge, because the processing of an item can be organized by the applicants themselves. There is only one set in a simple database. The blockages are in the bureaucratic systems. But the dissolution of these blockades always remains the task of the people in their regions. With the help of free software and open source software we can do this very easily realized in a large cooperation. So the DNS system is an experiential field of creative and international cooperation. with many greetings, willi Porto Alegre, Brasil From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Sat Jun 20 01:02:14 2015 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 07:02:14 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] The decentralization of the DNS system In-Reply-To: <55848964.10504@riseup.net> References: <55848964.10504@riseup.net> Message-ID: <7EC1DED3-031D-420D-927A-68483A1C3E9A@theglobaljournal.net> Willi, Thanks for sharing your thoughts. If I may put two comments on this. 1_ In my opinion, "decentralization" seems not to be the appropriate word to describe what and how to change the current monopole under ICANN. Information Technology is somehow always related to a Master and its slaves, by electronic nature. 2_ Localisation is often associated with the idea of "nation". Keep in mind that this could mean to imprison people into old boundaries. Localisation might be interesting if a community decides to set up its own network (see the Spanish experiment on this) but that does not address the DNS issue. In other words, decentralization has been a buzz word propagated by the current owners/rulers of the DNS root zoot management. And basically it is part of the dominant narrative related to the so-called, open, free, decentralized Internet under US/allies ruling boot. Localisation might equate to a returning in the past, pushing us back within the boundaries of the old national thinking. Not sure if we really want this. What is more needed is either a global common governance (option one), with a public interest perspective, or a competitive market. Were we not satisfied with the ICANN, we should turn to another root-zone manager. This is no dream or utopia. I am no longer sending my domain name request to an ICANN affiliate server, but instead using the Open-Root system to find whatever I am looking for on the web. Thanks to Open-Root, we are also providing for free one domain name with a gTLD managed by Open-Root to NGOs. When the new gTLD .ngo by PIR (Public INterest Registry) given by ICANN to ISOC (PIR is ISOC's TLD roommate and milk cow) is an additional business supposed to make more money, we are happy to provide access to IPs through an independent, cheap (for free, or paid for life) domain name. All our computers are using Open-Root DNS management to access website that ICANN et al cannot see if we do not want the US surveillance apparatus to see it. The first option (Global Common Governance) is almost dead, thanks to the systematic blockade by the US (gov and businesses) and its usual allies. Moreover, this first option would require both an architectural re-thinking (see JFC's email) and a political and institutional framing (see JNC for its democratic approach of the Internet governance). A long way to go. You show note that the request for a roadmap to a new Internet Governance, as put before the Net Mundial Conference has gone no where expect into giving to ICANN more power over the IANA functions (shifting power from the US to the US). The second option is fair competition (which I like as it means ending the de facto ICANN monopole) and we are free to practice competition it at any time starting today. A third option is an old fashion scheme that would fragment the Internet into national sub-Internets, (Westphalian Internets). This is not just old-fashion. This would be a way to imprison people back into their country land under the control of their leaders (good luck with that), unless the current efforts by a few academics come to conclusion in order to interconnect different root-zone management systems. There are a few bright minds working on this interconnectivity, whether the roots would be national or global. For anyone interested to use the OPEN ROOT to browse the web, and break free from the ICANN affiliates, feel free to write to me for guidance and information. JC Le 19 juin 2015 à 23:28, willi uebelherr a écrit : > > The decentralization of the DNS system > > We need a completely self-organizing Internet. And this is possible only through massive decentralization. We can look at the difficulties at the beginning of the Internet with tolerance. They were mostly of technical nature. But today we have other conditions. And under such other conditions arise other possibilities. > > It is about the IP address. It is necessary to ensure that the packets find their direct path to their goals. The router work with numbers. We humans with text. The content is the same. Only the representation is different. > > The Internet, a transport system for digital data in packet form, needs the destination address in order to direct the packets to their destinations. The packages contain that destination address. Thus, the packets are always the instance to activate and orient the router. > > This, however, requires the knowledge of the geographical position of the target in order to determine the direction to this. But this question is not the subject of this text. Here i speak about about how the transformation of a text can be organized properly into the numerical representation of the IP address. > > We focus on the ccTLD (country code Top Level Domain). It is the first level of the cascade for the decentralized organization of the DNS system. The gTLD (generic TLD such as .com, .org, .net ...) do not interest us. Each person can decide for themselves whether they want to apply this nonsense. > > Each host on the Internet, client or server or both, has a unique and singular geographical position. We describe it with the world coordinate system WCS 1984 (WCS84) or later versions. All GPS and online map systems work with that. For mobile devices, this is always the position of the access point to the Internet. To transport the packages we need this information so that the router can select the most direct route. > > The decentralization of the DNS system rests on the cascade steadily reduced regions. The first level is the ccTLD. So a country with borders, as we know it today. We can use this, although it is not optimal. All other levels are determined exclusively in their regions. The administration, as set, change, and resolve, only happens in the region. This applies to each level. > > The organizational level for the ccTLD is the association of the countries on our planet. So the UN. The regions within a country are organizational objects in the respective country. Local regions are organizational properties of the larger region. > > The organizational models are always determined at the level of each region. In order for a region in Brazil is achieved via the ccTLD ".br" worldwide. But their internal deeper structure may be different from the structure in Kenya, India or Russia. Regardless of the specific local / regional organizational structure of the DNS system, we always get the correct IP address for our goal. Only the principles of the resolution of a domain sequence into a numeric IP address is the subject of our common discussion. > > With the local self-organization we dissolve the need for global Internet Governance. This may for organizations, that are derive its raison d'être from the global Internet Governance, be uncomfortable. We carry this with serenity. > > Important for us is to help all the people in the different regions of our planet to organize their own DNA structure in accordance with their own principles. This makes it possible for all people of our planet to connect to all regions of our planet for the communication. > > We have several instruments which have well proven in the history of the Internet. The most important instrument are the RFCs. With that we can best explain the principles of decentralized DNS system. And this is also the place where we describe the global access to the ccTLD's. The rest is regional and local task. > > The dynamics in the inventory of domains can be very large. But this task is clearly and simply by decentralization of the administration. > > An important field of our activities in the IG forums is the propagation of a free access to the setting up, modification and dissolution of a domain. Technically this is not a major challenge, because the processing of an item can be organized by the applicants themselves. There is only one set in a simple database. The blockages are in the bureaucratic systems. But the dissolution of these blockades always remains the task of the people in their regions. > > With the help of free software and open source software we can do this very easily realized in a large cooperation. So the DNS system is an experiential field of creative and international cooperation. > > with many greetings, willi > Porto Alegre, Brasil > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sarvjeetmoond at gmail.com Mon Jun 22 13:00:50 2015 From: sarvjeetmoond at gmail.com (Sarvjeet Singh) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 22:30:50 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Overview of Global IG Events & ICANN 53 Message-ID: Dear All, The Centre for Communication Governance at National Law University Delhi is working on a project that looks at India's engagement with global internet governance fora. As part of this, we have drafted a few documents dealing with various issues of Internet Governance. A primer on significant global Internet governance events from May 2013 can be found here . Do let us know if there's anything significant missing. A background note, drafted by my colleague Arun Mohan Sukumar on ICANN 53 is available here . The Indian Minister of ICT delivered an address today at ICANN 53 endorsing multistakeholderism. The entire text of the statement can be found here . Lastly, a memo explaining the idea of Fundamental Bylaws under the CCWG Accountability Proposal and its basis in the Californian law and exploring the concept of “lifting the corporate veil” in the context of the CCWG proposal is available here . We welcome your feedback and inputs. Best, Sarvjeet -- Sarvjeet Singh | Project Manager & Research Fellow Centre for Communication Governance | National Law University, Delhi | Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 | Cell: (+91) 999-023-2298 | Fax: (+91) 11-280-34256 | www.ccgdelhi.org . www.nludelhi.ac.in | Twitter: @ccgdelhi . @sarvjeetmoond -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anriette at apc.org Tue Jun 23 05:02:34 2015 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 11:02:34 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] A message from R2K to Britain's spies at GCHQ In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <558920AA.7090501@apc.org> Dear all I am sure many of you saw the news yesterday about GCHQ spying on South African and Egyptian human rights organisations. Here is our response (our being South African activists). Anriette *A message from R2K to Britain's spies at GCHQ* Online: http://www.r2k.org.za/?p=5076 We are outraged to learn that the UK’s Gov­ern­ment Com­mu­ni­ca­tions Head­quar­ters (GCHQ), the British spy agency, has spied on email communications of the Legal Resources Centre . This emerged on Monday in a ruling by the UK’s secretive Investigative Powers Tribunal. The ruling confirmed that another human rights organisation, the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR), was also spied on in breach of GCHQ’s internal policies. It seems there are no limits to what GCHQ and its allies are willing to do. The ruling found that this surveillance was illegal, even by GCHQ's own very lax standards, although this was described as a "technical" breach. This is further evidence of the extent to which governments across the world seem willing to use surveillance policies to invade the privacy of human rights defenders and ordinary citizens alike. The LRC provides pro bono legal support to many civil society groups and communities across South Africa, including the Right2Know Campaign. This surveillance has potentially also violated the rights of the LRC’s clients to attorney-client confidentiality, although no information has been provided in the ruling about precisely what communications were intercepted. We applaud the LRC for its continued efforts to protect the rights of its clients. We call on the British Embassy in Pretoria to explain how its government came to spy on South African human rights lawyers! And we send a message to the GCHQ, which they can plug into Google Translate in their own time: *Sidikiwe! Voetsek! * For more information see the LRC's press release and Privacy International's briefing . From director at ipop.org.pk Tue Jun 23 10:28:10 2015 From: director at ipop.org.pk (Arzak Khan) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 14:28:10 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Internet=2Eorg_risks_the_Web=92s_futu?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?re_in_Pakistan?= Message-ID: Dear All, Please find attached my opinion on internet.org in Pakistan published on Al Jazeera America. Any feedback will be greatly appreciated. http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/6/internetorg-risks-the-webs-future-in-pakistan.html Internet.org risks the Web’s future in PakistanZuckerberg-Telenor effort to bring Internet to the developing world is counterproductiveJune 22, 2015 2:00AM ET by Arzak Khan @internetpolicyp Internet.org, the partnership between Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Norweigian telecom operator Telenor, seeks to make internet access available to the two-thirds of the world’s population who are not yet connected, and to bring the same opportunities to everyone that the connected world has today. The project was first launched in July 2014 in Zambia followed by Tanzania, Kenya, Colombia, Ghana, India, Philippines, Guatemala, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Malawi. Now the project is coming to my native Pakistan. Through the internet.org app, Telenor’s 37 million customers in Pakistan have free Internet access to 17 websites that includes the popular social media website Facebook along with BBC, Wikipedia and other news, health, education, finance and information services. Internet.org’s aims are based on a real problem faced by millions of people without Internet access in Pakistan due to low incomes and affordability, user capability and, most importantly, poor telecommunications infrastructure. Despite the effort’s apparent noble intentions, this initiative has more drawbacks than benefits. First, both internet.org and Telenor are misleadingly marketing to the people this initiative as “the Internet” whereas the free net access provided through this initiative is not the real Internet but basically a bundle of limited websites approved by Facebook with significant privacy and security flaws. Second, this initiative does not help in resolving the connectivity issues of developing countries such as Pakistan and doubles the gravity of the issue by offering a platform for restricted Internet access where people with scarcer economic resources have very limited opportunity for joining the global Internet economy. Thus the effort does little to narrow the digital divide. Pakistanis deserve the right to savor the real Internet — not the one delivered by Internet.org.The Internet’s success is due to its openness, equality of opportunity and innovation. Platforms such as Facebook itself would not have been created if Zuckerberg accessed the Internet only via this initiative. Furthermore, the Internet is already believed to be an important medium to help countries such as mine develop successful economies. But Pakistan is hampered by poor broadband infrastructure, low speeds and unavailability of access. Pakistanis who may connect for the first time using internet.org are at risk of missing out on the real Internet that gives them an unlimited opportunities for socio-economic development, thereby leading to a potential lack of interest in the real Internet. Despite limited access, the Internet has already become a very powerful medium of change in Pakistan in a very short span of time. Approximately 30 million of Pakistan’s 191 million population have Internet, half of them through their mobile phone, according to a report by mobile survey company Ansr.io. The Internet has empowered them with genuine freedom of speech without censorship. Paradoxically, Internet.org is set to put freedom of expression at risk. Its consequences can be detrimental in repressive regimes such as Pakistan where governments are pursuing an active agenda for censoring the Internet in the name of national security and social and religious values. Facebook through this initiative is strangely putting itself in a position whereby governments could pressure to block certain types of content or users who access it. This can be especially harmful for politically active users in restrictive environments. Moreover, the security and privacy of individual users will also be at a constant risk of malicious attacks and spying by the government. The goal of providing universal, affordable Internet access to every person on Earth is too large and too important for any one company, group or government to solve alone. It requires a cohesive multi-stakeholders approach that demonstrates a commitment to the public interest, fairness and transparency. As for this particular effort, Facebook through internet.org appears to be focused instead on expanding its user base and advertising empire in the developing world, all in the name of providing free access to ‘the Internet.’ This nefarious development agenda is no different from the ones pursued in the periods of colonialism, imperialism and then capitalism where resourceful governments and corporations exploited the poor countries with the fake promises of development. Pakistanis, along with peoples from other developing countries, deserve the right to savor the real Internet — not the one delivered by Internet.org. The Zuckerberg-Telenor effort not only jeopardizes the growth, freedom and expansion of the Web in Pakistan but also risks creating a two-tiered Internet with millions in the developing world quarantined the wrong side of digital divide. Arzak Khan is Founder and Director of Internet Policy Observatory Pakistan, where he promotes policies for development of open and transparent Internet in Pakistan. He also researches the marketing of human rights in the global south, the role played by new information and communication technologies and growing censorship of the Internet. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera America's editorial policy. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pouzin at well.com Tue Jun 23 19:53:39 2015 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 01:53:39 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] =?UTF-8?Q?Internet=2Eorg_risks_the_Web=E2=80=99s_f?= =?UTF-8?Q?uture_in_Pakistan?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Arzak Khan, You hit the bull's eye. The name of the game is colonization. Louis www.open-root.eu www.eurolinc.eu - - - On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Arzak Khan wrote: > Dear All, > > Please find attached my opinion on internet.org in Pakistan published on > Al Jazeera America. > > Any feedback will be greatly appreciated. > > > http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/6/internetorg-risks-the-webs-future-in-pakistan.html > > > Internet.org risks the Web’s future in Pakistan > Zuckerberg-Telenor effort to bring Internet to the developing world is > counterproductive > June 22, 2015 2:00AM ET > by Arzak Khan > @internetpolicyp > Internet.org, the partnership between Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and > Norweigian telecom operator Telenor, seeks to make internet access > available to the two-thirds of the world’s population who are not yet > connected, and to bring the same opportunities to everyone that the > connected world has today. The project was first launched in July 2014 in > Zambia followed by Tanzania, Kenya, Colombia, Ghana, India, Philippines, > Guatemala, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Malawi. > Now the project is coming to my native Pakistan. Through the internet.org > app, Telenor’s 37 million customers in Pakistan have free Internet access > to 17 websites that includes the popular social media website Facebook > along with BBC, Wikipedia and other news, health, education, finance and > information services. Internet.org’s aims are based on a real problem faced > by millions of people without Internet access in Pakistan due to low > incomes and affordability, user capability and, most importantly, poor > telecommunications infrastructure. > Despite the effort’s apparent noble intentions, this initiative has more > drawbacks than benefits. First, both internet.org and Telenor are > misleadingly marketing to the people this initiative as “the Internet” > whereas the free net access provided through this initiative is not the > real Internet but basically a bundle of limited websites approved by > Facebook with significant privacy and security flaws. Second, this > initiative does not help in resolving the connectivity issues of developing > countries such as Pakistan and doubles the gravity of the issue by offering > a platform for restricted Internet access where people with scarcer > economic resources have very limited opportunity for joining the global > Internet economy. Thus the effort does little to narrow the digital divide. > Pakistanis deserve the right to savor the real Internet — not the one > delivered by Internet.org. > The Internet’s success is due to its openness, equality of opportunity and > innovation. Platforms such as Facebook itself would not have been created > if Zuckerberg accessed the Internet only via this initiative. Furthermore, > the Internet is already believed to be an important medium to help > countries such as mine develop successful economies. But Pakistan is > hampered by poor broadband infrastructure, low speeds and unavailability > of access. Pakistanis who may connect for the first time using > internet.org are at risk of missing out on the real Internet that gives > them an unlimited opportunities for socio-economic development, thereby > leading to a potential lack of interest in the real Internet. > Despite limited access, the Internet has already become a very powerful > medium of change in Pakistan in a very short span of time. Approximately 30 > million of Pakistan’s 191 million population have Internet, half of them > through their mobile phone, according to a report > > by mobile survey company Ansr.io. The Internet has empowered them with > genuine freedom of speech without censorship. Paradoxically, Internet.org > is set to put freedom of expression at risk. Its consequences can be > detrimental in repressive regimes such as Pakistan where governments are > pursuing an active agenda for censoring the Internet in the name of > national security and social and religious values. Facebook through this > initiative is strangely putting itself in a position whereby governments > could pressure to block certain types of content or users who access it. > This can be especially harmful for politically active users in restrictive > environments. Moreover, the security and privacy of individual users will > also be at a constant risk of malicious attacks and spying by the > government. > The goal of providing universal, affordable Internet access to every > person on Earth is too large and too important for any one company, group > or government to solve alone. It requires a cohesive multi-stakeholders > approach that demonstrates a commitment to the public interest, fairness > and transparency. As for this particular effort, Facebook through > internet.org appears to be focused instead on expanding its user base and > advertising empire in the developing world, all in the name of providing > free access to ‘the Internet.’ This nefarious development agenda is no > different from the ones pursued in the periods of colonialism, imperialism > and then capitalism where resourceful governments and corporations > exploited the poor countries with the fake promises of development. > Pakistanis, along with peoples from other developing countries, deserve > the right to savor the real Internet — not the one delivered by > Internet.org. The Zuckerberg-Telenor effort not only jeopardizes the > growth, freedom and expansion of the Web in Pakistan but also risks > creating a two-tiered Internet with millions in the developing world > quarantined the wrong side of digital divide. > > *Arzak Khan is Founder and Director of Internet Policy Observatory > Pakistan, where he promotes policies for development of open and > transparent Internet in Pakistan. He also researches the marketing of human > rights in the global south, the role played by new information and > communication technologies and growing censorship of the Internet.* > > * The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not > necessarily reflect Al Jazeera America's editorial policy. * > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From willi.uebelherr at riseup.net Mon Jun 1 13:27:18 2015 From: willi.uebelherr at riseup.net (willi uebelherr) Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 14:27:18 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Civil society transparency In-Reply-To: <20150601122935.53aef61c@quill> References: <55617E51.5010901@itforchange.net> <5566FE8A.9010209@itforchange.net> <685563FB-947F-4110-8B81-3872514B494C@eff.org> <20150531090029.5bd0ce96@quill> <20150601122935.53aef61c@quill> Message-ID: <556C95F6.7020705@riseup.net> Dear Norbert, i don't like this emphasizing of the separation. It is true, if we follow the flow of money, then we know, what people act for specific private/state interest. But also we can read the texts and hear the speeches we understand the motivations and intentions. And inside of our cooperation we should be tolerant. We have to search our commons. many greetings, willi Buenos Aires, Argentina Am 01.06.2015 um 07:29 schrieb Norbert Bollow: > On Sun, 31 May 2015 21:04:25 -0700 > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> On May 31, 2015, at 12:00 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >>> Given that the initial set of pointed questions were sparked by the >>> initial Bestbits meeting having been part of a formal "capacity >>> building" programme funded in part by the US and UK government, >> >> That is 100% false. None of the budget for that meeting was funded by >> any government grant > > Sure. In view of the various circumstances (including in particular the > presence of a Google representative at the meeting) I have never had > any reason to harbor any doubts that the disclosures about the funding > for the formal budget of that meeting might potentially have been > insufficient, or that they might potentially have been untruthful. > > The transparency/disclosure concerns were always about something else, > namely that (1) the other main organizer/leader of Bestbits besides you > had, according to the best available information, pursued this at least > during the 2012 phase as part of a formal, partly US government funded, > capacity building program, and that (2) it appeared that at least one > of the other people who were invited to become part of the initial > Bestbits steering committee have been partners of this "capacity > building program", and that (3) none of this had been disclosed to > Bestbits participants at the relevant times. > > (Note: I wouldn't have objected to point '(2)' if it had been disclosed > in a timely manner and with a credible assurance that indeed it was only > one of the partners of the capacity building program who was invited to > the initial Bestbits steering committee.) > >> and there was and is never any such capacity >> building program behind Best Bits. The draft report from an >> independent researcher that you read suggesting otherwise was >> categorically incorrect and I can only hope was subsequently >> corrected. > > I'd expect that in the public online version which is in the filename > marked "final draft", any errors pointed out by the interviewees will > have been corrected. > > http://strategiesformediareform.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/ICA-Paper-Final-Draft-Lentz-and-Hutchison.pdf > > This document states inter alia: > > "the digital media rights sector both in the U.S. and elsewhere > continues to suffer limited resources [...] Recognition of such > challenges is often why donor organizations step in to try to help. > This happens by way of entrepreneurial NGO actors approaching donors, > or donors approaching NGO actors to address a perceived gap in a > sector’s capacity to address important policy issues effectively. Yet > donor involvement—a necessary precondition for policy advocacy > organizations seeking sustainable capacity—also triggers conflict in > policy advocacy fields. [...] this paper explores some of the tensions > and also benefits of what will be referred to as “intermediary” > organizations’ involvement in helping to build the capacity of an > emergent policy advocacy sector: the Internet freedom advocacy > sector that addresses Internet governance and human rights in a digital > media context. The paper features early-stage case study research on > a specific intermediary actor in this field: the Internet Freedom and > Human Rights (IFHR) program launched in 2012 and coordinated by Global > Partners & Associates (GP&A) in the UK with its Washington, DC partner, > the New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute (OTI). > [...] > The IFHR program enjoys support for this work from several donor > organizations interested in digital rights issues, which include the > Ford Foundation, the Open Society Foundation, the Media Democracy Fund, > the British and Dutch governments, as well as the U.S. State > Department. GP&A, founded in 2005 and based in London, serves as the > primary grantee > [...] > Working within a short time frame, the program has succeeded in forging > strong alliances with its local partner organizations, working together > with them and other NGOs at regional and international forums to > produce useful policy proposals that have garnered widespread support. > [..] While working continuously with these partners, the IFHR program > also organized three large regional meetings for NGOs, scholars and > activists working on Internet freedom issues. These meetings occurred > in the fall of 2012, in Kenya, Azerbaijan and Brazil. Furthermore, the > IFHR program had a significant presence at the World Conference on > International Telecommunications (WCIT-12) in Dubai, in December. > [...] > The Azerbaijan meeting [...] piggybacked on the 7th Internet > Governance Forum (IGF) in Baku, Azerbaijan 6-9 November 2012. Being > that the IGF is a UN-led, multi-stakeholder annual meeting, > established to discuss public policy issues related to the > Internet, the IFHR program saw it as an opportunity to convene > with many Internet governance and Internet rights NGOs at once. > They did so a few days before the start of the IGF, in a large > gathering called Best Bits.(*) To IFHR program staff, this was a > significant achievement (especially due to the preponderance of > disparate perspectives), as the Best Bits meeting resulted in a clear > consensus amongst those present, and an ensuing statement, which was > later quoted by the US government (Puddephatt, 2012). Interviews > with IFHR program staff suggest that to them, the occasion > demonstrated the true potential for global coalition building, a > main goal of the IFHR program." > (*) At this point there is a reference to an endnote which says: > "http://bestbits.net/ ; from interviews we learned that the term > “Best Bits” was suggested by Dr. Jeremy Malcolm, senior policy > officer for Consumers International’s “Consumers in the Digital > Age” programme: > http://www.consumersinternational.org/who-we-are/our-team/jeremy-malcolm#.UaZIq-BYSK8 > " > > If in spite of all of the above, you still believe that your claim is > defensible that "there was and is never any such capacity building > program behind Best Bits", please arrange for disclosure of the true > facts about the role and activities of the IFHR program in relation to > Bestbits, which would in that case have been misunderstood by the > researchers, and explain how that misunderstanding would have come > about. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > From director at ipop.org.pk Wed Jun 24 05:56:53 2015 From: director at ipop.org.pk (Arzak Khan) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 09:56:53 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Internet=2Eorg_risks_the_Web=92s_?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?future_in_Pakistan?= In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: Thank you for your appreciation Louis. It is truly a new form of colonization. Best, Arzak From: pouzin at well.com Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 01:53:39 +0200 To: director at ipop.org.pk CC: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Internet.org risks the Web’s future in Pakistan Hi Arzak Khan, You hit the bull's eye. The name of the game is colonization. Louis www.open-root.eu www.eurolinc.eu - - - On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Arzak Khan wrote: Dear All, Please find attached my opinion on internet.org in Pakistan published on Al Jazeera America. Any feedback will be greatly appreciated. http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/6/internetorg-risks-the-webs-future-in-pakistan.html Internet.org risks the Web’s future in PakistanZuckerberg-Telenor effort to bring Internet to the developing world is counterproductiveJune 22, 2015 2:00AM ET by Arzak Khan @internetpolicyp Internet.org, the partnership between Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Norweigian telecom operator Telenor, seeks to make internet access available to the two-thirds of the world’s population who are not yet connected, and to bring the same opportunities to everyone that the connected world has today. The project was first launched in July 2014 in Zambia followed by Tanzania, Kenya, Colombia, Ghana, India, Philippines, Guatemala, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Malawi. Now the project is coming to my native Pakistan. Through the internet.org app, Telenor’s 37 million customers in Pakistan have free Internet access to 17 websites that includes the popular social media website Facebook along with BBC, Wikipedia and other news, health, education, finance and information services. Internet.org’s aims are based on a real problem faced by millions of people without Internet access in Pakistan due to low incomes and affordability, user capability and, most importantly, poor telecommunications infrastructure. Despite the effort’s apparent noble intentions, this initiative has more drawbacks than benefits. First, both internet.org and Telenor are misleadingly marketing to the people this initiative as “the Internet” whereas the free net access provided through this initiative is not the real Internet but basically a bundle of limited websites approved by Facebook with significant privacy and security flaws. Second, this initiative does not help in resolving the connectivity issues of developing countries such as Pakistan and doubles the gravity of the issue by offering a platform for restricted Internet access where people with scarcer economic resources have very limited opportunity for joining the global Internet economy. Thus the effort does little to narrow the digital divide. Pakistanis deserve the right to savor the real Internet — not the one delivered by Internet.org.The Internet’s success is due to its openness, equality of opportunity and innovation. Platforms such as Facebook itself would not have been created if Zuckerberg accessed the Internet only via this initiative. Furthermore, the Internet is already believed to be an important medium to help countries such as mine develop successful economies. But Pakistan is hampered by poor broadband infrastructure, low speeds and unavailability of access. Pakistanis who may connect for the first time using internet.org are at risk of missing out on the real Internet that gives them an unlimited opportunities for socio-economic development, thereby leading to a potential lack of interest in the real Internet. Despite limited access, the Internet has already become a very powerful medium of change in Pakistan in a very short span of time. Approximately 30 million of Pakistan’s 191 million population have Internet, half of them through their mobile phone, according to a report by mobile survey company Ansr.io. The Internet has empowered them with genuine freedom of speech without censorship. Paradoxically, Internet.org is set to put freedom of expression at risk. Its consequences can be detrimental in repressive regimes such as Pakistan where governments are pursuing an active agenda for censoring the Internet in the name of national security and social and religious values. Facebook through this initiative is strangely putting itself in a position whereby governments could pressure to block certain types of content or users who access it. This can be especially harmful for politically active users in restrictive environments. Moreover, the security and privacy of individual users will also be at a constant risk of malicious attacks and spying by the government. The goal of providing universal, affordable Internet access to every person on Earth is too large and too important for any one company, group or government to solve alone. It requires a cohesive multi-stakeholders approach that demonstrates a commitment to the public interest, fairness and transparency. As for this particular effort, Facebook through internet.org appears to be focused instead on expanding its user base and advertising empire in the developing world, all in the name of providing free access to ‘the Internet.’ This nefarious development agenda is no different from the ones pursued in the periods of colonialism, imperialism and then capitalism where resourceful governments and corporations exploited the poor countries with the fake promises of development. Pakistanis, along with peoples from other developing countries, deserve the right to savor the real Internet — not the one delivered by Internet.org. The Zuckerberg-Telenor effort not only jeopardizes the growth, freedom and expansion of the Web in Pakistan but also risks creating a two-tiered Internet with millions in the developing world quarantined the wrong side of digital divide. Arzak Khan is Founder and Director of Internet Policy Observatory Pakistan, where he promotes policies for development of open and transparent Internet in Pakistan. He also researches the marketing of human rights in the global south, the role played by new information and communication technologies and growing censorship of the Internet. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera America's editorial policy. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From marta.skotnicka at nowoczesnapolska.org.pl Wed Jun 24 11:49:47 2015 From: marta.skotnicka at nowoczesnapolska.org.pl (Marta Skotnicka) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 17:49:47 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Open Call for Speakers at CopyCamp 2015 Message-ID: <558AD19B.2030602@nowoczesnapolska.org.pl> Dear All, The Modern Poland Foundation is pleased to launch an *Open Call for Speakers* at the *IV International CopyCamp Conference taking place on November 4, 2015 in Warsaw.* *Open Call Deadline: July 20, 2015* The International CopyCamp Conference is the first Central-and-Eastern European annual event to undertake a multi-sided, balanced and unrestrained discussion on *the social impacts of copyright.* Every year representatives of cultural institutions and private sector, administration and the media, artists, activists, politicians and academics meet in Warsaw to discuss the influence of copyright law on the circulation of cultural goods, new business models for authors' remuneration, use of technologies in social activism, importance of copyright in the context of human rights, modern education, innovation. The fourth edition of the conference will present an opportunity to continue the dynamic debate characterized by high standards of communication and openness to the input from all interested parties in a neutral and friendly conference space encouraging participants from all over the world to network and share ideas. The last three editions attracted over 110 participants and 150 speakers from Iceland, France, Finland, Norway, US, Romania, Belgium, Ukraine, Belarus, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Netherlands, Canada, United Kingdom and Poland. We are happy to announce that our special guest this year will be *Lev Manovich*, theoretician and critic of new media, visual artist, professor at City University of New York and founder of the Software Studies Initiative, author of the worldwide known book /The Language of New Media/. Presentation proposals must be submitted in the form of an abstract of *no more than 1800 characters* under one of the enlisted thematic tracks that characterize this year’s conference: CopyArt Models of Remuneration Copyright and Education Technology and Innovation Copyright and Human Rights Technologies in social activism Copyright Enforcement Future of Copyright Copyright Debate Submit your proposal at: https://copycamp.pl/en/contact/register-speaker/. *Please note: *your presentation should not exceed 10 minutes.* Please find more information at: *http://copycamp.pl/en/* Strategic Partners: *Association of Authors ZAiKS, Samsung and Google.* Partner: *Coalition for Open Education.* CopyCamp is part of the Future of Copyright project conducted by the Modern Poland Foundation. CopyCamp Coordinator: Marta Skotnicka (marta.skotnicka at nowoczesnapolska.org.pl) We would be grateful for spreading this information among your colleagues and associates! Best regards, Marta Skotnicka -- Marta Skotnicka Koordynatorka projektów / Project coordinator www.nowoczesnapolska.org.pl Fundacja Nowoczesna Polska jest Organizacją Pożytku Publicznego. Możesz przekazać 1% podatku na rozwój projektów Fundacji podając w formularzu PIT nr KRS: 0000070056 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andrew at gp-digital.org Wed Jun 24 16:53:36 2015 From: andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 21:53:36 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] surveillance of human rights groups Message-ID: Friends You may have seen a story in the media this week about GCHQ surveillance of two internationally respected human right groups based in Egypt and South Africa respectively. A number of UK based organisations are sending alter to the UK Foreign Secretary about this and will publish it soon. We would welcome support from international groups if you would willing to endorse the letter by COB Friday 26th June (this week). The contents are self explanatory Here it is: http://bestbits.net/gchq-surveillance/ If you share our concern please endorse the letter best wishes *Andrew Puddephatt* Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andrew at gp-digital.org Thu Jun 25 04:25:26 2015 From: andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 09:25:26 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] surveillance of human rights groups In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi everyone To place this letter at an opportune time in the UK media it would be great if those planning to sign could do so by 14:00 UTC Thanks a again - the letter will still stay open to Friday though On Wednesday, 24 June 2015, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > Friends > > You may have seen a story in the media this week about GCHQ surveillance > of two internationally respected human right groups based in Egypt and > South Africa respectively. > > A number of UK based organisations are sending alter to the UK Foreign > Secretary about this and will publish it soon. We would welcome support > from international groups if you would willing to endorse the letter by COB > Friday 26th June (this week). > > The contents are self explanatory > > Here it is: > > http://bestbits.net/gchq-surveillance/ > > If you share our concern please endorse the letter > > best wishes > > > > *Andrew Puddephatt* > Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt > gp-digital.org > > -- *Andrew Puddephatt* Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shahzad at bytesforall.pk Thu Jun 25 06:30:31 2015 From: shahzad at bytesforall.pk (shahzad ahmad) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 15:30:31 +0500 Subject: [bestbits] surveillance of human rights groups In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Andrew, Please add the endorsement of Bytes For All, Pakistan. Please also let us know, when we can share it on our website. Best wishes Shahzad On 25 Jun 2015 13:25, "Andrew Puddephatt" wrote: > Hi everyone > > To place this letter at an opportune time in the UK media it would be > great if those planning to sign could do so by 14:00 UTC > > Thanks a again - the letter will still stay open to Friday though > > On Wednesday, 24 June 2015, Andrew Puddephatt > wrote: > >> Friends >> >> You may have seen a story in the media this week about GCHQ surveillance >> of two internationally respected human right groups based in Egypt and >> South Africa respectively. >> >> A number of UK based organisations are sending alter to the UK Foreign >> Secretary about this and will publish it soon. We would welcome support >> from international groups if you would willing to endorse the letter by COB >> Friday 26th June (this week). >> >> The contents are self explanatory >> >> Here it is: >> >> http://bestbits.net/gchq-surveillance/ >> >> If you share our concern please endorse the letter >> >> best wishes >> >> >> >> *Andrew Puddephatt* >> Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT >> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt >> gp-digital.org >> >> > > -- > *Andrew Puddephatt* > Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt > gp-digital.org > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pazval at mail.ru Thu Jun 25 06:40:45 2015 From: pazval at mail.ru (=?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmlpIFBheml1aw==?=) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 13:40:45 +0300 Subject: [bestbits] surveillance of human rights groups In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1435228845.470413572@f400.i.mail.ru> Dear Andrew Ukrainian NGO 'Digital Defenders Partners' endorces the letter. best wishes Andrii Paziuk Chief of board Digital Defenders Partners Akhmatova, 5/250 Kyiv, Ukraine, 02068 T: +380504418354 inet.media.law at gmail.com Четверг, 25 июня 2015, 9:25 +01:00 от Andrew Puddephatt : >Hi everyone  > >To place this letter at an opportune time in the UK media it would be great if those planning to sign could do so by 14:00 UTC > >Thanks a again - the letter will still stay open to Friday though > >On Wednesday, 24 June 2015, Andrew Puddephatt < andrew at gp-digital.org > wrote: >>Friends >> >>You may have seen a story in the media this week about GCHQ surveillance of two internationally respected human right groups based in Egypt and South Africa respectively. >> >>A number of UK based organisations are sending alter to the UK Foreign Secretary about this and will publish it soon.  We would welcome support from international groups if you would willing to endorse the letter by COB Friday 26th June (this week). >> >>The contents are self explanatory  >> >>Here it is: >> >>http://bestbits.net/gchq-surveillance/ >> >>If you share our concern please endorse the letter >> >>best wishes >> >> >> >>Andrew Puddephatt >>Executive Director  |  GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT >>T:  +44 (0)20 7549 033 6  | Skype: andrewpuddephatt >>gp-digital.org >> > > >-- >Andrew Puddephatt >Executive Director  |  GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT >T:  +44 (0)20 7549 033 6  | Skype: andrewpuddephatt >gp-digital.org > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ggithaiga at hotmail.com Thu Jun 25 09:37:06 2015 From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com (Grace Githaiga) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 13:37:06 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] surveillance of human rights groups In-Reply-To: <1435228845.470413572@f400.i.mail.ru> References: ,,<1435228845.470413572@f400.i.mail.ru> Message-ID: Dear AndrewKICTANet endorses the letter. RgdsGrace From: pazval at mail.ru To: andrew at gp-digital.org CC: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 13:40:45 +0300 Subject: Re[2]: [bestbits] surveillance of human rights groups Dear Andrew Ukrainian NGO 'Digital Defenders Partners' endorces the letter. best wishes Andrii Paziuk Chief of board Digital Defenders Partners Akhmatova, 5/250 Kyiv, Ukraine, 02068 T: +380504418354 inet.media.law at gmail.com Четверг, 25 июня 2015, 9:25 +01:00 от Andrew Puddephatt : Hi everyone To place this letter at an opportune time in the UK media it would be great if those planning to sign could do so by 14:00 UTC Thanks a again - the letter will still stay open to Friday though On Wednesday, 24 June 2015, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: Friends You may have seen a story in the media this week about GCHQ surveillance of two internationally respected human right groups based in Egypt and South Africa respectively. A number of UK based organisations are sending alter to the UK Foreign Secretary about this and will publish it soon. We would welcome support from international groups if you would willing to endorse the letter by COB Friday 26th June (this week). The contents are self explanatory Here it is:http://bestbits.net/gchq-surveillance/ If you share our concern please endorse the letter best wishes Andrew Puddephatt Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org -- Andrew Puddephatt Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anriette at apc.org Thu Jun 25 10:42:51 2015 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 16:42:51 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] surveillance of human rights groups In-Reply-To: References: ,,<1435228845.470413572@f400.i.mail.ru> Message-ID: <558C136B.6010107@apc.org> Thanks for this Andrew! Running it by APC collegues but I think we are very likely to sign on. Anriette On 25/06/2015 15:37, Grace Githaiga wrote: > Dear Andrew > KICTANet endorses the letter. > > Rgds > Grace > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > From: pazval at mail.ru > To: andrew at gp-digital.org > CC: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 13:40:45 +0300 > Subject: Re[2]: [bestbits] surveillance of human rights groups > > Dear Andrew > Ukrainian NGO 'Digital Defenders Partners' endorces the letter. > > best wishes > > Andrii Paziuk > Chief of board > Digital Defenders Partners > Akhmatova, 5/250 > Kyiv, Ukraine, 02068 > T: +380504418354 > inet.media.law at gmail.com > > > Четверг, 25 июня 2015, 9:25 +01:00 от Andrew Puddephatt > : > > Hi everyone > > To place this letter at an opportune time in the UK media it would > be great if those planning to sign could do so by 14:00 UTC > > Thanks a again - the letter will still stay open to Friday though > > On Wednesday, 24 June 2015, Andrew Puddephatt > > wrote: > > Friends > > You may have seen a story in the media this week about GCHQ > surveillance of two internationally respected human right groups > based in Egypt and South Africa respectively. > > A number of UK based organisations are sending alter to the UK > Foreign Secretary about this and will publish it soon. We would > welcome support from international groups if you would willing > to endorse the letter by COB Friday 26th June (this week). > > The contents are self explanatory > > Here it is: > > http://bestbits.net/gchq-surveillance/ > > If you share our concern please endorse the letter > > best wishes > > > > *Andrew Puddephatt* > Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt > gp-digital.org > > > > -- > *Andrew Puddephatt* > Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt > gp-digital.org > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, > visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- ----------------------------------------- Anriette Esterhuysen Executive Director Association for Progressive Communications anriette at apc.org www.apc.org IM: ae_apc From willi.uebelherr at riseup.net Thu Jun 25 11:47:03 2015 From: willi.uebelherr at riseup.net (willi uebelherr) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 12:47:03 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Internet Ungovernance Forum Brasil Message-ID: <558C2277.70406@riseup.net> Dear friends, 2014 we had the Internet Ungovernance Forum in Istanbul in Turkey. Now, this year, this people organize it in Brasil. I think, this is the most important event in this year to the theme: Internet Governance. many greetings, willi Porto Alegre, Brasil Internet Ungovernance Forum Brasil November 2015 João Pessoa - Paraíba, Brasil http://iuf.partidopirata.org/index-en.html Internet Ungovernance Forum Brasil is for those of us who demand free, secure, and open internet for all! We're organizing the Internet Ungovernance Forum on November 2015, for everyone who demand that fundamental freedoms, openness, unity and net neutrality remain the building blocks of the Internet. Our objective is to talk about the true and real problems of the internet, how can we solve them and to chart a path for action. Our forum will be in parallel to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2015 which will also be held in João Pessoa in november. Interested parties all around the world will join and follow this important event. However, we see that at IGF the most urgent problems of the Internet do not get proper attention. Due to its format, the main perpetrators of many of the Internet's problems, for example the governments and corporations, are getting representation in IGF that they don’t deserve. Given these circumstances, we decided to take initiative to defend the Internet as we know it and to create a parallel space to raise the voices of civil society initiatives, activists and common people. For us, the most vital problems today are censorship and freedom of speech; surveillance and privacy; excessive commercialization and super-monopolies; protective, prohibitionist and conservative governance approaches; awful governance examples as in the case of Brasil and the list goes on. Further, we do not see any of these problems independent of the greater political, social and economic contexts in which the Internet and related digital infrastructures are embedded in. We want to reclaim the Internet as a fundamental infrastructure of our societies, cities, education, health, work, media, communications, culture and everyday activities. We call on our participants to resist seeing the problems of the Internet as only technological and void of its materiality. From david at openmedia.ca Thu Jun 25 12:37:07 2015 From: david at openmedia.ca (David Christopher) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 09:37:07 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] surveillance of human rights groups In-Reply-To: <558C136B.6010107@apc.org> References: <1435228845.470413572@f400.i.mail.ru> <558C136B.6010107@apc.org> Message-ID: Hi Andrew - great initiative. OpenMedia is happy to sign on to this letter. David On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 7:42 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Thanks for this Andrew! > > Running it by APC collegues but I think we are very likely to sign on. > > Anriette > > > On 25/06/2015 15:37, Grace Githaiga wrote: > > Dear Andrew > > KICTANet endorses the letter. > > > > Rgds > > Grace > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > From: pazval at mail.ru > > To: andrew at gp-digital.org > > CC: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 13:40:45 +0300 > > Subject: Re[2]: [bestbits] surveillance of human rights groups > > > > Dear Andrew > > Ukrainian NGO 'Digital Defenders Partners' endorces the letter. > > > > best wishes > > > > Andrii Paziuk > > Chief of board > > Digital Defenders Partners > > Akhmatova, 5/250 > > Kyiv, Ukraine, 02068 > > T: +380504418354 > > inet.media.law at gmail.com > > > > > > Четверг, 25 июня 2015, 9:25 +01:00 от Andrew Puddephatt > > : > > > > Hi everyone > > > > To place this letter at an opportune time in the UK media it would > > be great if those planning to sign could do so by 14:00 UTC > > > > Thanks a again - the letter will still stay open to Friday though > > > > On Wednesday, 24 June 2015, Andrew Puddephatt > e.mail.ru/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aandrew at gp%2ddigital.org>> > > wrote: > > > > Friends > > > > You may have seen a story in the media this week about GCHQ > > surveillance of two internationally respected human right groups > > based in Egypt and South Africa respectively. > > > > A number of UK based organisations are sending alter to the UK > > Foreign Secretary about this and will publish it soon. We would > > welcome support from international groups if you would willing > > to endorse the letter by COB Friday 26th June (this week). > > > > The contents are self explanatory > > > > Here it is: > > > > http://bestbits.net/gchq-surveillance/ > > > > If you share our concern please endorse the letter > > > > best wishes > > > > > > > > *Andrew Puddephatt* > > Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > > T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt > > gp-digital.org > > > > > > > > -- > > *Andrew Puddephatt* > > Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > > T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt > > gp-digital.org > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You > > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, > > visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > ----------------------------------------- > Anriette Esterhuysen > Executive Director > Association for Progressive Communications > anriette at apc.org > www.apc.org > IM: ae_apc > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- David Christopher Communications Manager, OpenMedia (778) 232 1858 david at openmedia.ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andrew at gp-digital.org Mon Jun 1 13:38:23 2015 From: andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 18:38:23 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Civil society transparency In-Reply-To: <4A4C16F9-FBA2-4512-9567-DB511FEBD268@eff.org> References: <55617E51.5010901@itforchange.net> <5566FE8A.9010209@itforchange.net> <685563FB-947F-4110-8B81-3872514B494C@eff.org> <20150531090029.5bd0ce96@quill> <20150601122935.53aef61c@quill> <4A4C16F9-FBA2-4512-9567-DB511FEBD268@eff.org> Message-ID: On the question of funding of the BB meeting in Baku, the only specific funding earmarked for this meeting was a grant from Google which was distributed to participants from the global south. Our participation as GPA was supported by the Ford Foundation as has been our subsequent BB activity. My last post on the subject *Andrew Puddephatt* Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org On 1 June 2015 at 17:36, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 01/06/2015, at 3:29 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > The Azerbaijan meeting [...] piggybacked on the 7th Internet > > Governance Forum (IGF) in Baku, Azerbaijan 6-9 November 2012. Being > > that the IGF is a UN-led, multi-stakeholder annual meeting, > > established to discuss public policy issues related to the > > Internet, the IFHR program saw it as an opportunity to convene > > with many Internet governance and Internet rights NGOs at once. > > They did so a few days before the start of the IGF, in a large > > gathering called Best Bits.(*) > > ... > > If in spite of all of the above, you still believe that your claim is > > defensible that "there was and is never any such capacity building > > program behind Best Bits", please arrange for disclosure of the true > > facts about the role and activities of the IFHR program in relation to > > Bestbits, which would in that case have been misunderstood by the > > researchers, and explain how that misunderstanding would have come > > about. > > I don't know anything about that program, since it is not my programme, > and neither was it ever discussed or considered by the Best Bits steering > committee. The organisation that I was working for at the time had its own > programme, with its own funders, that intersected with the Best Bits > meeting to some extent. So did many other participants, including Global > Partners of course. If any of them wanted to report *their participation > in* the Best Bits meeting to their funders as an outcome or their > programme, that's their business. That is quite different from saying that > Best Bits is part of any particular participant organisation's programme, > or is associated with any of any of that organisation's funders. > > PS. I'm not going to debate this on-list with you any further. > > -- > 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: From andrew at gp-digital.org Thu Jun 25 17:20:09 2015 From: andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 22:20:09 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] surveillance of human rights groups In-Reply-To: References: <1435228845.470413572@f400.i.mail.ru> <558C136B.6010107@apc.org> Message-ID: Thanks David - can I put you down as Open Media Canada - I want to show the range of countries in the letter *Andrew Puddephatt* Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org On 25 June 2015 at 17:37, David Christopher wrote: > Hi Andrew - great initiative. OpenMedia is happy to sign on to this letter. > > David > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 7:42 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: > >> Thanks for this Andrew! >> >> Running it by APC collegues but I think we are very likely to sign on. >> >> Anriette >> >> >> On 25/06/2015 15:37, Grace Githaiga wrote: >> > Dear Andrew >> > KICTANet endorses the letter. >> > >> > Rgds >> > Grace >> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> > From: pazval at mail.ru >> > To: andrew at gp-digital.org >> > CC: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> > Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 13:40:45 +0300 >> > Subject: Re[2]: [bestbits] surveillance of human rights groups >> > >> > Dear Andrew >> > Ukrainian NGO 'Digital Defenders Partners' endorces the letter. >> > >> > best wishes >> > >> > Andrii Paziuk >> > Chief of board >> > Digital Defenders Partners >> > Akhmatova, 5/250 >> > Kyiv, Ukraine, 02068 >> > T: +380504418354 >> > inet.media.law at gmail.com >> > >> > >> > Четверг, 25 июня 2015, 9:25 +01:00 от Andrew Puddephatt >> > : >> > >> > Hi everyone >> > >> > To place this letter at an opportune time in the UK media it would >> > be great if those planning to sign could do so by 14:00 UTC >> > >> > Thanks a again - the letter will still stay open to Friday though >> > >> > On Wednesday, 24 June 2015, Andrew Puddephatt < >> andrew at gp-digital.org >> > > e.mail.ru/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aandrew at gp%2ddigital.org>> >> > wrote: >> > >> > Friends >> > >> > You may have seen a story in the media this week about GCHQ >> > surveillance of two internationally respected human right groups >> > based in Egypt and South Africa respectively. >> > >> > A number of UK based organisations are sending alter to the UK >> > Foreign Secretary about this and will publish it soon. We would >> > welcome support from international groups if you would willing >> > to endorse the letter by COB Friday 26th June (this week). >> > >> > The contents are self explanatory >> > >> > Here it is: >> > >> > http://bestbits.net/gchq-surveillance/ >> > >> > If you share our concern please endorse the letter >> > >> > best wishes >> > >> > >> > >> > *Andrew Puddephatt* >> > Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT >> > T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt >> > gp-digital.org >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > *Andrew Puddephatt* >> > Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT >> > T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt >> > gp-digital.org >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ You >> > received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, >> > visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > >> >> -- >> ----------------------------------------- >> Anriette Esterhuysen >> Executive Director >> Association for Progressive Communications >> anriette at apc.org >> www.apc.org >> IM: ae_apc >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- > David Christopher > Communications Manager, OpenMedia > (778) 232 1858 > david at openmedia.ca > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andrew at gp-digital.org Thu Jun 25 17:30:04 2015 From: andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 22:30:04 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] surveillance of human rights groups In-Reply-To: References: <1435228845.470413572@f400.i.mail.ru> <558C136B.6010107@apc.org> Message-ID: David could you (and other folk) also sign on to the statement on the Best Bits website best bits.net as that maybe a reference point for others Thanks *Andrew Puddephatt* Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org On 25 June 2015 at 17:37, David Christopher wrote: > Hi Andrew - great initiative. OpenMedia is happy to sign on to this letter. > > David > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 7:42 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: > >> Thanks for this Andrew! >> >> Running it by APC collegues but I think we are very likely to sign on. >> >> Anriette >> >> >> On 25/06/2015 15:37, Grace Githaiga wrote: >> > Dear Andrew >> > KICTANet endorses the letter. >> > >> > Rgds >> > Grace >> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> > From: pazval at mail.ru >> > To: andrew at gp-digital.org >> > CC: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> > Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 13:40:45 +0300 >> > Subject: Re[2]: [bestbits] surveillance of human rights groups >> > >> > Dear Andrew >> > Ukrainian NGO 'Digital Defenders Partners' endorces the letter. >> > >> > best wishes >> > >> > Andrii Paziuk >> > Chief of board >> > Digital Defenders Partners >> > Akhmatova, 5/250 >> > Kyiv, Ukraine, 02068 >> > T: +380504418354 >> > inet.media.law at gmail.com >> > >> > >> > Четверг, 25 июня 2015, 9:25 +01:00 от Andrew Puddephatt >> > : >> > >> > Hi everyone >> > >> > To place this letter at an opportune time in the UK media it would >> > be great if those planning to sign could do so by 14:00 UTC >> > >> > Thanks a again - the letter will still stay open to Friday though >> > >> > On Wednesday, 24 June 2015, Andrew Puddephatt < >> andrew at gp-digital.org >> > > e.mail.ru/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aandrew at gp%2ddigital.org>> >> > wrote: >> > >> > Friends >> > >> > You may have seen a story in the media this week about GCHQ >> > surveillance of two internationally respected human right groups >> > based in Egypt and South Africa respectively. >> > >> > A number of UK based organisations are sending alter to the UK >> > Foreign Secretary about this and will publish it soon. We would >> > welcome support from international groups if you would willing >> > to endorse the letter by COB Friday 26th June (this week). >> > >> > The contents are self explanatory >> > >> > Here it is: >> > >> > http://bestbits.net/gchq-surveillance/ >> > >> > If you share our concern please endorse the letter >> > >> > best wishes >> > >> > >> > >> > *Andrew Puddephatt* >> > Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT >> > T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt >> > gp-digital.org >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > *Andrew Puddephatt* >> > Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT >> > T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt >> > gp-digital.org >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ You >> > received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, >> > visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > >> >> -- >> ----------------------------------------- >> Anriette Esterhuysen >> Executive Director >> Association for Progressive Communications >> anriette at apc.org >> www.apc.org >> IM: ae_apc >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- > David Christopher > Communications Manager, OpenMedia > (778) 232 1858 > david at openmedia.ca > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From david at openmedia.ca Thu Jun 25 18:12:57 2015 From: david at openmedia.ca (David Christopher) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 15:12:57 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] surveillance of human rights groups In-Reply-To: References: <1435228845.470413572@f400.i.mail.ru> <558C136B.6010107@apc.org> Message-ID: Absolutely Andrew - and I've just signed us on at https://BestBits.net David On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > David > > could you (and other folk) also sign on to the statement on the Best Bits > website best bits.net as that maybe a reference point for others > > Thanks > > *Andrew Puddephatt* > Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt > gp-digital.org > > > On 25 June 2015 at 17:37, David Christopher wrote: > >> Hi Andrew - great initiative. OpenMedia is happy to sign on to this >> letter. >> >> David >> >> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 7:42 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen >> wrote: >> >>> Thanks for this Andrew! >>> >>> Running it by APC collegues but I think we are very likely to sign on. >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> On 25/06/2015 15:37, Grace Githaiga wrote: >>> > Dear Andrew >>> > KICTANet endorses the letter. >>> > >>> > Rgds >>> > Grace >>> > >>> > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> > From: pazval at mail.ru >>> > To: andrew at gp-digital.org >>> > CC: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> > Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 13:40:45 +0300 >>> > Subject: Re[2]: [bestbits] surveillance of human rights groups >>> > >>> > Dear Andrew >>> > Ukrainian NGO 'Digital Defenders Partners' endorces the letter. >>> > >>> > best wishes >>> > >>> > Andrii Paziuk >>> > Chief of board >>> > Digital Defenders Partners >>> > Akhmatova, 5/250 >>> > Kyiv, Ukraine, 02068 >>> > T: +380504418354 >>> > inet.media.law at gmail.com >>> > >>> > >>> > Четверг, 25 июня 2015, 9:25 +01:00 от Andrew Puddephatt >>> > : >>> > >>> > Hi everyone >>> > >>> > To place this letter at an opportune time in the UK media it would >>> > be great if those planning to sign could do so by 14:00 UTC >>> > >>> > Thanks a again - the letter will still stay open to Friday though >>> > >>> > On Wednesday, 24 June 2015, Andrew Puddephatt < >>> andrew at gp-digital.org >>> > >> e.mail.ru/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aandrew at gp%2ddigital.org>> >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> > Friends >>> > >>> > You may have seen a story in the media this week about GCHQ >>> > surveillance of two internationally respected human right >>> groups >>> > based in Egypt and South Africa respectively. >>> > >>> > A number of UK based organisations are sending alter to the UK >>> > Foreign Secretary about this and will publish it soon. We >>> would >>> > welcome support from international groups if you would willing >>> > to endorse the letter by COB Friday 26th June (this week). >>> > >>> > The contents are self explanatory >>> > >>> > Here it is: >>> > >>> > http://bestbits.net/gchq-surveillance/ >>> > >>> > If you share our concern please endorse the letter >>> > >>> > best wishes >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > *Andrew Puddephatt* >>> > Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>> > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT >>> > T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt >>> > gp-digital.org >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > *Andrew Puddephatt* >>> > Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>> > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT >>> > T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt >>> > gp-digital.org >>> > >>> > >>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ____________________________________________________________ You >>> > received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, >>> > visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> > >>> > >>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> > >>> >>> -- >>> ----------------------------------------- >>> Anriette Esterhuysen >>> Executive Director >>> Association for Progressive Communications >>> anriette at apc.org >>> www.apc.org >>> IM: ae_apc >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> David Christopher >> Communications Manager, OpenMedia >> (778) 232 1858 >> david at openmedia.ca >> > > -- David Christopher Communications Manager, OpenMedia (778) 232 1858 david at openmedia.ca -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From norbertglakpe at gmail.com Thu Jun 25 18:17:06 2015 From: norbertglakpe at gmail.com (Norbert Komlan GLAKPE) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 22:17:06 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] ICANN 53 - Public Forum - transcript Message-ID: In case you missed the live session, the transcript is attached. Appologizes fro crossposting Norbert GLAKPE 2015-06-25 17:13 GMT+00:00 Yaovi Atohoun : > ENGLISH: The public Forum started a few minutes ago. It will end at > 20:30 UTC https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-public-forum > FRENCH: Le forum public vient de debuter. Il prendra fin a 20:30 UTC > https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-public-forum > > Thanks/Merci > - > Yaovi Atohoun > Stakeholder Engagement and Operations Manager – Africa > ICANN – www.icann.org > Mobile : +229 66015649 / 97891228 > > *Interested in the IANA Stewardship Transition? * > LEARN MORE . STAY > UPDATED . FOLLOW > . ENGAGE > . > > > > _______________________________________________ > AfrICANN mailing list > AfrICANN at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICANN53 BuenosAires - Public Forum.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 306006 bytes Desc: not available URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Jun 25 23:06:12 2015 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 23:06:12 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [berkmanfriends] Towards Transformative Media Organizing: new interactive report on LGBTQ and Two-Spirit media work released at Allied Media Conference In-Reply-To: <558C65B6.4000400@mit.edu> References: <558C65B6.4000400@mit.edu> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sasha Costanza-Chock Date: Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 4:33 PM Subject: [berkmanfriends] Towards Transformative Media Organizing: new interactive report on LGBTQ and Two-Spirit media work released at Allied Media Conference To: Sasha Costanza-Chock Hello from Detroit! The *Transformative Media Organizing Project* is here with past and present project partners, advisors, and changemakers from around the world for the Allied Media Conference < http://transformativemedia.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=cd0dbfb523f0fb51a5339a929&id=fe5d46cf51&e=4d11b2b3b5 >! We are excited to announce the release of the *Transformative Media Organizing Project* site, including skillshares and an interactive report from our nationwide study of media and communications work by LGBTQ and Two-Spirit organizations. *Follow this link to explore the interactive online report now! http://transformativemedia.cc/research/report < http://transformativemedia.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=cd0dbfb523f0fb51a5339a929&id=a329b21858&e=4d11b2b3b5 > Experience the Transformative Media Organizing skillshares! http://transformativemedia.cc/category/skillshares/ < http://transformativemedia.us3.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=cd0dbfb523f0fb51a5339a929&id=d4655741b5&e=4d11b2b3b5 >* < http://transformativemedia.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=cd0dbfb523f0fb51a5339a929&id=15618d70a3&e=4d11b2b3b5 > *The Complete Report* /Towards Transformative Media Organizing: LGBTQ and Two-Spirit media work in the United States/ is a nationwide strengths & needs assessment of media and communications capacity across the movement. View or download the report < http://transformativemedia.us3.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=cd0dbfb523f0fb51a5339a929&id=de06471831&e=4d11b2b3b5 >. < http://transformativemedia.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=cd0dbfb523f0fb51a5339a929&id=2cf7bb147d&e=4d11b2b3b5 > *Media That Works* We asked organizations across the country to share success stories of high impact media they’ve created. Use this intersectional analysis browser to explore the examples < http://transformativemedia.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=cd0dbfb523f0fb51a5339a929&id=cd51fdd7f6&e=4d11b2b3b5 >. < http://transformativemedia.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=cd0dbfb523f0fb51a5339a929&id=344f646577&e=4d11b2b3b5 > *Skillshares* Watch recordings of the livestreamed skillshares, read livestream transcripts, and download facilitation guides. Experience transformative media organizing skillshares facilitated by project partners < http://transformativemedia.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=cd0dbfb523f0fb51a5339a929&id=8c57e1357f&e=4d11b2b3b5 >. The report was created with support from the Ford Foundation’s Advancing LGBT Rights Initiative, the MIT Center for Civic Media, and Research Action Design, and was developed through a participatory research process with partners Streetwise And Safe, Black & Pink, the Queer Undocumented Immigrant Project, the Esperanza Peace & Justice Center, Freedom, Inc., INCITE!, and the Gay-Straight Alliance Network. Website and report codesigned with Design Action Collective. *To view or download the complete or summary report, with key findings and recommendations, visit *http://transformativemedia.cc/research < http://transformativemedia.us3.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=cd0dbfb523f0fb51a5339a929&id=aedb949dc8&e=4d11b2b3b5 >. Have thoughts to share with us? We’d love to hear from you! *Thank you,* *The Transformative Media Organizing Project* transformativemedia.cc < http://transformativemedia.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=cd0dbfb523f0fb51a5339a929&id=a9574f9cba&e=4d11b2b3b5 > ---------- You are subscribed to the BerkmanFriends discussion list. Mailing list options: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/lists/info/berkmanfriends Mailing list members: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/lists/review/berkmanfriends Reminder: emails sent through this list are considered on-record unless otherwise noted. -- *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: -------------- next part -------------- ---------- You are subscribed to the BerkmanFriends discussion list. Mailing list options: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/lists/info/berkmanfriends Mailing list members: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/lists/review/berkmanfriends Reminder: emails sent through this list are considered on-record unless otherwise noted. From anriette at apc.org Fri Jun 26 11:28:29 2015 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 17:28:29 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Meeting before the IGF? Message-ID: <558D6F9D.7060008@apc.org> Dear all I hope that we are not all so fed up with one another that we don't want to meet before the IGF :) Any chance of such a meeting taking place? Best Anriette -- ----------------------------------------- Anriette Esterhuysen Executive Director Association for Progressive Communications anriette at apc.org www.apc.org IM: ae_apc From jmalcolm at eff.org Fri Jun 26 13:51:09 2015 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 10:51:09 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Meeting before the IGF? In-Reply-To: <558D6F9D.7060008@apc.org> References: <558D6F9D.7060008@apc.org> Message-ID: <558D910D.8040007@eff.org> On 26/06/2015 8:28 am, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear all > > I hope that we are not all so fed up with one another that we don't want > to meet before the IGF :) > > Any chance of such a meeting taking place? The steering committee has indeed been discussing this Anriette! We don't have an agenda but there had been a loose idea to have it in conjunction with a full-day civil society meeting on a single substantive topic. Also, we need to reaffirm our acceptance of the revisions to the Best Bits procedures (http://bestbits.net/wiki/main/procedures/) that were presented on the list in March. However, one reason why no plans have been discussed here as yet is that Ian Peter is about to call for nominations for a new steering committee for Best Bits, which would have to take charge of the organization of the meeting. Another is the perennial question of funding. I'm known for being frank so I'm just going to come right out and say that we lost the chance of funding for the meeting over the last flare-up over the false claim that Best Bits was secretly part of a government-funded capacity building program. For my own part, EFF has just approved a slight expansion of its work on Internet governance so I would like to see the meeting go forward regardless. In any case, the next step will be to refresh the steering committee and as I said, we'll be hearing more about that very soon. -- 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: From shahzad at bytesforall.pk Sat Jun 27 02:59:13 2015 From: shahzad at bytesforall.pk (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 11:59:13 +0500 Subject: [bestbits] Meeting before the IGF? In-Reply-To: <558D6F9D.7060008@apc.org> References: <558D6F9D.7060008@apc.org> Message-ID: <558E49C1.50207@bytesforall.pk> Dear Anriette/colleagues, Just a suggestion. Some of us have been thinking to organize an Asia Regional consultation on WSIS +10. Not a lot of discussion about this event yet but given the new timelines, may be before October NY consultation. If this plan materialize, can be a good venue for the BB meeting? It will be really great to meet face to face to plan for quite happening time ahead :) Best wishes and regards Shahzad On 6/26/15 8:28 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear all > > I hope that we are not all so fed up with one another that we don't want > to meet before the IGF :) > > Any chance of such a meeting taking place? > > Best > > Anriette > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Jun 27 05:40:26 2015 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 15:10:26 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] =?UTF-8?Q?Dissecting_the_=E2=80=9CInternet_Freedom?= =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=9D_Agenda?= Message-ID: <558E6F8A.4010203@itforchange.net> A book review *of Shawn M. Powers and Michael Jablonski, /The Real Cyber War: The Political Economy of Internet Freedom/* (University of Illinois Press, 2015) http://boundary2.org/2015/04/29/dissecting-the-internet-freedom-agenda/ And lessons for IG activists. parminder From jmalcolm at eff.org Sat Jun 27 11:43:54 2015 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 08:43:54 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] Meeting before the IGF? In-Reply-To: <558E49C1.50207@bytesforall.pk> References: <558D6F9D.7060008@apc.org> <558E49C1.50207@bytesforall.pk> Message-ID: <558EC4BA.9010405@eff.org> On 26/06/15 11:59 PM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > Some of us have been thinking to organize an Asia Regional > consultation on WSIS +10. Not a lot of discussion about this event yet > but given the new timelines, may be before October NY consultation. If > this plan materialize, can be a good venue for the BB meeting? It will > be really great to meet face to face to plan for quite happening time > ahead :) It is true that, although traditionally held pre-IGF, there is no reason why an annual Best Bits meeting couldn't be held at another time and place provided that there was enough of a critical mass of people going. Thanks for the suggestion Shahzad. -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 194 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From lmcknigh at syr.edu Mon Jun 1 14:41:32 2015 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 18:41:32 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] FW: [IP] Internet Society and Smithsonian's National Museum of American History to Co-host Summit Exploring Past, Present and Future of the Internet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7c8a0da3c5eb443bab54509d1941cc1d@EX13-MBX-07.ad.syr.edu> FYI, maybe of interest ________________________________ From: Dave Farber Sent: Monday, June 1, 2015 2:10 PM To: ip Subject: [IP] Internet Society and Smithsonian's National Museum of American History to Co-host Summit Exploring Past, Present and Future of the Internet Internet Society and Smithsonians National Museum of American History to Co-host Summit Exploring Past, Present and Future of the Internet Mitchell Baker, Vint Cerf, David Farber and Sebastian Thrun to provide insights into origins and future of the Internet [Washington, DC and Geneva, Switzerland 1 June 2015] The Internet Society and the Smithsonians National Museum of American History have joined forces to co-host a summit entitled The Internet Age: Founders to Future. Prominent contributors to the rich history of the Internet will discuss the diverse elements that have enabled the innovations leading to the Internet Age and provide perspectives on the challenges and opportunities facing the Internets future. The event will take place on June 11, 2015 at 2:30pm ET in the Museums Warner Bros. Theater, and will also be webcast live, http://raiseitup.si.edu/global-summit/. The Internet is not the invention of any single individual, but rather the result of immeasurable steps by thousands of people across the globe, said Kathy Brown, President and CEO of the Internet Society. The Internet Society is delighted to collaborate with the Museum to assemble this very special group of luminaries including several inductees in the Internet Hall of Fame who hold a unique perspective on both the origin and evolution of what many believe to be the most transformative invention of our age. Panelists will discuss the continuum of the Internet, from how it was imagined to where the Internet is taking us in the future. Moderated by Eric Hintz, historian with the Museums Lemelson Center for the Study of Invention and Innovation, the panelists will include: Mitchell Baker is Executive Chairwoman of the Mozilla Foundation and the leader of the Mozilla Project. She is responsible for organizing and motivating a massive, worldwide, collective of employees and volunteers who are breathing new life into the Internet with the Firefox Web browser and other products. Ms. Baker was inducted into the Internet Hall of Fame in 2012. Vint Cerf, widely known as one of the "Fathers of the Internet," is the co-designer of the TCP/IP protocols and the architecture of the Internet. He has served as vice president and chief Internet evangelist for Google since October 2005. Mr. Cerf was inducted into the Internet Hall of Fame in 2012. David Farber played a key role in many systems that converged into today's Internet. He is an Internet Hall of Fame inductee and the Alfred Fitler Moore Professor Emeritus at the University of Pennsylvania and Adjunct Professor at Carnegie Mellon University. Sebastian Thrun is a scientist, educator, researcher, inventor, and entrepreneur. Today, he is the founder and CEO of Udacity, a company dedicated to democratizing learning for everyone. Udacity has almost 4 million students in over 190 countries. For more information on the Internet Age: Founders to Future, visit: http://www.internetsociety.org/events/internet-age-founders-future Archives [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anriette at apc.org Sat Jun 27 13:22:55 2015 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 19:22:55 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Meeting before the IGF? In-Reply-To: <558EC4BA.9010405@eff.org> References: <558D6F9D.7060008@apc.org> <558E49C1.50207@bytesforall.pk> <558EC4BA.9010405@eff.org> Message-ID: <558EDBEF.6080206@apc.org> Dear Jeremy and all I agree with Shahzad.. we could think about this. APC is also planning to have WSIS consultations at the LAC and African IGFs. So NY before the next WSIS+10 consultation is a good idea. But the WSIS and IGF civil society communities are not identical, and might not have the same concerns. Let's keep thinking. NY would certainly require funding whereas a meeting at the IGF could take place more easily as many people would already have planned their travel to the IGF. The expense of an extra day/night accommodation is easier to manage. We can have WSIS on this event's agenda as well even if there won't be much time left for inputs. Anriette On 27/06/2015 17:43, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 26/06/15 11:59 PM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: >> Some of us have been thinking to organize an Asia Regional >> consultation on WSIS +10. Not a lot of discussion about this event yet >> but given the new timelines, may be before October NY consultation. If >> this plan materialize, can be a good venue for the BB meeting? It will >> be really great to meet face to face to plan for quite happening time >> ahead :) > > It is true that, although traditionally held pre-IGF, there is no reason > why an annual Best Bits meeting couldn't be held at another time and > place provided that there was enough of a critical mass of people > going. Thanks for the suggestion Shahzad. > > -- > 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 > -- ----------------------------------------- Anriette Esterhuysen Executive Director Association for Progressive Communications anriette at apc.org www.apc.org IM: ae_apc From shahzad at bytesforall.pk Sat Jun 27 16:24:53 2015 From: shahzad at bytesforall.pk (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 01:24:53 +0500 Subject: [bestbits] Meeting before the IGF? In-Reply-To: <558EDBEF.6080206@apc.org> References: <558D6F9D.7060008@apc.org> <558E49C1.50207@bytesforall.pk> <558EC4BA.9010405@eff.org> <558EDBEF.6080206@apc.org> Message-ID: <558F0694.3040505@bytesforall.pk> Folks, I thought that important event re WSIS+10 are: - July Consultation (NY) - October Consultation (NY) - Global IGF-Consultation (Brazil); and then WSIS+10 event in NY. So time is really short to plan towards NY. We already had a small meeting on WSIS on the sidelines of Jakarta process and did plan a few activities there. However, once Dr. Anja is back online, we will discuss it further and share with you about our plans for Asia consultation. If plans for this go ahead and there is interest at BB, we can have annual meeting there. In my opinion, one day BB meeting is not enough time and pre-IGF one day is becoming difficult to attend for many. We now see that there are quite a few pre-IGF events happening and last year also many of us had to skip BB. Suggest that there is stand alone at least two days for BB for proper strategic planning. In terms of funds, am sure several of us contributing for this purpose can make it happen. What do you think? Best wishes and regards Shahzad On 6/27/15 10:22 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear Jeremy and all > > I agree with Shahzad.. we could think about this. APC is also planning > to have WSIS consultations at the LAC and African IGFs. > > So NY before the next WSIS+10 consultation is a good idea. But the WSIS > and IGF civil society communities are not identical, and might not have > the same concerns. > > Let's keep thinking. NY would certainly require funding whereas a > meeting at the IGF could take place more easily as many people would > already have planned their travel to the IGF. The expense of an extra > day/night accommodation is easier to manage. > > We can have WSIS on this event's agenda as well even if there won't be > much time left for inputs. > > Anriette > > > On 27/06/2015 17:43, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> On 26/06/15 11:59 PM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: >>> Some of us have been thinking to organize an Asia Regional >>> consultation on WSIS +10. Not a lot of discussion about this event yet >>> but given the new timelines, may be before October NY consultation. If >>> this plan materialize, can be a good venue for the BB meeting? It will >>> be really great to meet face to face to plan for quite happening time >>> ahead :) >> It is true that, although traditionally held pre-IGF, there is no reason >> why an annual Best Bits meeting couldn't be held at another time and >> place provided that there was enough of a critical mass of people >> going. Thanks for the suggestion Shahzad. >> >> -- >> 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: From nigidaad at gmail.com Sat Jun 27 18:24:22 2015 From: nigidaad at gmail.com (Nighat Dad) Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 15:24:22 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] surveillance of human rights groups In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Andrew, Apologies for being late on this but Digital Rights Foundation would like to endorse the letter. We also have issued a press release on recent intercept's article which published a document relating to GCHQ’s application to renew a warrant that allowed CNE (hacking) of Cisco routers. At para 10 they talk about why it has been helpful and gave the reason that it has given them access to the Pakistan Internet Exchange http://www.dawn.com/news/1190178 http://digitalrightsfoundation.pk/2015/06/press-release-british-intelligence-agency-hacked-into-pakistan-internet-exchange/ Best, Nighat On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > Friends > > You may have seen a story in the media this week about GCHQ surveillance > of two internationally respected human right groups based in Egypt and > South Africa respectively. > > A number of UK based organisations are sending alter to the UK Foreign > Secretary about this and will publish it soon. We would welcome support > from international groups if you would willing to endorse the letter by COB > Friday 26th June (this week). > > The contents are self explanatory > > Here it is: > > http://bestbits.net/gchq-surveillance/ > > If you share our concern please endorse the letter > > best wishes > > > > *Andrew Puddephatt* > Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt > gp-digital.org > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lea at gp-digital.org Sat Jun 27 20:12:26 2015 From: lea at gp-digital.org (Lea Kaspar) Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 01:12:26 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Meeting before the IGF? In-Reply-To: <558F0694.3040505@bytesforall.pk> References: <558D6F9D.7060008@apc.org> <558E49C1.50207@bytesforall.pk> <558EC4BA.9010405@eff.org> <558EDBEF.6080206@apc.org> <558F0694.3040505@bytesforall.pk> Message-ID: Dear Shahzad, all, Thank you for bringing this important issue to the BB list. GPD would be keen to work on this with other interested groups. I have a question and a few comments. @Shahzad (or others) - what would be the objective of this meeting? At the NETmundial CS pre-event we worked on actual text of the draft outcome doc and discussed a strategy for engaging in the meeting itself. At other BB meetings, we focused on coming up with joint objectives/positions which were not tied to specific text/outcome document. There's probably value in both, but we should clarify before deciding issues like timing, length, location, prep process, budget etc. Generally on timing - looking at how the discussions in NY have been evolving and the timeline that Shahzad shared, waiting to hold a global CS meeting (either for text comments or strategy development) until *November might be too late*. It could be useful to meet at the IGF to discuss tactics and get greater buy in from the community, but at that point, we will have lost the opportunity to jointly feed into the October consultations on the zero draft. If the next formal point for input is October, then it seems to make sense to hold a CS coordination meeting before then, although ideally after the draft outcome doc is out (if the objective is to comment on text). If there are regional consultations that take place during the summer, perhaps these could feed into the global CS meeting/ input. Lastly, in terms of location, NY might not be the ideal place for a meeting due to costs and visa issues, but it has the extra benefit of giving us (in theory at least) access to UN mission staff. Something to consider! Best, Lea On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 9:24 PM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > Folks, > > I thought that important event re WSIS+10 are: > > - July Consultation (NY) > - October Consultation (NY) > - Global IGF-Consultation (Brazil); and > > then > > WSIS+10 event in NY. > > So time is really short to plan towards NY. > > We already had a small meeting on WSIS on the sidelines of Jakarta process > and did plan a few activities there. However, once Dr. Anja is back online, > we will discuss it further and share with you about our plans for Asia > consultation. If plans for this go ahead and there is interest at BB, we > can have annual meeting there. > > In my opinion, one day BB meeting is not enough time and pre-IGF one day > is becoming difficult to attend for many. We now see that there are quite a > few pre-IGF events happening and last year also many of us had to skip BB. > > Suggest that there is stand alone at least two days for BB for proper > strategic planning. In terms of funds, am sure several of us contributing > for this purpose can make it happen. What do you think? > > Best wishes and regards > Shahzad > > > > > On 6/27/15 10:22 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > Dear Jeremy and all > > I agree with Shahzad.. we could think about this. APC is also planning > to have WSIS consultations at the LAC and African IGFs. > > So NY before the next WSIS+10 consultation is a good idea. But the WSIS > and IGF civil society communities are not identical, and might not have > the same concerns. > > Let's keep thinking. NY would certainly require funding whereas a > meeting at the IGF could take place more easily as many people would > already have planned their travel to the IGF. The expense of an extra > day/night accommodation is easier to manage. > > We can have WSIS on this event's agenda as well even if there won't be > much time left for inputs. > > Anriette > > > On 27/06/2015 17:43, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > On 26/06/15 11:59 PM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > > Some of us have been thinking to organize an Asia Regional > consultation on WSIS +10. Not a lot of discussion about this event yet > but given the new timelines, may be before October NY consultation. If > this plan materialize, can be a good venue for the BB meeting? It will > be really great to meet face to face to plan for quite happening time > ahead :) > > It is true that, although traditionally held pre-IGF, there is no reason > why an annual Best Bits meeting couldn't be held at another time and > place provided that there was enough of a critical mass of people > going. Thanks for the suggestion Shahzad. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Global Policy Analyst > Electronic Frontier Foundationhttps://eff.orgjmalcolm 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 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From george.sadowsky at gmail.com Sun Jun 28 15:51:19 2015 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 15:51:19 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Search underway for the future CEO of ICANN Message-ID: <21E33F07-0889-4F7F-9C73-DC249DB20AC9@gmail.com> All, As you may know, Fadi Chehadé, the CEO of ICANN, has announced his intent to leave the organization as of mid-March 2016. ICANN has formed a search committee for the new CEO, of which I am the chair. We've opened an e-mail address for interested parties, ceo-search-cmte-only at icann.org, in order to collect comments regarding the search, the qualifications of candidates, the job description, and the special characteristics of best applicants. It's open until July 12, 2015. Please feel free to contribute your views. You should also have no hesitation in spreading the word about the search and suggest strong candidates for consideration when the job specifics are available. I'll get back to these lists about mid-July with an updated job description and qualifications statement for the position. George Sadowsky -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue Jun 30 08:05:31 2015 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 09:05:31 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] NETmundial Initiative council mtg starting with remote participation Message-ID: Dear all, The inaugural meeting of the NETmundial coordination council is about to start in a few minutes. The meeting is taking place in São Paulo from 9:00 to 18:00 BRT (UTC -3) and is being hosted by CGI.br. The agenda includes the review of key documents that will guide the Initiative, a discussion on the WSIS+10, a presentation of the demo version of the NMI platform and the discussion of projects. Remote participation is available: http://meet12965.adobeconnect.com/netmundial Best wishes, Marília -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu 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: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Jun 30 12:53:49 2015 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 12:53:49 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [gvadvocacy] Open Data Index In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Tarek Amr Date: Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:51 AM Subject: [gvadvocacy] Open Data Index To: "gvadvocacy at lists.riseup.net" Hi everyone, Open Knowledge Foundation publishes every year an Index for Open Data to measure how transparent governments are and the degree of openness of governmental data. If any of you would like to volunteer to cover his or her country, mainly in MENA region, please tell me, off list. -- Best Regards Tarek Amr http://tarekamr.appspot.com/ -- *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: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Jun 30 14:45:21 2015 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 14:45:21 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [igcbp-talk] Fwd: Webinar briefing: Internet governance in June In-Reply-To: References: <89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d330e500107.20150625085043@mail200.atl121.mcsv.net> Message-ID: If you miss this, in general, the records are available for later viewing. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Stephanie Borg Psaila Date: Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 6:02 AM Subject: [igcbp-talk] Fwd: Webinar briefing: Internet governance in June To: igcbp-talk at googlegroups.com Dear everyone, This is taking place in less than an hour - hope to see you there. As usual, many developments have taken place this month - from cybersecurity to data protection, net neutrality to IANA transition updates. Diplo's next webinar briefing will summarise the IG and digital policy developments in June, and what to expect in the next few weeks. The one-hour webinar is on Tuesday, 30th June, at 11 UTC. Read more below or here , and register for the webinar here . Best, Stephanie *June's IG briefing:* *Internet governance in June 2015* Dear Colleagues, We would like to invite you to our next webinar briefing, on *Tuesday, 30th June, at 11:00 UTC*, for an update on developments that took place in June, and what to expect in the summer period. Throughout this month, many developments have taken place. In preparation for the WSIS+10 High-Level Event in New York, the selection process of civil society delegates has accelerated. In the privacy and data protection area, the Council of the European Union at the meeting of ministers of justice agreed on a proposal for the General Data Protection Regulation, which has been heavily criticised by human rights groups, who consider this a step back for privacy. In cybersecurity, we have observed a continuation of accusations of mutual hacking by states - Russia and China hold the Snowden files, while China was accused of a breach of federal personal data in the USA. Computer security companies revealed the resurrection of the infamous Duqu, probably the most advanced piece of malware which performs sophisticated intrusion into networks. In the net neutrality debate, a possible trade-off was reached in the EU: giving up net neutrality in return for putting an end to roaming charges. The ongoing ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires should hint whether we are coming closer to a IANA transition agreement soon. Which other IG developments took place in June, and how are these developments expected to shape future developments. What can we expect in the next few weeks? Join us - online or in situ - for a 'zoomed-out' update of the major global IG and digital policies developments. The briefing will be delivered live from Geneva (WMO, 7 bis Avenue de la Paix). *To participate, online or in situ, please fill in the registration form . *Attendance is free, registration is required. You can also read the digest of last month's briefing: Internet governance developments in May 2015 E-see you on Tuesday, Diplo's Webinars Team Like us on FaceBook Follow us on Twitter Our website Our network *Copyright © 2015 DiploFoundation, All rights reserved.* You are receiving this email because you expressed an interest in DiploFoundation's webinars. ------------------------------ -- -- Please note that when replying to this message will send your reply to the whole group! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "IGCBP Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to igcbp-talk at googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to igcbp-talk-unsubscribe at googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/igcbp-talk?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "IGCBP Talk" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to igcbp-talk+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- *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: From renata.avila at webfoundation.org Tue Jun 30 16:13:58 2015 From: renata.avila at webfoundation.org (Renata Avila) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 22:13:58 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Our position on NN Rules published : Net Neutrality: Europe Slips Into Reverse Message-ID: Here our position: http://webfoundation.org/2015/06/net-neutrality-europe-slips-into-reverse/ Net Neutrality: Europe Slips Into ReverseWeb Foundation · June 30, 2015 - Web We Want Following a mammoth negotiating session that ended in the early hours of this morning, the European Union (EU) has released their long awaited rules on Net Neutrality. The EU Commissioner ’s tweet and an accompanying press release proclaimed the rules as strong protection for net neutrality, but we’re not so sure. In fact, our initial response is one of disappointment. As others have pointed out, the proposals are unclear. At best they will lead to disputes and confusion, and at worst they could see the creation of a two-tier internet. If enacted, these rules would place European companies and citizens at a disadvantage when compared to countries such as Chile and the USA. The good news is, there is still time for decisive action. In the coming days, the EU will debate and release clarifications on important areas. Then, the full European parliament has to ratify the text later this year. If you’re worried about the future of the Internet in Europe, send a tweet to tell European lawmakers to stand up for true net neutrality! We’re still digesting the details of the deal, but here are two points of immediate concern to us: *1. “Specialised services” mean we could see the creation of internet fast lanes. *The EU’s proposed deal allows so-called “specialised services” – as long as they don’t interfere with the “open Internet”. On the face of it, this sounds reasonable. The EU gives the example of telesurgery – and we can all agree that doctors should be able to work using the internet with a higher level of service in life-critical situations. Unfortunately, though, opening the door to “specialised services” creates a large grey area which is open to abuse. For instance, the EU has suggested that Internet TV be classified as a specialised service. So where do, say, educational videos on YouTube fit in? When does a service become specialised? Also – we can’t imagine now what the future will bring. What if the email, search or web of tomorrow is classified as a “specialised service” that we have to pay more to access? Opening up this can of worms is sure to lead to legal disputes and ongoing uncertainty for everyone. Ultimately, the only way to stop this is to be bold and pass strong net neutrality laws that preserve the Internet as it should be – an open platform for innovation. If the EU is determined to press ahead with exceptions for “specialised services”, such services should be tightly defined after broad public consultation, and take place in very limited exceptional circumstances, rather than becoming commonplace. *2. “Zero rated” services are to be allowed – with unclear safeguards. *Zero-rating plans typically involve internet companies and telecoms operators teaming up and offering a particular service or bundle of services for free. The EU has decided to allow the practice of zero rating, because “zero rating does not block competing content”. That’s true, but misses the point that any rational person will choose to get something for free, rather than pay for something else presented as a close alternative. But in this case, the free service could well be just a tiny slice of the open internet, with content closely controlled by commercial interests, where the highest bidder can pay to have individuals see their content for free. Or, it could be something like a particular internet telephony or music streaming service. As our founder and Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee said when he wrote on this topic in February: *“Of course, it is not just about blocking and throttling. It is also about stopping ‘positive discrimination’, such as when one internet operator favours one particular service over another. If we don’t explicitly outlaw this, we hand immense power to telcos and online service operators. In effect, they can become gatekeepers – able to handpick winners and the losers in the market and to favour their own sites, services and platforms over those of others. This would crowd out competition and snuff out innovative new services before they even see the light of day. Imagine if a new start-up or service provider had to ask permission from or pay a fee to a competitor before they could attract customers? This sounds a lot like bribery or market abuse…”* Simply allowing zero rating on a blanket basis, with no clear guidelines as to what it can be used for, and how it will be regulated, seems like a retrograde step to us. The EU should ban zero rating unless ‘free data’ can be used to access any part of the Open Internet. *We’ll be following this topic closely in the weeks ahead. If you agree with our concerns, send a tweet today! * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From josh at accessnow.org Tue Jun 30 17:41:44 2015 From: josh at accessnow.org (Josh Levy) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 17:41:44 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Our position on NN Rules published : Net Neutrality: Europe Slips Into Reverse In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Great post, Renata! Here's Access' press release on it: http://bit.ly/1Jv5Cez Our basic analysis: The current text both protects and undermines Net Neutrality. On the positive side, all provisions on parental control and filters have been removed from the text. Provisions to protect access to the internet are in but the text also allows for the establishment of slow lanes and fast lanes. This ambiguity creates legal uncertainty that would require a court or regulatory authorities to decide whether Net Neutrality or the establishment of fast lanes prevails. It's still possible to fix several issues and to ensure a minimum level of protection for Net Neutrality in Europe - and there'll be lots of work to do this summer. We're putting together our thoughts on how a broad coalition of groups inside and outside the EU can engage internet users in this fight, which will culminate this fall, when the European Parliament formally votes on the text. It would be great to work with folks to build a plan - let me know if you'd like to connect. Best, Josh On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Renata Avila < renata.avila at webfoundation.org> wrote: > Here our position: > http://webfoundation.org/2015/06/net-neutrality-europe-slips-into-reverse/ > Net Neutrality: Europe Slips Into ReverseWeb Foundation > · June 30, 2015 > > - Web We Want > > Following a mammoth negotiating session that ended in the early hours of > this morning, the European Union (EU) has released their long awaited rules > on Net Neutrality. > > The EU Commissioner > ’s tweet > and an accompanying press release > proclaimed the > rules as strong protection for net neutrality, but we’re not so sure. In > fact, our initial response is one of disappointment. As others > have > pointed out, the proposals are unclear. At best they will lead to disputes > and confusion, and at worst they could see the creation of a two-tier > internet. If enacted, these rules would place European companies and > citizens at a disadvantage when compared to countries such as Chile and the > USA. > > The good news is, there is still time for decisive action. In the coming > days, the EU will debate and release clarifications on important areas. > Then, the full European parliament has to ratify the text later this year. > > If you’re worried about the future of the Internet in Europe, send a > tweet to tell European lawmakers to stand up for true net neutrality! > > > We’re still digesting the details of the deal, but here are two points of > immediate concern to us: > > *1. “Specialised services” mean we could see the creation of internet fast > lanes. *The EU’s proposed deal allows so-called “specialised services” – > as long as they don’t interfere with the “open Internet”. On the face of > it, this sounds reasonable. The EU gives the example of telesurgery – and > we can all agree that doctors should be able to work using the internet > with a higher level of service in life-critical situations. > > Unfortunately, though, opening the door to “specialised services” creates > a large grey area which is open to abuse. For instance, the EU has > suggested that Internet TV be classified as a specialised service. So where > do, say, educational videos on YouTube fit in? When does a service become > specialised? Also – we can’t imagine now what the future will bring. What > if the email, search or web of tomorrow is classified as a “specialised > service” that we have to pay more to access? Opening up this can of worms > is sure to lead to legal disputes and ongoing uncertainty for everyone. > > Ultimately, the only way to stop this is to be bold and pass strong net > neutrality laws that preserve the Internet as it should be – an open > platform for innovation. If the EU is determined to press ahead with > exceptions for “specialised services”, such services should be tightly > defined after broad public consultation, and take place in very limited > exceptional circumstances, rather than becoming commonplace. > > *2. “Zero rated” services are to be allowed – with unclear safeguards. *Zero-rating > plans typically involve internet companies and telecoms operators teaming > up and offering a particular service or bundle of services for free. The EU > has decided to allow the practice of zero rating, because “zero rating does > not block competing content”. That’s true, but misses the point that any > rational person will choose to get something for free, rather than pay for > something else presented as a close alternative. But in this case, the free > service could well be just a tiny slice of the open internet, with content > closely controlled by commercial interests, where the highest bidder can > pay to have individuals see their content for free. Or, it could be > something like a particular internet telephony or music streaming service. > > As our founder and Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee said when he wrote on > this topic > in > February: *“Of course, it is not just about blocking and throttling. It > is also about stopping ‘positive discrimination’, such as when one internet > operator favours one particular service over another. If we don’t > explicitly outlaw this, we hand immense power to telcos and online service > operators. In effect, they can become gatekeepers – able to handpick > winners and the losers in the market and to favour their own sites, > services and platforms over those of others. This would crowd out > competition and snuff out innovative new services before they even see the > light of day. Imagine if a new start-up or service provider had to ask > permission from or pay a fee to a competitor before they could attract > customers? This sounds a lot like bribery or market abuse…”* > > Simply allowing zero rating on a blanket basis, with no clear guidelines > as to what it can be used for, and how it will be regulated, seems like a > retrograde step to us. The EU should ban zero rating unless ‘free data’ can > be used to access any part of the Open Internet. > > *We’ll be following this topic closely in the weeks ahead. If you agree > with our concerns, send a tweet today! > * > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- *Josh Levy* Advocacy Director Access | accessnow.org tel: + 1 917 609 6523 | @levjoy PGP: 0x84C9F275 Fingerprint: B56A D510 3142 2364 69C7 3961 A0A3 67A5 84C9 F275 *Join the Access team - *we're hiring ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anriette at apc.org Mon Jun 1 14:57:50 2015 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 20:57:50 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Civil society transparency In-Reply-To: <556C95F6.7020705@riseup.net> References: <55617E51.5010901@itforchange.net> <5566FE8A.9010209@itforchange.net> <685563FB-947F-4110-8B81-3872514B494C@eff.org> <20150531090029.5bd0ce96@quill> <20150601122935.53aef61c@quill> <556C95F6.7020705@riseup.net> Message-ID: <556CAB2E.8050604@apc.org> Dear all I strongly identify with what Willi says below. Transparency of funding in civil society is important and for most organisations in the sector this is part of their practice. Sadly some governments are using funding to silence people, but even then we should continue to maintain as much transparency as possible. For APC this is not just about being transparent and publishing our funding sources in our annual reports.. it is also about having a policy among the network members about who to accept funding from, who not to.. and so on - it is also about giving our members autonomy. APC does not receive funding from the US State Dept, but many of our members do, and we know that without that funding they would not be able to do much of their important work. APC receives funding from the Ford Foundation, but some of our members would not, and again we value and respect that. BUT, as Willi ways, when it comes to people's positions and views in civil society spaces I believe we should let people's work, texts and speech speak and we should develop our understandings of their politics and their views based on what they say, and not based on who they get funding from. Many people in these mailing lists actually don't get any funding at all and participate as individuals on completely voluntary basis. I also like your words about 'inside our cooperation we should be tolerant'. Warm greetings. Anriette On 01/06/2015 19:27, willi uebelherr wrote: > > Dear Norbert, > > i don't like this emphasizing of the separation. It is true, if we > follow the flow of money, then we know, what people act for specific > private/state interest. > > But also we can read the texts and hear the speeches we understand the > motivations and intentions. And inside of our cooperation we should be > tolerant. > > We have to search our commons. > > many greetings, willi > Buenos Aires, Argentina > > > Am 01.06.2015 um 07:29 schrieb Norbert Bollow: >> On Sun, 31 May 2015 21:04:25 -0700 >> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >>> On May 31, 2015, at 12:00 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> >>>> Given that the initial set of pointed questions were sparked by the >>>> initial Bestbits meeting having been part of a formal "capacity >>>> building" programme funded in part by the US and UK government, >>> >>> That is 100% false. None of the budget for that meeting was funded by >>> any government grant >> >> Sure. In view of the various circumstances (including in particular the >> presence of a Google representative at the meeting) I have never had >> any reason to harbor any doubts that the disclosures about the funding >> for the formal budget of that meeting might potentially have been >> insufficient, or that they might potentially have been untruthful. >> >> The transparency/disclosure concerns were always about something else, >> namely that (1) the other main organizer/leader of Bestbits besides you >> had, according to the best available information, pursued this at least >> during the 2012 phase as part of a formal, partly US government funded, >> capacity building program, and that (2) it appeared that at least one >> of the other people who were invited to become part of the initial >> Bestbits steering committee have been partners of this "capacity >> building program", and that (3) none of this had been disclosed to >> Bestbits participants at the relevant times. >> >> (Note: I wouldn't have objected to point '(2)' if it had been disclosed >> in a timely manner and with a credible assurance that indeed it was only >> one of the partners of the capacity building program who was invited to >> the initial Bestbits steering committee.) >> >>> and there was and is never any such capacity >>> building program behind Best Bits. The draft report from an >>> independent researcher that you read suggesting otherwise was >>> categorically incorrect and I can only hope was subsequently >>> corrected. >> >> I'd expect that in the public online version which is in the filename >> marked "final draft", any errors pointed out by the interviewees will >> have been corrected. >> >> http://strategiesformediareform.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/ICA-Paper-Final-Draft-Lentz-and-Hutchison.pdf >> >> >> This document states inter alia: >> >> "the digital media rights sector both in the U.S. and elsewhere >> continues to suffer limited resources [...] Recognition of such >> challenges is often why donor organizations step in to try to help. >> This happens by way of entrepreneurial NGO actors approaching donors, >> or donors approaching NGO actors to address a perceived gap in a >> sector’s capacity to address important policy issues effectively. Yet >> donor involvement—a necessary precondition for policy advocacy >> organizations seeking sustainable capacity—also triggers conflict in >> policy advocacy fields. [...] this paper explores some of the tensions >> and also benefits of what will be referred to as “intermediary” >> organizations’ involvement in helping to build the capacity of an >> emergent policy advocacy sector: the Internet freedom advocacy >> sector that addresses Internet governance and human rights in a digital >> media context. The paper features early-stage case study research on >> a specific intermediary actor in this field: the Internet Freedom and >> Human Rights (IFHR) program launched in 2012 and coordinated by Global >> Partners & Associates (GP&A) in the UK with its Washington, DC partner, >> the New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute (OTI). >> [...] >> The IFHR program enjoys support for this work from several donor >> organizations interested in digital rights issues, which include the >> Ford Foundation, the Open Society Foundation, the Media Democracy Fund, >> the British and Dutch governments, as well as the U.S. State >> Department. GP&A, founded in 2005 and based in London, serves as the >> primary grantee >> [...] >> Working within a short time frame, the program has succeeded in forging >> strong alliances with its local partner organizations, working together >> with them and other NGOs at regional and international forums to >> produce useful policy proposals that have garnered widespread support. >> [..] While working continuously with these partners, the IFHR program >> also organized three large regional meetings for NGOs, scholars and >> activists working on Internet freedom issues. These meetings occurred >> in the fall of 2012, in Kenya, Azerbaijan and Brazil. Furthermore, the >> IFHR program had a significant presence at the World Conference on >> International Telecommunications (WCIT-12) in Dubai, in December. >> [...] >> The Azerbaijan meeting [...] piggybacked on the 7th Internet >> Governance Forum (IGF) in Baku, Azerbaijan 6-9 November 2012. Being >> that the IGF is a UN-led, multi-stakeholder annual meeting, >> established to discuss public policy issues related to the >> Internet, the IFHR program saw it as an opportunity to convene >> with many Internet governance and Internet rights NGOs at once. >> They did so a few days before the start of the IGF, in a large >> gathering called Best Bits.(*) To IFHR program staff, this was a >> significant achievement (especially due to the preponderance of >> disparate perspectives), as the Best Bits meeting resulted in a clear >> consensus amongst those present, and an ensuing statement, which was >> later quoted by the US government (Puddephatt, 2012). Interviews >> with IFHR program staff suggest that to them, the occasion >> demonstrated the true potential for global coalition building, a >> main goal of the IFHR program." >> (*) At this point there is a reference to an endnote which says: >> "http://bestbits.net/ ; from interviews we learned that the term >> “Best Bits” was suggested by Dr. Jeremy Malcolm, senior policy >> officer for Consumers International’s “Consumers in the Digital >> Age” programme: >> http://www.consumersinternational.org/who-we-are/our-team/jeremy-malcolm#.UaZIq-BYSK8 >> >> " >> >> If in spite of all of the above, you still believe that your claim is >> defensible that "there was and is never any such capacity building >> program behind Best Bits", please arrange for disclosure of the true >> facts about the role and activities of the IFHR program in relation to >> Bestbits, which would in that case have been misunderstood by the >> researchers, and explain how that misunderstanding would have come >> about. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > From nb at bollow.ch Mon Jun 1 16:16:22 2015 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 22:16:22 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Civil society transparency In-Reply-To: <4A4C16F9-FBA2-4512-9567-DB511FEBD268@eff.org> References: <55617E51.5010901@itforchange.net> <5566FE8A.9010209@itforchange.net> <685563FB-947F-4110-8B81-3872514B494C@eff.org> <20150531090029.5bd0ce96@quill> <20150601122935.53aef61c@quill> <4A4C16F9-FBA2-4512-9567-DB511FEBD268@eff.org> Message-ID: <20150601221622.37991d12@quill> On Mon, 1 Jun 2015 09:36:49 -0700 Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 01/06/2015, at 3:29 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > the IFHR program saw it as an opportunity to convene > > with many Internet governance and Internet rights NGOs at once. > > They did so a few days before the start of the IGF, in a large > > gathering called Best Bits.(*) > > ... > > If in spite of all of the above, you still believe that your claim > > is defensible that "there was and is never any such capacity > > building program behind Best Bits", please arrange for disclosure > > of the true facts about the role and activities of the IFHR program > > in relation to Bestbits, which would in that case have been > > misunderstood by the researchers, and explain how that > > misunderstanding would have come about. > > I don't know anything about that program, since it is not my > programme, and neither was it ever discussed or considered by the > Best Bits steering committee. The organisation that I was working > for at the time had its own programme, with its own funders, that > intersected with the Best Bits meeting to some extent. So did many > other participants, including Global Partners of course. Of course, Global Partners were not just any participant. Andrew Puddephatt und Gene Kimmelman, who according to the research paper were quite central people in the IFHR program, were quite centrally involved in running the initial Bestbits meeting. > If any of > them wanted to report *their participation in* the Best Bits meeting > to their funders as an outcome or their programme, that's their > business. Sure. But the research paper talks about the convening of the Bestbits meeting, not just about someone's participation. > PS. I'm not going to debate this on-list with you any further. In a separate message, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: "On the question of funding of the BB meeting in Baku, the only specific funding earmarked for this meeting was a grant from Google which was distributed to participants from the global south. Our participation as GPA was supported by the Ford Foundation as has been our subsequent BB activity. My last post on the subject." In view of this concert of postings which implicitly declare intentions to not post anything about the IFHR program and its relevance (or non-relevance) to the initial Bestbits meeting, and since therefore Jeremy's claim "there was and is never any such capacity building program behind Best Bits" is not going to be defended, I'm going to continue believing that the research paper is correct and that Jeremy's claim is therefore false. Consequently I'll continue to be of the opinion that the role of the IFHR program in convening and leading the initial Bestbits meeting, as well as the goals and funders of the IFHR program, should really have been disclosed, and that in fact it is quite scandalous that this did not happen. Greetings, Norbert